%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E-SAT---3.5.1
% Problem : SWB015+2 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v5.2.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% Computer : n014.cluster.edu
% Model : x86_64 x86_64
% CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 2.10GHz
% Memory : 8046.5625MB
% OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% CPULimit : 300s
% WCLimit : 300s
% DateTime : Thu Sep 24 02:38:56 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Theorem 0.25s 0.58s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.25s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 5
% Number of leaves : 2
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 10 ( 7 unt; 0 def)
% Number of atoms : 15 ( 4 equ)
% Maximal formula atoms : 4 ( 1 avg)
% Number of connectives : 12 ( 7 ~; 3 |; 1 &)
% ( 1 <=>; 0 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% Maximal formula depth : 6 ( 2 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 1 ( 1 avg)
% Number of predicates : 3 ( 1 usr; 1 prp; 0-3 aty)
% Number of functors : 1 ( 1 usr; 1 con; 0-0 aty)
% Number of variables : 7 ( 0 sgn 4 !; 0 ?)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fof(testcase_conclusion_fullish_015_Reflective_Tautologies_I,conjecture,
iext(uri_owl_sameAs,uri_owl_sameAs,uri_owl_sameAs),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',testcase_conclusion_fullish_015_Reflective_Tautologies_I) ).
fof(owl_eqdis_sameas,axiom,
! [X1,X2] :
( iext(uri_owl_sameAs,X1,X2)
<=> X1 = X2 ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',owl_eqdis_sameas) ).
fof(c_0_2,negated_conjecture,
~ iext(uri_owl_sameAs,uri_owl_sameAs,uri_owl_sameAs),
inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[testcase_conclusion_fullish_015_Reflective_Tautologies_I]) ).
fof(c_0_3,negated_conjecture,
~ iext(uri_owl_sameAs,uri_owl_sameAs,uri_owl_sameAs),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[c_0_2]) ).
fof(c_0_4,plain,
! [X3,X4] :
( ( iext(uri_owl_sameAs,X3,X4)
| X3 != X4 )
& ( X3 = X4
| ~ iext(uri_owl_sameAs,X3,X4) ) ),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[owl_eqdis_sameas])])]) ).
fof(c_0_5,negated_conjecture,
~ iext(uri_owl_sameAs,uri_owl_sameAs,uri_owl_sameAs),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_3]) ).
cnf(c_0_6,plain,
( X1 != X2
| iext(uri_owl_sameAs,X1,X2) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_4]) ).
cnf(c_0_7,negated_conjecture,
~ iext(uri_owl_sameAs,uri_owl_sameAs,uri_owl_sameAs),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_5]) ).
cnf(c_0_8,plain,
iext(uri_owl_sameAs,X1,X1),
inference(er,[status(thm)],[c_0_6]) ).
cnf(c_0_9,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_7,c_0_8])]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.05 % Problem : SWB015+2 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v5.2.0.
% 0.00/0.08 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.20/0.47 % Computer : n014.cluster.edu
% 0.20/0.47 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.20/0.47 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.20/0.47 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.20/0.47 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.20/0.47 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.20/0.47 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.20/0.47 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 07:38:34 UTC 2026
% 0.20/0.47 % CPUTime :
% 0.20/0.47 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.25/0.54 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.25/0.54 Running: /export/starexec/sandbox2/solver/bin/eprover --delete-bad-limit=2000000000 --definitional-cnf=24 -s --print-statistics -R --print-version --proof-object --auto-schedule=8 --cpu-limit=300 /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% 0.25/0.58 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.25/0.58 % Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.25/0.58 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.25/0.58 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.25/0.58 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.58 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.58 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.58 % new_bool_3 with pid 3549373 completed with status 0
% 0.25/0.58 % Result found by new_bool_3
% 0.25/0.58 % Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.25/0.58 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.25/0.58 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.25/0.58 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.58 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.25/0.58 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.25/0.58 % Search class: FHUSF-FFSF00-SFFFFFNN
% 0.25/0.58 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.25/0.58 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.58 % SubtermCWHack with pid 3549379 completed with status 0
% 0.25/0.58 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.25/0.58 % Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.25/0.58 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.25/0.58 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.25/0.58 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.58 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.25/0.58 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.25/0.58 % Search class: FHUSF-FFSF00-SFFFFFNN
% 0.25/0.58 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.25/0.58 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.58 % Preprocessing time : 0.002 s
% 0.25/0.58
% 0.25/0.58 % Proof found!
% 0.25/0.58 % SZS status Theorem
% 0.25/0.58 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.25/0.58 % Parsed axioms : 2
% 0.25/0.58 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 0
% 0.25/0.58 % Initial clauses : 3
% 0.25/0.58 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 0.25/0.58 % Initial clauses in saturation : 3
% 0.25/0.58 % Processed clauses : 3
% 0.25/0.58 % ...of these trivial : 0
% 0.25/0.58 % ...subsumed : 0
% 0.25/0.58 % ...remaining for further processing : 3
% 0.25/0.58 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 1
% 0.25/0.58 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.25/0.58 % Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.25/0.58 % Backward-rewritten : 1
% 0.25/0.58 % Generated clauses : 1
% 0.25/0.58 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 1
% 0.25/0.58 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.25/0.58 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.25/0.58 % Paramodulations : 0
% 0.25/0.58 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.25/0.58 % NegExts : 0
% 0.25/0.58 % Equation resolutions : 1
% 0.25/0.58 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.25/0.58 % Total rewrite steps : 1
% 0.25/0.58 % ...of those cached : 0
% 0.25/0.58 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.25/0.58 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.25/0.58 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.25/0.58 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.25/0.58 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.25/0.58 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.25/0.58 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.25/0.58 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.25/0.58 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.25/0.58 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.25/0.58 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.25/0.58 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.25/0.58 % Current number of processed clauses : 1
% 0.25/0.58 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 1
% 0.25/0.58 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.25/0.58 % Negative unit clauses : 0
% 0.25/0.58 % Non-unit-clauses : 0
% 0.25/0.58 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 1
% 0.25/0.58 % ...number of literals in the above : 2
% 0.25/0.58 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.25/0.58 % Current number of archived clauses : 1
% 0.25/0.58 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 0
% 0.25/0.58 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 0.25/0.58 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 0
% 0.25/0.58 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 0.25/0.58 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.25/0.58 % BW rewrite match attempts : 1
% 0.25/0.58 % BW rewrite match successes : 1
% 0.25/0.58 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.25/0.58 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.25/0.58 % Termbank termtop insertions : 121
% 0.25/0.58 % Search garbage collected termcells : 21
% 0.25/0.58
% 0.25/0.58 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.25/0.58 % User time : 0.004 s
% 0.25/0.58 % System time : 0.002 s
% 0.25/0.58 % Total time : 0.006 s
% 0.25/0.58 % Maximum resident set size: 3624 pages
% 0.25/0.58
% 0.25/0.58 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.25/0.58 % User time : 0.006 s
% 0.25/0.58 % System time : 0.006 s
% 0.25/0.58 % Total time : 0.011 s
% 0.25/0.58 % Maximum resident set size: 4608 pages
% 0.25/0.58 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------