TSTP Solution File: KRS093+1 by CSE---1.6

View Problem - Process Solution

%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File     : CSE---1.6
% Problem  : KRS093+1 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v3.1.0.
% Transfm  : none
% Format   : tptp:raw
% Command  : java -jar /export/starexec/sandbox/solver/bin/mcs_scs.jar %s %d

% Computer : n017.cluster.edu
% Model    : x86_64 x86_64
% CPU      : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 2.10GHz
% Memory   : 8042.1875MB
% OS       : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64
% CPULimit : 300s
% WCLimit  : 300s
% DateTime : Thu Aug 31 05:39:14 EDT 2023

% Result   : Unsatisfiable 0.20s 0.63s
% Output   : CNFRefutation 0.20s
% Verified : 
% SZS Type : -

% Comments : 
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----WARNING: Could not form TPTP format derivation
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.07/0.13  % Problem    : KRS093+1 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v3.1.0.
% 0.07/0.13  % Command    : java -jar /export/starexec/sandbox/solver/bin/mcs_scs.jar %s %d
% 0.13/0.35  % Computer : n017.cluster.edu
% 0.13/0.35  % Model    : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.13/0.35  % CPU      : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.13/0.35  % Memory   : 8042.1875MB
% 0.13/0.35  % OS       : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64
% 0.13/0.35  % CPULimit   : 300
% 0.13/0.35  % WCLimit    : 300
% 0.13/0.35  % DateTime   : Mon Aug 28 01:47:12 EDT 2023
% 0.13/0.35  % CPUTime    : 
% 0.20/0.58  start to proof:theBenchmark
% 0.20/0.62  %-------------------------------------------
% 0.20/0.62  % File        :CSE---1.6
% 0.20/0.62  % Problem     :theBenchmark
% 0.20/0.62  % Transform   :cnf
% 0.20/0.62  % Format      :tptp:raw
% 0.20/0.62  % Command     :java -jar mcs_scs.jar %d %s
% 0.20/0.62  
% 0.20/0.62  % Result      :Theorem 0.000000s
% 0.20/0.62  % Output      :CNFRefutation 0.000000s
% 0.20/0.62  %-------------------------------------------
% 0.20/0.63  %------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% 0.20/0.63  % File     : KRS093+1 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v3.1.0.
% 0.20/0.63  % Domain   : Knowledge Representation (Semantic Web)
% 0.20/0.63  % Problem  : DL Test: heinsohn1.3
% 0.20/0.63  % Version  : Especial.
% 0.20/0.63  % English  : Tbox tests from [HK+94]
% 0.20/0.63  
% 0.20/0.63  % Refs     : [HK+94] Heinsohn et al. (1994), An Empirical Analysis of Termi
% 0.20/0.63  %          : [Bec03] Bechhofer (2003), Email to G. Sutcliffe
% 0.20/0.63  %          : [TR+04] Tsarkov et al. (2004), Using Vampire to Reason with OW
% 0.20/0.63  % Source   : [Bec03]
% 0.20/0.63  % Names    : inconsistent_description-logic-Manifest103 [Bec03]
% 0.20/0.63  
% 0.20/0.63  % Status   : Unsatisfiable
% 0.20/0.63  % Rating   : 0.00 v3.1.0
% 0.20/0.63  % Syntax   : Number of formulae    :    9 (   1 unt;   0 def)
% 0.20/0.63  %            Number of atoms       :   18 (   0 equ)
% 0.20/0.63  %            Maximal formula atoms :    3 (   2 avg)
% 0.20/0.63  %            Number of connectives :   13 (   4   ~;   0   |;   2   &)
% 0.20/0.63  %                                         (   2 <=>;   5  =>;   0  <=;   0 <~>)
% 0.20/0.63  %            Maximal formula depth :    4 (   3 avg)
% 0.20/0.63  %            Maximal term depth    :    1 (   1 avg)
% 0.20/0.63  %            Number of predicates  :   11 (  11 usr;   0 prp; 1-1 aty)
% 0.20/0.63  %            Number of functors    :    1 (   1 usr;   1 con; 0-0 aty)
% 0.20/0.63  %            Number of variables   :    8 (   8   !;   0   ?)
% 0.20/0.63  % SPC      : FOF_UNS_EPR_NEQ
% 0.20/0.63  
% 0.20/0.63  % Comments : Sean Bechhofer says there are some errors in the encoding of
% 0.20/0.63  %            datatypes, so this problem may not be perfect. At least it's
% 0.20/0.63  %            still representative of the type of reasoning required for OWL.
% 0.20/0.63  %          : Tests incoherency caused by disjoint concept
% 0.20/0.63  %------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% 0.20/0.63  %----Thing and Nothing
% 0.20/0.63  fof(axiom_0,axiom,
% 0.20/0.63      ! [X] :
% 0.20/0.63        ( cowlThing(X)
% 0.20/0.63        & ~ cowlNothing(X) ) ).
% 0.20/0.63  
% 0.20/0.63  %----String and Integer disjoint
% 0.20/0.63  fof(axiom_1,axiom,
% 0.20/0.63      ! [X] :
% 0.20/0.63        ( xsd_string(X)
% 0.20/0.63      <=> ~ xsd_integer(X) ) ).
% 0.20/0.63  
% 0.20/0.63  %----Equality cUnsatisfiable
% 0.20/0.63  fof(axiom_2,axiom,
% 0.20/0.63      ! [X] :
% 0.20/0.63        ( cUnsatisfiable(X)
% 0.20/0.63      <=> ( cf(X)
% 0.20/0.63          & ce3(X) ) ) ).
% 0.20/0.63  
% 0.20/0.63  %----Super cc
% 0.20/0.63  fof(axiom_3,axiom,
% 0.20/0.63      ! [X] :
% 0.20/0.63        ( cc(X)
% 0.20/0.63       => ~ cd(X) ) ).
% 0.20/0.63  
% 0.20/0.63  %----Super cc1
% 0.20/0.63  fof(axiom_4,axiom,
% 0.20/0.63      ! [X] :
% 0.20/0.63        ( cc1(X)
% 0.20/0.63       => ~ cd1(X) ) ).
% 0.20/0.63  
% 0.20/0.63  %----Super cc1
% 0.20/0.63  fof(axiom_5,axiom,
% 0.20/0.63      ! [X] :
% 0.20/0.63        ( cc1(X)
% 0.20/0.63       => cd1(X) ) ).
% 0.20/0.63  
% 0.20/0.63  %----Super ce3
% 0.20/0.63  fof(axiom_6,axiom,
% 0.20/0.63      ! [X] :
% 0.20/0.63        ( ce3(X)
% 0.20/0.63       => cc(X) ) ).
% 0.20/0.63  
% 0.20/0.63  %----Super cf
% 0.20/0.63  fof(axiom_7,axiom,
% 0.20/0.63      ! [X] :
% 0.20/0.63        ( cf(X)
% 0.20/0.63       => cd(X) ) ).
% 0.20/0.63  
% 0.20/0.63  %----i2003_11_14_17_20_07201
% 0.20/0.63  fof(axiom_8,axiom,
% 0.20/0.63      cUnsatisfiable(i2003_11_14_17_20_07201) ).
% 0.20/0.63  
% 0.20/0.63  %------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% 0.20/0.63  %-------------------------------------------
% 0.20/0.63  % Proof found
% 0.20/0.63  % SZS status Theorem for theBenchmark
% 0.20/0.63  % SZS output start Proof
% 0.20/0.63  %ClaNum:12(EqnAxiom:0)
% 0.20/0.63  %VarNum:22(SingletonVarNum:11)
% 0.20/0.63  %MaxLitNum:3
% 0.20/0.63  %MaxfuncDepth:0
% 0.20/0.63  %SharedTerms:2
% 0.20/0.63  [1]P1(a1)
% 0.20/0.63  [2]~P2(x21)
% 0.20/0.63  [3]P10(x31)+P9(x31)
% 0.20/0.63  [4]~P1(x41)+P3(x41)
% 0.20/0.63  [5]~P1(x51)+P4(x51)
% 0.20/0.63  [6]~P4(x61)+P5(x61)
% 0.20/0.63  [7]~P3(x71)+P6(x71)
% 0.20/0.63  [8]~P7(x81)+P8(x81)
% 0.20/0.63  [9]~P10(x91)+~P9(x91)
% 0.20/0.63  [10]~P6(x101)+~P5(x101)
% 0.20/0.63  [11]~P8(x111)+~P7(x111)
% 0.20/0.63  [12]~P3(x121)+~P4(x121)+P1(x121)
% 0.20/0.63  %EqnAxiom
% 0.20/0.63  
% 0.20/0.63  %-------------------------------------------
% 0.20/0.63  cnf(13,plain,
% 0.20/0.63     (P4(a1)),
% 0.20/0.63     inference(scs_inference,[],[1,5])).
% 0.20/0.63  cnf(14,plain,
% 0.20/0.63     (P3(a1)),
% 0.20/0.63     inference(scs_inference,[],[1,5,4])).
% 0.20/0.63  cnf(19,plain,
% 0.20/0.63     ($false),
% 0.20/0.63     inference(scs_inference,[],[13,14,7,6,10]),
% 0.20/0.63     ['proof']).
% 0.20/0.63  % SZS output end Proof
% 0.20/0.63  % Total time :0.000000s
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------