TSTP Solution File: KRS124+1 by CSE---1.6
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : CSE---1.6
% Problem : KRS124+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 05:39:21 EDT 2023
% Result : Unsatisfiable 0.21s 0.64s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.21s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : -
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----WARNING: Could not form TPTP format derivation
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.07/0.13 % Problem : KRS124+1 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v3.1.0.
% 0.14/0.13 % Command : java -jar /export/starexec/sandbox/solver/bin/mcs_scs.jar %s %d
% 0.14/0.35 % Computer : n017.cluster.edu
% 0.14/0.35 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.14/0.35 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.14/0.35 % Memory : 8042.1875MB
% 0.14/0.35 % OS : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64
% 0.14/0.35 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.14/0.35 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.14/0.35 % DateTime : Mon Aug 28 00:55:42 EDT 2023
% 0.14/0.35 % CPUTime :
% 0.21/0.58 start to proof:theBenchmark
% 0.21/0.63 %-------------------------------------------
% 0.21/0.63 % File :CSE---1.6
% 0.21/0.63 % Problem :theBenchmark
% 0.21/0.63 % Transform :cnf
% 0.21/0.63 % Format :tptp:raw
% 0.21/0.63 % Command :java -jar mcs_scs.jar %d %s
% 0.21/0.63
% 0.21/0.63 % Result :Theorem 0.000000s
% 0.21/0.63 % Output :CNFRefutation 0.000000s
% 0.21/0.63 %-------------------------------------------
% 0.21/0.63 %------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% 0.21/0.63 % File : KRS124+1 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v3.1.0.
% 0.21/0.63 % Domain : Knowledge Representation (Semantic Web)
% 0.21/0.63 % Problem : DL Test: heinsohn1.2
% 0.21/0.63 % Version : Especial.
% 0.21/0.63 % English : Tbox tests from [HK+94]
% 0.21/0.63
% 0.21/0.63 % Refs : [HK+94] Heinsohn et al. (1994), An Empirical Analysis of Termi
% 0.21/0.63 % : [Bec03] Bechhofer (2003), Email to G. Sutcliffe
% 0.21/0.63 % : [TR+04] Tsarkov et al. (2004), Using Vampire to Reason with OW
% 0.21/0.63 % Source : [Bec03]
% 0.21/0.63 % Names : inconsistent_description-logic-Manifest642 [Bec03]
% 0.21/0.63
% 0.21/0.63 % Status : Unsatisfiable
% 0.21/0.63 % Rating : 0.00 v6.4.0, 0.25 v6.3.0, 0.00 v6.2.0, 0.25 v6.0.0, 0.00 v3.1.0
% 0.21/0.63 % Syntax : Number of formulae : 14 ( 1 unt; 0 def)
% 0.21/0.63 % Number of atoms : 31 ( 0 equ)
% 0.21/0.63 % Maximal formula atoms : 5 ( 2 avg)
% 0.21/0.63 % Number of connectives : 21 ( 4 ~; 0 |; 4 &)
% 0.21/0.63 % ( 7 <=>; 6 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% 0.21/0.63 % Maximal formula depth : 6 ( 4 avg)
% 0.21/0.63 % Maximal term depth : 1 ( 1 avg)
% 0.21/0.63 % Number of predicates : 17 ( 17 usr; 0 prp; 1-2 aty)
% 0.21/0.63 % Number of functors : 1 ( 1 usr; 1 con; 0-0 aty)
% 0.21/0.63 % Number of variables : 19 ( 14 !; 5 ?)
% 0.21/0.63 % SPC : FOF_UNS_RFO_NEQ
% 0.21/0.63
% 0.21/0.63 % Comments : Sean Bechhofer says there are some errors in the encoding of
% 0.21/0.63 % datatypes, so this problem may not be perfect. At least it's
% 0.21/0.63 % still representative of the type of reasoning required for OWL.
% 0.21/0.63 % : Tests incoherency caused by disjoint concept
% 0.21/0.63 %------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% 0.21/0.63 %----Thing and Nothing
% 0.21/0.63 fof(axiom_0,axiom,
% 0.21/0.63 ! [X] :
% 0.21/0.63 ( cowlThing(X)
% 0.21/0.63 & ~ cowlNothing(X) ) ).
% 0.21/0.63
% 0.21/0.63 %----String and Integer disjoint
% 0.21/0.63 fof(axiom_1,axiom,
% 0.21/0.63 ! [X] :
% 0.21/0.63 ( xsd_string(X)
% 0.21/0.64 <=> ~ xsd_integer(X) ) ).
% 0.21/0.64
% 0.21/0.64 %----Equality cUnsatisfiable
% 0.21/0.64 fof(axiom_2,axiom,
% 0.21/0.64 ! [X] :
% 0.21/0.64 ( cUnsatisfiable(X)
% 0.21/0.64 <=> ( ? [Y] :
% 0.21/0.64 ( rr(X,Y)
% 0.21/0.64 & cowlThing(Y) )
% 0.21/0.64 & ! [Y] :
% 0.21/0.64 ( rr(X,Y)
% 0.21/0.64 => ca_Ax3(Y) ) ) ) ).
% 0.21/0.64
% 0.21/0.64 %----Super cc
% 0.21/0.64 fof(axiom_3,axiom,
% 0.21/0.64 ! [X] :
% 0.21/0.64 ( cc(X)
% 0.21/0.64 => cdxcomp(X) ) ).
% 0.21/0.64
% 0.21/0.64 %----Super cc1
% 0.21/0.64 fof(axiom_4,axiom,
% 0.21/0.64 ! [X] :
% 0.21/0.64 ( cc1(X)
% 0.21/0.64 => cd1(X) ) ).
% 0.21/0.64
% 0.21/0.64 %----Super cc1
% 0.21/0.64 fof(axiom_5,axiom,
% 0.21/0.64 ! [X] :
% 0.21/0.64 ( cc1(X)
% 0.21/0.64 => cd1xcomp(X) ) ).
% 0.21/0.64
% 0.21/0.64 %----Equality cd
% 0.21/0.64 fof(axiom_6,axiom,
% 0.21/0.64 ! [X] :
% 0.21/0.64 ( cd(X)
% 0.21/0.64 <=> ~ ? [Y] : ra_Px1(X,Y) ) ).
% 0.21/0.64
% 0.21/0.64 %----Equality cdxcomp
% 0.21/0.64 fof(axiom_7,axiom,
% 0.21/0.64 ! [X] :
% 0.21/0.64 ( cdxcomp(X)
% 0.21/0.64 <=> ? [Y0] : ra_Px1(X,Y0) ) ).
% 0.21/0.64
% 0.21/0.64 %----Equality cd1
% 0.21/0.64 fof(axiom_8,axiom,
% 0.21/0.64 ! [X] :
% 0.21/0.64 ( cd1(X)
% 0.21/0.64 <=> ? [Y0] : ra_Px2(X,Y0) ) ).
% 0.21/0.64
% 0.21/0.64 %----Equality cd1xcomp
% 0.21/0.64 fof(axiom_9,axiom,
% 0.21/0.64 ! [X] :
% 0.21/0.64 ( cd1xcomp(X)
% 0.21/0.64 <=> ~ ? [Y] : ra_Px2(X,Y) ) ).
% 0.21/0.64
% 0.21/0.64 %----Super ce3
% 0.21/0.64 fof(axiom_10,axiom,
% 0.21/0.64 ! [X] :
% 0.21/0.64 ( ce3(X)
% 0.21/0.64 => cc(X) ) ).
% 0.21/0.64
% 0.21/0.64 %----Super cf
% 0.21/0.64 fof(axiom_11,axiom,
% 0.21/0.64 ! [X] :
% 0.21/0.64 ( cf(X)
% 0.21/0.64 => cd(X) ) ).
% 0.21/0.64
% 0.21/0.64 %----Equality ca_Ax3
% 0.21/0.64 fof(axiom_12,axiom,
% 0.21/0.64 ! [X] :
% 0.21/0.64 ( ca_Ax3(X)
% 0.21/0.64 <=> ( cd(X)
% 0.21/0.64 & cc(X) ) ) ).
% 0.21/0.64
% 0.21/0.64 %----i2003_11_14_17_22_10903
% 0.21/0.64 fof(axiom_13,axiom,
% 0.21/0.64 cUnsatisfiable(i2003_11_14_17_22_10903) ).
% 0.21/0.64
% 0.21/0.64 %------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% 0.21/0.64 %-------------------------------------------
% 0.21/0.64 % Proof found
% 0.21/0.64 % SZS status Theorem for theBenchmark
% 0.21/0.64 % SZS output start Proof
% 0.21/0.64 %ClaNum:24(EqnAxiom:0)
% 0.21/0.64 %VarNum:62(SingletonVarNum:30)
% 0.21/0.64 %MaxLitNum:3
% 0.21/0.64 %MaxfuncDepth:1
% 0.21/0.64 %SharedTerms:2
% 0.21/0.64 [1]P1(a1)
% 0.21/0.64 [2]~P2(x21)
% 0.21/0.64 [3]P13(x31)+P12(x31)
% 0.21/0.64 [4]~P4(x41)+P3(x41)
% 0.21/0.64 [5]~P5(x51)+P3(x51)
% 0.21/0.64 [6]~P3(x61)+P6(x61)
% 0.21/0.64 [7]~P8(x71)+P7(x71)
% 0.21/0.64 [8]~P8(x81)+P10(x81)
% 0.21/0.64 [9]~P4(x91)+P9(x91)
% 0.21/0.64 [10]~P11(x101)+P9(x101)
% 0.21/0.64 [11]~P13(x111)+~P12(x111)
% 0.21/0.64 [13]P10(x131)+P14(x131,f2(x131))
% 0.21/0.64 [14]P9(x141)+P15(x141,f3(x141))
% 0.21/0.64 [17]~P1(x171)+P16(x171,f4(x171))
% 0.21/0.64 [18]~P6(x181)+P15(x181,f6(x181))
% 0.21/0.64 [19]~P7(x191)+P14(x191,f7(x191))
% 0.21/0.64 [15]P6(x151)+~P15(x151,x152)
% 0.21/0.64 [16]P7(x161)+~P14(x161,x162)
% 0.21/0.64 [20]~P10(x201)+~P14(x201,x202)
% 0.21/0.64 [21]~P9(x211)+~P15(x211,x212)
% 0.21/0.64 [12]~P3(x121)+~P9(x121)+P4(x121)
% 0.21/0.64 [22]~P16(x222,x221)+P4(x221)+~P1(x222)
% 0.21/0.64 [23]P1(x231)+~P16(x231,x232)+~P4(f5(x231))
% 0.21/0.64 [24]P1(x241)+~P16(x241,x242)+P16(x241,f5(x241))
% 0.21/0.64 %EqnAxiom
% 0.21/0.64
% 0.21/0.64 %-------------------------------------------
% 0.21/0.64 cnf(26,plain,
% 0.21/0.64 (P4(f4(a1))),
% 0.21/0.64 inference(scs_inference,[],[1,17,22])).
% 0.21/0.64 cnf(35,plain,
% 0.21/0.64 ($false),
% 0.21/0.64 inference(scs_inference,[],[26,9,4,21,18,6]),
% 0.21/0.64 ['proof']).
% 0.21/0.64 % SZS output end Proof
% 0.21/0.64 % Total time :0.000000s
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------