TSTP Solution File: KRS125+1 by CSE---1.6
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : CSE---1.6
% Problem : KRS125+1 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v3.1.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : java -jar /export/starexec/sandbox2/solver/bin/mcs_scs.jar %s %d
% Computer : n021.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 0.14s 0.60s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.14s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : -
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----WARNING: Could not form TPTP format derivation
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.10 % Problem : KRS125+1 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v3.1.0.
% 0.00/0.10 % Command : java -jar /export/starexec/sandbox2/solver/bin/mcs_scs.jar %s %d
% 0.11/0.29 % Computer : n021.cluster.edu
% 0.11/0.29 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.11/0.29 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.11/0.29 % Memory : 8042.1875MB
% 0.11/0.29 % OS : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64
% 0.11/0.30 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.11/0.30 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.11/0.30 % DateTime : Mon Aug 28 02:11:58 EDT 2023
% 0.11/0.30 % CPUTime :
% 0.14/0.55 start to proof:theBenchmark
% 0.14/0.59 %-------------------------------------------
% 0.14/0.59 % File :CSE---1.6
% 0.14/0.59 % Problem :theBenchmark
% 0.14/0.59 % Transform :cnf
% 0.14/0.59 % Format :tptp:raw
% 0.14/0.59 % Command :java -jar mcs_scs.jar %d %s
% 0.14/0.59
% 0.14/0.59 % Result :Theorem 0.000000s
% 0.14/0.59 % Output :CNFRefutation 0.000000s
% 0.14/0.59 %-------------------------------------------
% 0.14/0.59 %------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% 0.14/0.59 % File : KRS125+1 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v3.1.0.
% 0.14/0.59 % Domain : Knowledge Representation (Semantic Web)
% 0.14/0.59 % Problem : DL Test: heinsohn1.3
% 0.14/0.59 % Version : Especial.
% 0.14/0.59 % English : Tbox tests from [HK+94]
% 0.14/0.59
% 0.14/0.59 % Refs : [HK+94] Heinsohn et al. (1994), An Empirical Analysis of Termi
% 0.14/0.59 % : [Bec03] Bechhofer (2003), Email to G. Sutcliffe
% 0.14/0.59 % : [TR+04] Tsarkov et al. (2004), Using Vampire to Reason with OW
% 0.14/0.59 % Source : [Bec03]
% 0.14/0.59 % Names : inconsistent_description-logic-Manifest643 [Bec03]
% 0.14/0.59
% 0.14/0.59 % Status : Unsatisfiable
% 0.14/0.59 % Rating : 0.00 v6.4.0, 0.25 v6.3.0, 0.00 v6.2.0, 0.25 v6.1.0, 0.00 v3.1.0
% 0.14/0.59 % Syntax : Number of formulae : 13 ( 1 unt; 0 def)
% 0.14/0.59 % Number of atoms : 26 ( 0 equ)
% 0.14/0.59 % Maximal formula atoms : 3 ( 2 avg)
% 0.14/0.59 % Number of connectives : 17 ( 4 ~; 0 |; 2 &)
% 0.14/0.59 % ( 6 <=>; 5 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% 0.14/0.59 % Maximal formula depth : 5 ( 4 avg)
% 0.14/0.59 % Maximal term depth : 1 ( 1 avg)
% 0.14/0.59 % Number of predicates : 15 ( 15 usr; 0 prp; 1-2 aty)
% 0.14/0.59 % Number of functors : 1 ( 1 usr; 1 con; 0-0 aty)
% 0.14/0.59 % Number of variables : 16 ( 12 !; 4 ?)
% 0.14/0.59 % SPC : FOF_UNS_RFO_NEQ
% 0.14/0.59
% 0.14/0.59 % Comments : Sean Bechhofer says there are some errors in the encoding of
% 0.14/0.59 % datatypes, so this problem may not be perfect. At least it's
% 0.14/0.59 % still representative of the type of reasoning required for OWL.
% 0.14/0.59 % : Tests incoherency caused by disjoint concept
% 0.14/0.59 %------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% 0.14/0.59 %----Thing and Nothing
% 0.14/0.59 fof(axiom_0,axiom,
% 0.14/0.59 ! [X] :
% 0.14/0.59 ( cowlThing(X)
% 0.14/0.59 & ~ cowlNothing(X) ) ).
% 0.14/0.59
% 0.14/0.59 %----String and Integer disjoint
% 0.14/0.59 fof(axiom_1,axiom,
% 0.14/0.59 ! [X] :
% 0.14/0.59 ( xsd_string(X)
% 0.14/0.59 <=> ~ xsd_integer(X) ) ).
% 0.14/0.59
% 0.14/0.59 %----Equality cUnsatisfiable
% 0.14/0.59 fof(axiom_2,axiom,
% 0.14/0.59 ! [X] :
% 0.14/0.59 ( cUnsatisfiable(X)
% 0.14/0.59 <=> ( ce3(X)
% 0.14/0.59 & cf(X) ) ) ).
% 0.14/0.59
% 0.14/0.59 %----Super cc
% 0.14/0.59 fof(axiom_3,axiom,
% 0.14/0.59 ! [X] :
% 0.14/0.59 ( cc(X)
% 0.14/0.59 => cdxcomp(X) ) ).
% 0.14/0.59
% 0.14/0.59 %----Super cc1
% 0.14/0.59 fof(axiom_4,axiom,
% 0.14/0.59 ! [X] :
% 0.14/0.59 ( cc1(X)
% 0.14/0.59 => cd1xcomp(X) ) ).
% 0.14/0.59
% 0.14/0.59 %----Super cc1
% 0.14/0.59 fof(axiom_5,axiom,
% 0.14/0.59 ! [X] :
% 0.14/0.59 ( cc1(X)
% 0.14/0.59 => cd1(X) ) ).
% 0.14/0.59
% 0.14/0.59 %----Equality cd
% 0.14/0.59 fof(axiom_6,axiom,
% 0.14/0.59 ! [X] :
% 0.14/0.59 ( cd(X)
% 0.14/0.59 <=> ~ ? [Y] : ra_Px1(X,Y) ) ).
% 0.14/0.59
% 0.14/0.59 %----Equality cdxcomp
% 0.14/0.59 fof(axiom_7,axiom,
% 0.14/0.59 ! [X] :
% 0.14/0.59 ( cdxcomp(X)
% 0.14/0.59 <=> ? [Y0] : ra_Px1(X,Y0) ) ).
% 0.14/0.59
% 0.14/0.59 %----Equality cd1
% 0.14/0.59 fof(axiom_8,axiom,
% 0.14/0.59 ! [X] :
% 0.14/0.59 ( cd1(X)
% 0.14/0.59 <=> ? [Y0] : ra_Px2(X,Y0) ) ).
% 0.14/0.59
% 0.14/0.59 %----Equality cd1xcomp
% 0.14/0.59 fof(axiom_9,axiom,
% 0.14/0.59 ! [X] :
% 0.14/0.59 ( cd1xcomp(X)
% 0.14/0.59 <=> ~ ? [Y] : ra_Px2(X,Y) ) ).
% 0.14/0.59
% 0.14/0.59 %----Super ce3
% 0.14/0.59 fof(axiom_10,axiom,
% 0.14/0.59 ! [X] :
% 0.14/0.59 ( ce3(X)
% 0.14/0.59 => cc(X) ) ).
% 0.14/0.59
% 0.14/0.59 %----Super cf
% 0.14/0.59 fof(axiom_11,axiom,
% 0.14/0.59 ! [X] :
% 0.14/0.59 ( cf(X)
% 0.14/0.59 => cd(X) ) ).
% 0.14/0.59
% 0.14/0.59 %----i2003_11_14_17_22_17947
% 0.14/0.59 fof(axiom_12,axiom,
% 0.14/0.59 cUnsatisfiable(i2003_11_14_17_22_17947) ).
% 0.14/0.60
% 0.14/0.60 %------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% 0.14/0.60 %-------------------------------------------
% 0.14/0.60 % Proof found
% 0.14/0.60 % SZS status Theorem for theBenchmark
% 0.14/0.60 % SZS output start Proof
% 0.14/0.60 %ClaNum:20(EqnAxiom:0)
% 0.14/0.60 %VarNum:46(SingletonVarNum:23)
% 0.14/0.60 %MaxLitNum:3
% 0.14/0.60 %MaxfuncDepth:1
% 0.14/0.60 %SharedTerms:2
% 0.14/0.60 [1]P1(a1)
% 0.14/0.60 [2]~P2(x21)
% 0.14/0.60 [3]P12(x31)+P11(x31)
% 0.14/0.60 [4]~P1(x41)+P3(x41)
% 0.14/0.60 [5]~P1(x51)+P10(x51)
% 0.14/0.60 [6]~P3(x61)+P4(x61)
% 0.14/0.60 [7]~P4(x71)+P5(x71)
% 0.14/0.60 [8]~P7(x81)+P6(x81)
% 0.14/0.60 [9]~P7(x91)+P8(x91)
% 0.14/0.60 [10]~P10(x101)+P9(x101)
% 0.14/0.60 [11]~P12(x111)+~P11(x111)
% 0.14/0.60 [13]P6(x131)+P13(x131,f2(x131))
% 0.14/0.60 [14]P9(x141)+P14(x141,f3(x141))
% 0.14/0.60 [17]~P5(x171)+P14(x171,f4(x171))
% 0.14/0.60 [18]~P8(x181)+P13(x181,f5(x181))
% 0.14/0.60 [15]P5(x151)+~P14(x151,x152)
% 0.14/0.60 [16]P8(x161)+~P13(x161,x162)
% 0.14/0.60 [19]~P6(x191)+~P13(x191,x192)
% 0.14/0.60 [20]~P9(x201)+~P14(x201,x202)
% 0.14/0.60 [12]~P3(x121)+~P10(x121)+P1(x121)
% 0.14/0.60 %EqnAxiom
% 0.14/0.60
% 0.14/0.60 %-------------------------------------------
% 0.14/0.60 cnf(21,plain,
% 0.14/0.60 (P10(a1)),
% 0.14/0.60 inference(scs_inference,[],[1,5])).
% 0.14/0.60 cnf(22,plain,
% 0.14/0.60 (P3(a1)),
% 0.14/0.60 inference(scs_inference,[],[1,5,4])).
% 0.14/0.60 cnf(31,plain,
% 0.14/0.60 ($false),
% 0.14/0.60 inference(scs_inference,[],[21,22,10,6,20,17,7]),
% 0.14/0.60 ['proof']).
% 0.14/0.60 % SZS output end Proof
% 0.14/0.60 % Total time :0.000000s
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------