TSTP Solution File: KRS128+1 by CSE---1.6
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : CSE---1.6
% Problem : KRS128+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 : n022.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 05:39:22 EDT 2023
% Result : Unsatisfiable 0.20s 0.67s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.20s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : -
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----WARNING: Could not form TPTP format derivation
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.12 % Problem : KRS128+1 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v3.1.0.
% 0.00/0.13 % Command : java -jar /export/starexec/sandbox/solver/bin/mcs_scs.jar %s %d
% 0.13/0.34 % Computer : n022.cluster.edu
% 0.13/0.34 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.13/0.34 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.13/0.34 % Memory : 8042.1875MB
% 0.13/0.34 % OS : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64
% 0.13/0.34 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.13/0.34 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.13/0.34 % DateTime : Mon Aug 28 01:47:24 EDT 2023
% 0.13/0.34 % CPUTime :
% 0.20/0.61 start to proof:theBenchmark
% 0.20/0.66 %-------------------------------------------
% 0.20/0.66 % File :CSE---1.6
% 0.20/0.66 % Problem :theBenchmark
% 0.20/0.66 % Transform :cnf
% 0.20/0.66 % Format :tptp:raw
% 0.20/0.66 % Command :java -jar mcs_scs.jar %d %s
% 0.20/0.66
% 0.20/0.66 % Result :Theorem 0.000000s
% 0.20/0.66 % Output :CNFRefutation 0.000000s
% 0.20/0.66 %-------------------------------------------
% 0.20/0.67 %------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% 0.20/0.67 % File : KRS128+1 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v3.1.0.
% 0.20/0.67 % Domain : Knowledge Representation (Semantic Web)
% 0.20/0.67 % Problem : DL Test: heinsohn4.1
% 0.20/0.67 % Version : Especial.
% 0.20/0.67 % English : Tbox tests from [HK+94]
% 0.20/0.67
% 0.20/0.67 % Refs : [HK+94] Heinsohn et al. (1994), An Empirical Analysis of Termi
% 0.20/0.67 % : [Bec03] Bechhofer (2003), Email to G. Sutcliffe
% 0.20/0.67 % : [TR+04] Tsarkov et al. (2004), Using Vampire to Reason with OW
% 0.20/0.67 % Source : [Bec03]
% 0.20/0.67 % Names : inconsistent_description-logic-Manifest650 [Bec03]
% 0.20/0.67
% 0.20/0.67 % Status : Unsatisfiable
% 0.20/0.67 % 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
% 0.20/0.67 % Syntax : Number of formulae : 12 ( 1 unt; 0 def)
% 0.20/0.67 % Number of atoms : 29 ( 0 equ)
% 0.20/0.67 % Maximal formula atoms : 7 ( 2 avg)
% 0.20/0.67 % Number of connectives : 22 ( 5 ~; 0 |; 5 &)
% 0.20/0.67 % ( 9 <=>; 3 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% 0.20/0.67 % Maximal formula depth : 7 ( 4 avg)
% 0.20/0.67 % Maximal term depth : 1 ( 1 avg)
% 0.20/0.67 % Number of predicates : 16 ( 16 usr; 0 prp; 1-2 aty)
% 0.20/0.67 % Number of functors : 1 ( 1 usr; 1 con; 0-0 aty)
% 0.20/0.67 % Number of variables : 20 ( 13 !; 7 ?)
% 0.20/0.67 % SPC : FOF_UNS_RFO_NEQ
% 0.20/0.67
% 0.20/0.67 % Comments : Sean Bechhofer says there are some errors in the encoding of
% 0.20/0.67 % datatypes, so this problem may not be perfect. At least it's
% 0.20/0.67 % still representative of the type of reasoning required for OWL.
% 0.20/0.67 % : Tests role restrictions
% 0.20/0.67 %------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% 0.20/0.67 %----Thing and Nothing
% 0.20/0.67 fof(axiom_0,axiom,
% 0.20/0.67 ! [X] :
% 0.20/0.67 ( cowlThing(X)
% 0.20/0.67 & ~ cowlNothing(X) ) ).
% 0.20/0.67
% 0.20/0.67 %----String and Integer disjoint
% 0.20/0.67 fof(axiom_1,axiom,
% 0.20/0.67 ! [X] :
% 0.20/0.67 ( xsd_string(X)
% 0.20/0.67 <=> ~ xsd_integer(X) ) ).
% 0.20/0.67
% 0.20/0.67 %----Equality cUnsatisfiable
% 0.20/0.67 fof(axiom_2,axiom,
% 0.20/0.67 ! [X] :
% 0.20/0.67 ( cUnsatisfiable(X)
% 0.20/0.67 <=> ( ? [Y] :
% 0.20/0.67 ( rr(X,Y)
% 0.20/0.67 & cexcomp(Y) )
% 0.20/0.67 & ! [Y] :
% 0.20/0.67 ( rr(X,Y)
% 0.20/0.67 => cd(Y) )
% 0.20/0.67 & ! [Y] :
% 0.20/0.67 ( rr(X,Y)
% 0.20/0.67 => ca_Cx4(Y) ) ) ) ).
% 0.20/0.67
% 0.20/0.67 %----Super cc
% 0.20/0.67 fof(axiom_3,axiom,
% 0.20/0.67 ! [X] :
% 0.20/0.67 ( cc(X)
% 0.20/0.67 => cdxcomp(X) ) ).
% 0.20/0.67
% 0.20/0.67 %----Equality cd
% 0.20/0.67 fof(axiom_4,axiom,
% 0.20/0.67 ! [X] :
% 0.20/0.67 ( cd(X)
% 0.20/0.67 <=> ? [Y0] : ra_Px2(X,Y0) ) ).
% 0.20/0.67
% 0.20/0.67 %----Equality cdxcomp
% 0.20/0.67 fof(axiom_5,axiom,
% 0.20/0.67 ! [X] :
% 0.20/0.67 ( cdxcomp(X)
% 0.20/0.67 <=> ~ ? [Y] : ra_Px2(X,Y) ) ).
% 0.20/0.67
% 0.20/0.67 %----Equality ce
% 0.20/0.67 fof(axiom_6,axiom,
% 0.20/0.67 ! [X] :
% 0.20/0.67 ( ce(X)
% 0.20/0.67 <=> ~ ? [Y] : ra_Px1(X,Y) ) ).
% 0.20/0.67
% 0.20/0.67 %----Equality cexcomp
% 0.20/0.67 fof(axiom_7,axiom,
% 0.20/0.67 ! [X] :
% 0.20/0.67 ( cexcomp(X)
% 0.20/0.67 <=> ? [Y0] : ra_Px1(X,Y0) ) ).
% 0.20/0.67
% 0.20/0.67 %----Equality ca_Cx4
% 0.20/0.67 fof(axiom_8,axiom,
% 0.20/0.67 ! [X] :
% 0.20/0.67 ( ca_Cx4(X)
% 0.20/0.67 <=> ? [Y0] : ra_Px4(X,Y0) ) ).
% 0.20/0.67
% 0.20/0.67 %----Equality ca_Cx4xcomp
% 0.20/0.67 fof(axiom_9,axiom,
% 0.20/0.67 ! [X] :
% 0.20/0.67 ( ca_Cx4xcomp(X)
% 0.20/0.67 <=> ~ ? [Y] : ra_Px4(X,Y) ) ).
% 0.20/0.67
% 0.20/0.67 %----Equality ca_Cx4xcomp
% 0.20/0.67 fof(axiom_10,axiom,
% 0.20/0.67 ! [X] :
% 0.20/0.67 ( ca_Cx4xcomp(X)
% 0.20/0.67 <=> ( cd(X)
% 0.20/0.67 & cexcomp(X) ) ) ).
% 0.20/0.67
% 0.20/0.67 %----i2003_11_14_17_22_31584
% 0.20/0.67 fof(axiom_11,axiom,
% 0.20/0.67 cUnsatisfiable(i2003_11_14_17_22_31584) ).
% 0.20/0.67
% 0.20/0.67 %------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% 0.20/0.67 %-------------------------------------------
% 0.20/0.67 % Proof found
% 0.20/0.67 % SZS status Theorem for theBenchmark
% 0.20/0.67 % SZS output start Proof
% 0.20/0.67 %ClaNum:28(EqnAxiom:0)
% 0.20/0.67 %VarNum:91(SingletonVarNum:39)
% 0.20/0.67 %MaxLitNum:5
% 0.20/0.67 %MaxfuncDepth:1
% 0.20/0.67 %SharedTerms:2
% 0.20/0.67 [1]P1(a1)
% 0.20/0.67 [2]~P2(x21)
% 0.20/0.67 [3]P11(x31)+P10(x31)
% 0.20/0.67 [4]~P4(x41)+P3(x41)
% 0.20/0.67 [5]~P4(x51)+P6(x51)
% 0.20/0.67 [6]~P7(x61)+P8(x61)
% 0.20/0.67 [7]~P11(x71)+~P10(x71)
% 0.20/0.67 [8]~P1(x81)+P3(f2(x81))
% 0.20/0.67 [10]P8(x101)+P12(x101,f3(x101))
% 0.20/0.67 [11]P9(x111)+P13(x111,f7(x111))
% 0.20/0.67 [12]P4(x121)+P14(x121,f8(x121))
% 0.20/0.67 [16]~P1(x161)+P15(x161,f2(x161))
% 0.20/0.67 [17]~P6(x171)+P12(x171,f4(x171))
% 0.20/0.67 [18]~P3(x181)+P13(x181,f9(x181))
% 0.20/0.67 [19]~P5(x191)+P14(x191,f10(x191))
% 0.20/0.67 [13]P3(x131)+~P13(x131,x132)
% 0.20/0.67 [14]P6(x141)+~P12(x141,x142)
% 0.20/0.67 [15]P5(x151)+~P14(x151,x152)
% 0.20/0.67 [20]~P8(x201)+~P12(x201,x202)
% 0.20/0.67 [21]~P9(x211)+~P13(x211,x212)
% 0.20/0.67 [22]~P4(x221)+~P14(x221,x222)
% 0.20/0.67 [9]~P3(x91)+~P6(x91)+P4(x91)
% 0.20/0.67 [23]~P15(x232,x231)+P6(x231)+~P1(x232)
% 0.20/0.67 [24]~P15(x242,x241)+P5(x241)+~P1(x242)
% 0.20/0.67 [25]~P15(x251,x252)+P1(x251)+~P3(x252)+~P6(f5(x251))+~P5(f6(x251))
% 0.20/0.67 [26]~P15(x261,x262)+P1(x261)+~P3(x262)+P15(x261,f5(x261))+~P5(f6(x261))
% 0.20/0.67 [27]~P15(x271,x272)+P1(x271)+~P3(x272)+P15(x271,f6(x271))+~P6(f5(x271))
% 0.20/0.67 [28]~P15(x281,x282)+P1(x281)+~P3(x282)+P15(x281,f5(x281))+P15(x281,f6(x281))
% 0.20/0.67 %EqnAxiom
% 0.20/0.67
% 0.20/0.67 %-------------------------------------------
% 0.20/0.67 cnf(31,plain,
% 0.20/0.67 (P5(f2(a1))),
% 0.20/0.67 inference(scs_inference,[],[1,16,8,24])).
% 0.20/0.67 cnf(35,plain,
% 0.20/0.67 (P4(f2(a1))),
% 0.20/0.67 inference(scs_inference,[],[1,16,8,24,23,9])).
% 0.20/0.67 cnf(39,plain,
% 0.20/0.67 ($false),
% 0.20/0.67 inference(scs_inference,[],[31,35,22,19]),
% 0.20/0.67 ['proof']).
% 0.20/0.67 % SZS output end Proof
% 0.20/0.67 % Total time :0.000000s
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------