TSTP Solution File: KRS065+1 by CSE---1.6
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : CSE---1.6
% Problem : KRS065+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 05:39:07 EDT 2023
% Result : Unsatisfiable 0.20s 0.62s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.20s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : -
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----WARNING: Could not form TPTP format derivation
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.13 % Problem : KRS065+1 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v3.1.0.
% 0.00/0.13 % Command : java -jar /export/starexec/sandbox2/solver/bin/mcs_scs.jar %s %d
% 0.13/0.35 % Computer : n021.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 01:08:43 EDT 2023
% 0.13/0.35 % CPUTime :
% 0.20/0.57 start to proof:theBenchmark
% 0.20/0.61 %-------------------------------------------
% 0.20/0.61 % File :CSE---1.6
% 0.20/0.61 % Problem :theBenchmark
% 0.20/0.61 % Transform :cnf
% 0.20/0.61 % Format :tptp:raw
% 0.20/0.61 % Command :java -jar mcs_scs.jar %d %s
% 0.20/0.61
% 0.20/0.61 % Result :Theorem 0.000000s
% 0.20/0.61 % Output :CNFRefutation 0.000000s
% 0.20/0.61 %-------------------------------------------
% 0.20/0.62 %------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% 0.20/0.62 % File : KRS065+1 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v3.1.0.
% 0.20/0.62 % Domain : Knowledge Representation (Semantic Web)
% 0.20/0.62 % Problem : The syntax for using the same restriction twice in OWL Lite
% 0.20/0.62 % Version : Especial.
% 0.20/0.62 % English : This test shows the syntax for using the same restriction twice
% 0.20/0.62 % in OWL Lite.
% 0.20/0.62
% 0.20/0.62 % Refs : [Bec03] Bechhofer (2003), Email to G. Sutcliffe
% 0.20/0.62 % : [TR+04] Tsarkov et al. (2004), Using Vampire to Reason with OW
% 0.20/0.62 % Source : [Bec03]
% 0.20/0.62 % Names : inconsistent_Restriction-Manifest001 [Bec03]
% 0.20/0.62
% 0.20/0.62 % Status : Unsatisfiable
% 0.20/0.62 % Rating : 0.00 v3.1.0
% 0.20/0.62 % Syntax : Number of formulae : 4 ( 0 unt; 0 def)
% 0.20/0.62 % Number of atoms : 8 ( 0 equ)
% 0.20/0.62 % Maximal formula atoms : 2 ( 2 avg)
% 0.20/0.62 % Number of connectives : 6 ( 2 ~; 0 |; 3 &)
% 0.20/0.62 % ( 1 <=>; 0 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% 0.20/0.62 % Maximal formula depth : 4 ( 4 avg)
% 0.20/0.62 % Maximal term depth : 1 ( 1 avg)
% 0.20/0.62 % Number of predicates : 5 ( 5 usr; 0 prp; 1-2 aty)
% 0.20/0.62 % Number of functors : 2 ( 2 usr; 2 con; 0-0 aty)
% 0.20/0.62 % Number of variables : 4 ( 2 !; 2 ?)
% 0.20/0.62 % SPC : FOF_UNS_EPR_NEQ
% 0.20/0.62
% 0.20/0.62 % Comments : Sean Bechhofer says there are some errors in the encoding of
% 0.20/0.62 % datatypes, so this problem may not be perfect. At least it's
% 0.20/0.62 % still representative of the type of reasoning required for OWL.
% 0.20/0.62 %------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% 0.20/0.62 %----Thing and Nothing
% 0.20/0.62 fof(axiom_0,axiom,
% 0.20/0.62 ! [X] :
% 0.20/0.62 ( cowlThing(X)
% 0.20/0.62 & ~ cowlNothing(X) ) ).
% 0.20/0.62
% 0.20/0.62 %----String and Integer disjoint
% 0.20/0.62 fof(axiom_1,axiom,
% 0.20/0.62 ! [X] :
% 0.20/0.62 ( xsd_string(X)
% 0.20/0.62 <=> ~ xsd_integer(X) ) ).
% 0.20/0.62
% 0.20/0.62 %----ia
% 0.20/0.62 fof(axiom_2,axiom,
% 0.20/0.62 ? [X] :
% 0.20/0.62 ( rop(ia,X)
% 0.20/0.62 & cowlNothing(X) ) ).
% 0.20/0.62
% 0.20/0.62 %----ib
% 0.20/0.62 fof(axiom_3,axiom,
% 0.20/0.62 ? [X] :
% 0.20/0.62 ( rop(ib,X)
% 0.20/0.62 & cowlNothing(X) ) ).
% 0.20/0.62
% 0.20/0.62 %------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% 0.20/0.62 %-------------------------------------------
% 0.20/0.62 % Proof found
% 0.20/0.62 % SZS status Theorem for theBenchmark
% 0.20/0.62 % SZS output start Proof
% 0.20/0.62 %ClaNum:7(EqnAxiom:0)
% 0.20/0.62 %VarNum:5(SingletonVarNum:3)
% 0.20/0.62 %MaxLitNum:2
% 0.20/0.62 %MaxfuncDepth:0
% 0.20/0.62 %SharedTerms:8
% 0.20/0.62 [1]P1(a1)
% 0.20/0.62 [2]P1(a2)
% 0.20/0.62 [3]P2(a3,a1)
% 0.20/0.62 [4]P2(a4,a2)
% 0.20/0.62 [5]~P1(x51)
% 0.20/0.62 [6]P4(x61)+P3(x61)
% 0.20/0.62 [7]~P4(x71)+~P3(x71)
% 0.20/0.62 %EqnAxiom
% 0.20/0.62
% 0.20/0.62 %-------------------------------------------
% 0.20/0.62 cnf(8,plain,
% 0.20/0.62 ($false),
% 0.20/0.62 inference(scs_inference,[],[1,5]),
% 0.20/0.62 ['proof']).
% 0.20/0.62 % SZS output end Proof
% 0.20/0.62 % Total time :0.000000s
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------