TSTP Solution File: KRS067+1 by CSE---1.6
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : CSE---1.6
% Problem : KRS067+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 : n011.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 05:39:08 EDT 2023
% Result : Unsatisfiable 0.19s 0.69s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.19s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : -
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----WARNING: Could not form TPTP format derivation
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.12/0.12 % Problem : KRS067+1 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v3.1.0.
% 0.12/0.13 % Command : java -jar /export/starexec/sandbox2/solver/bin/mcs_scs.jar %s %d
% 0.13/0.34 % Computer : n011.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 02:20:40 EDT 2023
% 0.13/0.34 % CPUTime :
% 0.19/0.65 start to proof:theBenchmark
% 0.19/0.68 %-------------------------------------------
% 0.19/0.68 % File :CSE---1.6
% 0.19/0.68 % Problem :theBenchmark
% 0.19/0.68 % Transform :cnf
% 0.19/0.68 % Format :tptp:raw
% 0.19/0.68 % Command :java -jar mcs_scs.jar %d %s
% 0.19/0.68
% 0.19/0.68 % Result :Theorem 0.000000s
% 0.19/0.68 % Output :CNFRefutation 0.000000s
% 0.19/0.68 %-------------------------------------------
% 0.19/0.69 %------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% 0.19/0.69 % File : KRS067+1 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v3.1.0.
% 0.19/0.69 % Domain : Knowledge Representation (Semantic Web)
% 0.19/0.69 % Problem : DL Test: fact1.1
% 0.19/0.69 % Version : Especial.
% 0.19/0.69 % English : If a, b and c are disjoint, then:
% 0.19/0.69 % (a and b) or (b and c) or (c and a)
% 0.19/0.69 % is unsatisfiable.
% 0.19/0.69
% 0.19/0.69 % Refs : [Bec03] Bechhofer (2003), Email to G. Sutcliffe
% 0.19/0.69 % : [TR+04] Tsarkov et al. (2004), Using Vampire to Reason with OW
% 0.19/0.69 % Source : [Bec03]
% 0.19/0.69 % Names : inconsistent_description-logic-Manifest001 [Bec03]
% 0.19/0.69
% 0.19/0.69 % Status : Unsatisfiable
% 0.19/0.69 % Rating : 0.00 v3.1.0
% 0.19/0.69 % Syntax : Number of formulae : 6 ( 1 unt; 0 def)
% 0.19/0.69 % Number of atoms : 17 ( 0 equ)
% 0.19/0.69 % Maximal formula atoms : 7 ( 2 avg)
% 0.19/0.69 % Number of connectives : 15 ( 4 ~; 3 |; 4 &)
% 0.19/0.69 % ( 2 <=>; 2 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% 0.19/0.69 % Maximal formula depth : 6 ( 4 avg)
% 0.19/0.69 % Maximal term depth : 1 ( 1 avg)
% 0.19/0.69 % Number of predicates : 8 ( 8 usr; 0 prp; 1-1 aty)
% 0.19/0.69 % Number of functors : 1 ( 1 usr; 1 con; 0-0 aty)
% 0.19/0.69 % Number of variables : 5 ( 5 !; 0 ?)
% 0.19/0.69 % SPC : FOF_UNS_EPR_NEQ
% 0.19/0.69
% 0.19/0.69 % Comments : Sean Bechhofer says there are some errors in the encoding of
% 0.19/0.69 % datatypes, so this problem may not be perfect. At least it's
% 0.19/0.69 % still representative of the type of reasoning required for OWL.
% 0.19/0.69 %------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% 0.19/0.69 %----Thing and Nothing
% 0.19/0.69 fof(axiom_0,axiom,
% 0.19/0.69 ! [X] :
% 0.19/0.69 ( cowlThing(X)
% 0.19/0.69 & ~ cowlNothing(X) ) ).
% 0.19/0.69
% 0.19/0.69 %----String and Integer disjoint
% 0.19/0.69 fof(axiom_1,axiom,
% 0.19/0.69 ! [X] :
% 0.19/0.69 ( xsd_string(X)
% 0.19/0.69 <=> ~ xsd_integer(X) ) ).
% 0.19/0.69
% 0.19/0.69 %----Equality cUnsatisfiable
% 0.19/0.69 fof(axiom_2,axiom,
% 0.19/0.69 ! [X] :
% 0.19/0.69 ( cUnsatisfiable(X)
% 0.19/0.69 <=> ( ( cc(X)
% 0.19/0.69 & cb(X) )
% 0.19/0.69 | ( cb(X)
% 0.19/0.69 & ca(X) )
% 0.19/0.69 | ( cc(X)
% 0.19/0.69 & ca(X) ) ) ) ).
% 0.19/0.69
% 0.19/0.69 %----Super ca
% 0.19/0.69 fof(axiom_3,axiom,
% 0.19/0.69 ! [X] :
% 0.19/0.69 ( ca(X)
% 0.19/0.69 => ~ ( cc(X)
% 0.19/0.69 | cb(X) ) ) ).
% 0.19/0.69
% 0.19/0.69 %----Super cb
% 0.19/0.69 fof(axiom_4,axiom,
% 0.19/0.69 ! [X] :
% 0.19/0.69 ( cb(X)
% 0.19/0.69 => ~ cc(X) ) ).
% 0.19/0.69
% 0.19/0.69 %----i2003_11_14_17_18_1956
% 0.19/0.69 fof(axiom_5,axiom,
% 0.19/0.69 cUnsatisfiable(i2003_11_14_17_18_1956) ).
% 0.19/0.69
% 0.19/0.69 %------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% 0.19/0.69 %-------------------------------------------
% 0.19/0.69 % Proof found
% 0.19/0.69 % SZS status Theorem for theBenchmark
% 0.19/0.69 % SZS output start Proof
% 0.19/0.69 %ClaNum:18(EqnAxiom:0)
% 0.19/0.69 %VarNum:20(SingletonVarNum:9)
% 0.19/0.69 %MaxLitNum:3
% 0.19/0.69 %MaxfuncDepth:0
% 0.19/0.69 %SharedTerms:2
% 0.19/0.69 [1]P1(a1)
% 0.19/0.69 [2]~P2(x21)
% 0.19/0.69 [3]P7(x31)+P6(x31)
% 0.19/0.69 [4]~P7(x41)+~P6(x41)
% 0.19/0.69 [5]~P4(x51)+~P3(x51)
% 0.19/0.69 [6]~P5(x61)+~P3(x61)
% 0.19/0.69 [7]~P5(x71)+~P4(x71)
% 0.19/0.69 [9]P4(x91)+~P1(x91)+P3(x91)
% 0.19/0.69 [11]P5(x111)+~P1(x111)+P3(x111)
% 0.19/0.69 [13]P5(x131)+~P1(x131)+P4(x131)
% 0.19/0.69 %EqnAxiom
% 0.19/0.69
% 0.19/0.69 %-------------------------------------------
% 0.19/0.70 cnf(23,plain,
% 0.19/0.70 (P4(a1)),
% 0.19/0.70 inference(scs_inference,[],[1,13,7,6,9])).
% 0.19/0.70 cnf(29,plain,
% 0.19/0.70 ($false),
% 0.19/0.70 inference(scs_inference,[],[23,1,7,5,11]),
% 0.19/0.70 ['proof']).
% 0.19/0.70 % SZS output end Proof
% 0.19/0.70 % Total time :0.000000s
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------