TSTP Solution File: KRS068+1 by CSE---1.6
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : CSE---1.6
% Problem : KRS068+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 : 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 05:39:08 EDT 2023
% Result : Unsatisfiable 0.20s 0.63s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.20s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : -
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----WARNING: Could not form TPTP format derivation
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.12 % Problem : KRS068+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 : n021.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 01:49:43 EDT 2023
% 0.13/0.34 % CPUTime :
% 0.20/0.58 start to proof:theBenchmark
% 0.20/0.63 %-------------------------------------------
% 0.20/0.63 % File :CSE---1.6
% 0.20/0.63 % Problem :theBenchmark
% 0.20/0.63 % Transform :cnf
% 0.20/0.63 % Format :tptp:raw
% 0.20/0.63 % Command :java -jar mcs_scs.jar %d %s
% 0.20/0.63
% 0.20/0.63 % Result :Theorem 0.000000s
% 0.20/0.63 % Output :CNFRefutation 0.000000s
% 0.20/0.63 %-------------------------------------------
% 0.20/0.63 %------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% 0.20/0.63 % File : KRS068+1 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v3.1.0.
% 0.20/0.63 % Domain : Knowledge Representation (Semantic Web)
% 0.20/0.63 % Problem : DL Test: fact2.1
% 0.20/0.63 % Version : Especial.
% 0.20/0.63 % English :
% 0.20/0.63
% 0.20/0.63 % Refs : [Bec03] Bechhofer (2003), Email to G. Sutcliffe
% 0.20/0.63 % : [TR+04] Tsarkov et al. (2004), Using Vampire to Reason with OW
% 0.20/0.63 % Source : [Bec03]
% 0.20/0.63 % Names : inconsistent_description-logic-Manifest002 [Bec03]
% 0.20/0.63
% 0.20/0.63 % Status : Unsatisfiable
% 0.20/0.63 % 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
% 0.20/0.63 % Syntax : Number of formulae : 7 ( 1 unt; 0 def)
% 0.20/0.63 % Number of atoms : 15 ( 0 equ)
% 0.20/0.63 % Maximal formula atoms : 3 ( 2 avg)
% 0.20/0.63 % Number of connectives : 11 ( 3 ~; 0 |; 1 &)
% 0.20/0.63 % ( 1 <=>; 6 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% 0.20/0.63 % Maximal formula depth : 5 ( 4 avg)
% 0.20/0.63 % Maximal term depth : 1 ( 1 avg)
% 0.20/0.63 % Number of predicates : 8 ( 8 usr; 0 prp; 1-2 aty)
% 0.20/0.63 % Number of functors : 1 ( 1 usr; 1 con; 0-0 aty)
% 0.20/0.63 % Number of variables : 8 ( 8 !; 0 ?)
% 0.20/0.63 % SPC : FOF_UNS_RFO_NEQ
% 0.20/0.63
% 0.20/0.63 % Comments : Sean Bechhofer says there are some errors in the encoding of
% 0.20/0.63 % datatypes, so this problem may not be perfect. At least it's
% 0.20/0.63 % still representative of the type of reasoning required for OWL.
% 0.20/0.63 %------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% 0.20/0.63 %----Thing and Nothing
% 0.20/0.63 fof(axiom_0,axiom,
% 0.20/0.63 ! [X] :
% 0.20/0.63 ( cowlThing(X)
% 0.20/0.63 & ~ cowlNothing(X) ) ).
% 0.20/0.63
% 0.20/0.63 %----String and Integer disjoint
% 0.20/0.63 fof(axiom_1,axiom,
% 0.20/0.63 ! [X] :
% 0.20/0.63 ( xsd_string(X)
% 0.20/0.63 <=> ~ xsd_integer(X) ) ).
% 0.20/0.63
% 0.20/0.63 %----Super cUnsatisfiable
% 0.20/0.63 fof(axiom_2,axiom,
% 0.20/0.63 ! [X] :
% 0.20/0.63 ( cUnsatisfiable(X)
% 0.20/0.63 => cc(X) ) ).
% 0.20/0.63
% 0.20/0.63 %----Super cUnsatisfiable
% 0.20/0.63 fof(axiom_3,axiom,
% 0.20/0.63 ! [X] :
% 0.20/0.63 ( cUnsatisfiable(X)
% 0.20/0.63 => ~ cd(X) ) ).
% 0.20/0.63
% 0.20/0.63 %----Super cc
% 0.20/0.63 fof(axiom_4,axiom,
% 0.20/0.63 ! [X] :
% 0.20/0.63 ( cc(X)
% 0.20/0.63 => ! [Y] :
% 0.20/0.63 ( rr(X,Y)
% 0.20/0.63 => cc(Y) ) ) ).
% 0.20/0.63
% 0.20/0.63 %----i2003_11_14_17_18_23845
% 0.20/0.63 fof(axiom_5,axiom,
% 0.20/0.63 cUnsatisfiable(i2003_11_14_17_18_23845) ).
% 0.20/0.63
% 0.20/0.63 fof(axiom_6,axiom,
% 0.20/0.63 ! [X] :
% 0.20/0.63 ( ! [Y] :
% 0.20/0.63 ( rr(X,Y)
% 0.20/0.63 => cc(Y) )
% 0.20/0.63 => cd(X) ) ).
% 0.20/0.63
% 0.20/0.63 %------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% 0.20/0.63 %-------------------------------------------
% 0.20/0.63 % Proof found
% 0.20/0.63 % SZS status Theorem for theBenchmark
% 0.20/0.63 % SZS output start Proof
% 0.20/0.63 %ClaNum:9(EqnAxiom:0)
% 0.20/0.63 %VarNum:18(SingletonVarNum:9)
% 0.20/0.63 %MaxLitNum:3
% 0.20/0.63 %MaxfuncDepth:1
% 0.20/0.63 %SharedTerms:2
% 0.20/0.63 [1]P1(a1)
% 0.20/0.63 [2]~P2(x21)
% 0.20/0.63 [3]P6(x31)+P5(x31)
% 0.20/0.63 [4]~P1(x41)+P3(x41)
% 0.20/0.63 [5]~P6(x51)+~P5(x51)
% 0.20/0.63 [6]~P4(x61)+~P1(x61)
% 0.20/0.63 [7]P4(x71)+~P3(f2(x71))
% 0.20/0.64 [8]P4(x81)+P7(x81,f2(x81))
% 0.20/0.64 [9]~P7(x92,x91)+P3(x91)+~P3(x92)
% 0.20/0.64 %EqnAxiom
% 0.20/0.64
% 0.20/0.64 %-------------------------------------------
% 0.20/0.64 cnf(16,plain,
% 0.20/0.64 ($false),
% 0.20/0.64 inference(scs_inference,[],[1,6,4,8,7,9]),
% 0.20/0.64 ['proof']).
% 0.20/0.64 % SZS output end Proof
% 0.20/0.64 % Total time :0.000000s
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------