TSTP Solution File: KRS094+1 by CSE---1.6
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : CSE---1.6
% Problem : KRS094+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 : n026.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 05:39:14 EDT 2023
% Result : Unsatisfiable 0.20s 0.58s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.20s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : -
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----WARNING: Could not form TPTP format derivation
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.12 % Problem : KRS094+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
% 0.12/0.34 % Computer : n026.cluster.edu
% 0.12/0.34 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.12/0.34 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.12/0.34 % Memory : 8042.1875MB
% 0.12/0.34 % OS : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64
% 0.12/0.34 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.12/0.34 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.12/0.34 % DateTime : Mon Aug 28 02:43:34 EDT 2023
% 0.12/0.34 % CPUTime :
% 0.20/0.53 start to proof:theBenchmark
% 0.20/0.57 %-------------------------------------------
% 0.20/0.57 % File :CSE---1.6
% 0.20/0.57 % Problem :theBenchmark
% 0.20/0.57 % Transform :cnf
% 0.20/0.57 % Format :tptp:raw
% 0.20/0.57 % Command :java -jar mcs_scs.jar %d %s
% 0.20/0.57
% 0.20/0.57 % Result :Theorem 0.000000s
% 0.20/0.57 % Output :CNFRefutation 0.000000s
% 0.20/0.57 %-------------------------------------------
% 0.20/0.58 %------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% 0.20/0.58 % File : KRS094+1 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v3.1.0.
% 0.20/0.58 % Domain : Knowledge Representation (Semantic Web)
% 0.20/0.58 % Problem : DL Test: heinsohn1.4
% 0.20/0.58 % Version : Especial.
% 0.20/0.58 % English : Tbox tests from [HK+94]
% 0.20/0.58
% 0.20/0.58 % Refs : [HK+94] Heinsohn et al. (1994), An Empirical Analysis of Termi
% 0.20/0.58 % : [Bec03] Bechhofer (2003), Email to G. Sutcliffe
% 0.20/0.58 % : [TR+04] Tsarkov et al. (2004), Using Vampire to Reason with OW
% 0.20/0.58 % Source : [Bec03]
% 0.20/0.58 % Names : inconsistent_description-logic-Manifest104 [Bec03]
% 0.20/0.58
% 0.20/0.58 % Status : Unsatisfiable
% 0.20/0.58 % Rating : 0.00 v3.1.0
% 0.20/0.58 % Syntax : Number of formulae : 9 ( 1 unt; 0 def)
% 0.20/0.58 % Number of atoms : 17 ( 0 equ)
% 0.20/0.58 % Maximal formula atoms : 2 ( 1 avg)
% 0.20/0.58 % Number of connectives : 12 ( 4 ~; 0 |; 1 &)
% 0.20/0.58 % ( 2 <=>; 5 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% 0.20/0.58 % Maximal formula depth : 4 ( 3 avg)
% 0.20/0.58 % Maximal term depth : 1 ( 1 avg)
% 0.20/0.58 % Number of predicates : 11 ( 11 usr; 0 prp; 1-1 aty)
% 0.20/0.58 % Number of functors : 1 ( 1 usr; 1 con; 0-0 aty)
% 0.20/0.58 % Number of variables : 8 ( 8 !; 0 ?)
% 0.20/0.58 % SPC : FOF_UNS_EPR_NEQ
% 0.20/0.58
% 0.20/0.58 % Comments : Sean Bechhofer says there are some errors in the encoding of
% 0.20/0.58 % datatypes, so this problem may not be perfect. At least it's
% 0.20/0.58 % still representative of the type of reasoning required for OWL.
% 0.20/0.58 % : Tests incoherency caused by disjoint concept
% 0.20/0.58 %------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% 0.20/0.58 %----Thing and Nothing
% 0.20/0.58 fof(axiom_0,axiom,
% 0.20/0.58 ! [X] :
% 0.20/0.58 ( cowlThing(X)
% 0.20/0.58 & ~ cowlNothing(X) ) ).
% 0.20/0.58
% 0.20/0.58 %----String and Integer disjoint
% 0.20/0.58 fof(axiom_1,axiom,
% 0.20/0.58 ! [X] :
% 0.20/0.58 ( xsd_string(X)
% 0.20/0.58 <=> ~ xsd_integer(X) ) ).
% 0.20/0.58
% 0.20/0.58 %----Equality cUnsatisfiable
% 0.20/0.58 fof(axiom_2,axiom,
% 0.20/0.58 ! [X] :
% 0.20/0.58 ( cUnsatisfiable(X)
% 0.20/0.58 <=> cc1(X) ) ).
% 0.20/0.58
% 0.20/0.58 %----Super cc
% 0.20/0.58 fof(axiom_3,axiom,
% 0.20/0.58 ! [X] :
% 0.20/0.58 ( cc(X)
% 0.20/0.58 => ~ cd(X) ) ).
% 0.20/0.58
% 0.20/0.58 %----Super cc1
% 0.20/0.58 fof(axiom_4,axiom,
% 0.20/0.58 ! [X] :
% 0.20/0.58 ( cc1(X)
% 0.20/0.58 => ~ cd1(X) ) ).
% 0.20/0.58
% 0.20/0.58 %----Super cc1
% 0.20/0.58 fof(axiom_5,axiom,
% 0.20/0.58 ! [X] :
% 0.20/0.58 ( cc1(X)
% 0.20/0.58 => cd1(X) ) ).
% 0.20/0.58
% 0.20/0.58 %----Super ce3
% 0.20/0.58 fof(axiom_6,axiom,
% 0.20/0.58 ! [X] :
% 0.20/0.58 ( ce3(X)
% 0.20/0.58 => cc(X) ) ).
% 0.20/0.58
% 0.20/0.58 %----Super cf
% 0.20/0.58 fof(axiom_7,axiom,
% 0.20/0.58 ! [X] :
% 0.20/0.58 ( cf(X)
% 0.20/0.58 => cd(X) ) ).
% 0.20/0.58
% 0.20/0.58 %----i2003_11_14_17_20_11330
% 0.20/0.58 fof(axiom_8,axiom,
% 0.20/0.58 cUnsatisfiable(i2003_11_14_17_20_11330) ).
% 0.20/0.58
% 0.20/0.58 %------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% 0.20/0.58 %-------------------------------------------
% 0.20/0.58 % Proof found
% 0.20/0.58 % SZS status Theorem for theBenchmark
% 0.20/0.58 % SZS output start Proof
% 0.20/0.58 %ClaNum:11(EqnAxiom:0)
% 0.20/0.58 %VarNum:19(SingletonVarNum:10)
% 0.20/0.58 %MaxLitNum:2
% 0.20/0.58 %MaxfuncDepth:0
% 0.20/0.58 %SharedTerms:2
% 0.20/0.58 [1]P1(a1)
% 0.20/0.58 [2]~P2(x21)
% 0.20/0.58 [3]P10(x31)+P9(x31)
% 0.20/0.58 [4]~P3(x41)+P1(x41)
% 0.20/0.58 [5]~P1(x51)+P3(x51)
% 0.20/0.58 [6]~P5(x61)+P4(x61)
% 0.20/0.58 [7]~P8(x71)+P6(x71)
% 0.20/0.58 [8]~P3(x81)+P7(x81)
% 0.20/0.58 [9]~P10(x91)+~P9(x91)
% 0.20/0.58 [10]~P7(x101)+~P3(x101)
% 0.20/0.58 [11]~P6(x111)+~P4(x111)
% 0.20/0.58 %EqnAxiom
% 0.20/0.58
% 0.20/0.58 %-------------------------------------------
% 0.20/0.58 cnf(14,plain,
% 0.20/0.58 ($false),
% 0.20/0.58 inference(scs_inference,[],[1,5,10,8]),
% 0.20/0.58 ['proof']).
% 0.20/0.58 % SZS output end Proof
% 0.20/0.58 % Total time :0.000000s
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------