TSTP Solution File: KRS123+1 by CSE---1.6
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : CSE---1.6
% Problem : KRS123+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 : n017.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 05:39:20 EDT 2023
% Result : Unsatisfiable 0.21s 0.63s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.21s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : -
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----WARNING: Could not form TPTP format derivation
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.13/0.14 % Problem : KRS123+1 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v3.1.0.
% 0.13/0.14 % Command : java -jar /export/starexec/sandbox2/solver/bin/mcs_scs.jar %s %d
% 0.14/0.36 % Computer : n017.cluster.edu
% 0.14/0.36 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.14/0.36 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.14/0.36 % Memory : 8042.1875MB
% 0.14/0.36 % OS : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64
% 0.14/0.36 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.14/0.36 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.14/0.36 % DateTime : Mon Aug 28 00:32:27 EDT 2023
% 0.14/0.36 % CPUTime :
% 0.21/0.58 start to proof:theBenchmark
% 0.21/0.62 %-------------------------------------------
% 0.21/0.62 % File :CSE---1.6
% 0.21/0.62 % Problem :theBenchmark
% 0.21/0.62 % Transform :cnf
% 0.21/0.62 % Format :tptp:raw
% 0.21/0.62 % Command :java -jar mcs_scs.jar %d %s
% 0.21/0.62
% 0.21/0.62 % Result :Theorem 0.000000s
% 0.21/0.62 % Output :CNFRefutation 0.000000s
% 0.21/0.62 %-------------------------------------------
% 0.21/0.63 %------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% 0.21/0.63 % File : KRS123+1 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v3.1.0.
% 0.21/0.63 % Domain : Knowledge Representation (Semantic Web)
% 0.21/0.63 % Problem : DL Test: heinsohn1.1
% 0.21/0.63 % Version : Especial.
% 0.21/0.63 % English : Tbox tests from [HK+94]
% 0.21/0.63
% 0.21/0.63 % Refs : [HK+94] Heinsohn et al. (1994), An Empirical Analysis of Termi
% 0.21/0.63 % : [Bec03] Bechhofer (2003), Email to G. Sutcliffe
% 0.21/0.63 % : [TR+04] Tsarkov et al. (2004), Using Vampire to Reason with OW
% 0.21/0.63 % Source : [Bec03]
% 0.21/0.63 % Names : inconsistent_description-logic-Manifest641 [Bec03]
% 0.21/0.63
% 0.21/0.63 % Status : Unsatisfiable
% 0.21/0.63 % 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
% 0.21/0.63 % Syntax : Number of formulae : 13 ( 1 unt; 0 def)
% 0.21/0.63 % Number of atoms : 26 ( 0 equ)
% 0.21/0.63 % Maximal formula atoms : 3 ( 2 avg)
% 0.21/0.63 % Number of connectives : 17 ( 4 ~; 0 |; 2 &)
% 0.21/0.63 % ( 6 <=>; 5 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% 0.21/0.63 % Maximal formula depth : 5 ( 4 avg)
% 0.21/0.63 % Maximal term depth : 1 ( 1 avg)
% 0.21/0.63 % Number of predicates : 15 ( 15 usr; 0 prp; 1-2 aty)
% 0.21/0.63 % Number of functors : 1 ( 1 usr; 1 con; 0-0 aty)
% 0.21/0.63 % Number of variables : 16 ( 12 !; 4 ?)
% 0.21/0.63 % SPC : FOF_UNS_RFO_NEQ
% 0.21/0.63
% 0.21/0.63 % Comments : Sean Bechhofer says there are some errors in the encoding of
% 0.21/0.63 % datatypes, so this problem may not be perfect. At least it's
% 0.21/0.63 % still representative of the type of reasoning required for OWL.
% 0.21/0.63 % : Tests incoherency caused by disjoint concept
% 0.21/0.63 %------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% 0.21/0.63 %----Thing and Nothing
% 0.21/0.63 fof(axiom_0,axiom,
% 0.21/0.63 ! [X] :
% 0.21/0.63 ( cowlThing(X)
% 0.21/0.63 & ~ cowlNothing(X) ) ).
% 0.21/0.63
% 0.21/0.63 %----String and Integer disjoint
% 0.21/0.63 fof(axiom_1,axiom,
% 0.21/0.63 ! [X] :
% 0.21/0.63 ( xsd_string(X)
% 0.21/0.63 <=> ~ xsd_integer(X) ) ).
% 0.21/0.63
% 0.21/0.63 %----Equality cUnsatisfiable
% 0.21/0.63 fof(axiom_2,axiom,
% 0.21/0.63 ! [X] :
% 0.21/0.63 ( cUnsatisfiable(X)
% 0.21/0.63 <=> ( cc(X)
% 0.21/0.63 & cd(X) ) ) ).
% 0.21/0.63
% 0.21/0.63 %----Super cc
% 0.21/0.63 fof(axiom_3,axiom,
% 0.21/0.63 ! [X] :
% 0.21/0.63 ( cc(X)
% 0.21/0.63 => cdxcomp(X) ) ).
% 0.21/0.63
% 0.21/0.63 %----Super cc1
% 0.21/0.63 fof(axiom_4,axiom,
% 0.21/0.63 ! [X] :
% 0.21/0.63 ( cc1(X)
% 0.21/0.63 => cd1xcomp(X) ) ).
% 0.21/0.63
% 0.21/0.63 %----Super cc1
% 0.21/0.63 fof(axiom_5,axiom,
% 0.21/0.63 ! [X] :
% 0.21/0.63 ( cc1(X)
% 0.21/0.63 => cd1(X) ) ).
% 0.21/0.63
% 0.21/0.63 %----Equality cd
% 0.21/0.63 fof(axiom_6,axiom,
% 0.21/0.63 ! [X] :
% 0.21/0.63 ( cd(X)
% 0.21/0.63 <=> ~ ? [Y] : ra_Px1(X,Y) ) ).
% 0.21/0.63
% 0.21/0.63 %----Equality cdxcomp
% 0.21/0.63 fof(axiom_7,axiom,
% 0.21/0.63 ! [X] :
% 0.21/0.63 ( cdxcomp(X)
% 0.21/0.63 <=> ? [Y0] : ra_Px1(X,Y0) ) ).
% 0.21/0.63
% 0.21/0.63 %----Equality cd1
% 0.21/0.63 fof(axiom_8,axiom,
% 0.21/0.63 ! [X] :
% 0.21/0.63 ( cd1(X)
% 0.21/0.63 <=> ? [Y0] : ra_Px2(X,Y0) ) ).
% 0.21/0.63
% 0.21/0.63 %----Equality cd1xcomp
% 0.21/0.63 fof(axiom_9,axiom,
% 0.21/0.63 ! [X] :
% 0.21/0.63 ( cd1xcomp(X)
% 0.21/0.63 <=> ~ ? [Y] : ra_Px2(X,Y) ) ).
% 0.21/0.63
% 0.21/0.63 %----Super ce3
% 0.21/0.63 fof(axiom_10,axiom,
% 0.21/0.63 ! [X] :
% 0.21/0.63 ( ce3(X)
% 0.21/0.63 => cc(X) ) ).
% 0.21/0.63
% 0.21/0.63 %----Super cf
% 0.21/0.63 fof(axiom_11,axiom,
% 0.21/0.63 ! [X] :
% 0.21/0.63 ( cf(X)
% 0.21/0.63 => cd(X) ) ).
% 0.21/0.63
% 0.21/0.63 %----i2003_11_14_17_22_02803
% 0.21/0.63 fof(axiom_12,axiom,
% 0.21/0.63 cUnsatisfiable(i2003_11_14_17_22_02803) ).
% 0.21/0.63
% 0.21/0.63 %------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% 0.21/0.63 %-------------------------------------------
% 0.21/0.63 % Proof found
% 0.21/0.63 % SZS status Theorem for theBenchmark
% 0.21/0.63 % SZS output start Proof
% 0.21/0.63 %ClaNum:20(EqnAxiom:0)
% 0.21/0.63 %VarNum:46(SingletonVarNum:23)
% 0.21/0.63 %MaxLitNum:3
% 0.21/0.63 %MaxfuncDepth:1
% 0.21/0.63 %SharedTerms:2
% 0.21/0.63 [1]P1(a1)
% 0.21/0.63 [2]~P2(x21)
% 0.21/0.63 [3]P12(x31)+P11(x31)
% 0.21/0.63 [4]~P1(x41)+P3(x41)
% 0.21/0.63 [5]~P4(x51)+P3(x51)
% 0.21/0.63 [6]~P1(x61)+P5(x61)
% 0.21/0.63 [7]~P10(x71)+P5(x71)
% 0.21/0.63 [8]~P3(x81)+P7(x81)
% 0.21/0.63 [9]~P6(x91)+P8(x91)
% 0.21/0.63 [10]~P6(x101)+P9(x101)
% 0.21/0.63 [11]~P12(x111)+~P11(x111)
% 0.21/0.63 [13]P5(x131)+P13(x131,f2(x131))
% 0.21/0.63 [14]P8(x141)+P14(x141,f3(x141))
% 0.21/0.63 [17]~P7(x171)+P13(x171,f4(x171))
% 0.21/0.63 [18]~P9(x181)+P14(x181,f5(x181))
% 0.21/0.63 [15]P7(x151)+~P13(x151,x152)
% 0.21/0.63 [16]P9(x161)+~P14(x161,x162)
% 0.21/0.63 [19]~P5(x191)+~P13(x191,x192)
% 0.21/0.63 [20]~P8(x201)+~P14(x201,x202)
% 0.21/0.63 [12]~P3(x121)+~P5(x121)+P1(x121)
% 0.21/0.63 %EqnAxiom
% 0.21/0.63
% 0.21/0.63 %-------------------------------------------
% 0.21/0.63 cnf(21,plain,
% 0.21/0.63 (P5(a1)),
% 0.21/0.63 inference(scs_inference,[],[1,6])).
% 0.21/0.63 cnf(22,plain,
% 0.21/0.63 (P3(a1)),
% 0.21/0.63 inference(scs_inference,[],[1,6,4])).
% 0.21/0.63 cnf(27,plain,
% 0.21/0.63 ($false),
% 0.21/0.63 inference(scs_inference,[],[21,22,19,8,17]),
% 0.21/0.63 ['proof']).
% 0.21/0.63 % SZS output end Proof
% 0.21/0.63 % Total time :0.000000s
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------