TSTP Solution File: KRS129+1 by CSE---1.6
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : CSE---1.6
% Problem : KRS129+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 : n009.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 05:39:22 EDT 2023
% Result : Theorem 0.50s 0.60s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.50s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : -
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----WARNING: Could not form TPTP format derivation
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.03/0.10 % Problem : KRS129+1 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v3.1.0.
% 0.03/0.10 % Command : java -jar /export/starexec/sandbox2/solver/bin/mcs_scs.jar %s %d
% 0.10/0.30 % Computer : n009.cluster.edu
% 0.10/0.30 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.10/0.30 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.10/0.30 % Memory : 8042.1875MB
% 0.10/0.30 % OS : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64
% 0.10/0.30 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.10/0.30 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.10/0.30 % DateTime : Mon Aug 28 01:57:20 EDT 2023
% 0.10/0.30 % CPUTime :
% 0.15/0.52 start to proof:theBenchmark
% 0.50/0.59 %-------------------------------------------
% 0.50/0.59 % File :CSE---1.6
% 0.50/0.59 % Problem :theBenchmark
% 0.50/0.59 % Transform :cnf
% 0.50/0.59 % Format :tptp:raw
% 0.50/0.59 % Command :java -jar mcs_scs.jar %d %s
% 0.50/0.59
% 0.50/0.59 % Result :Theorem 0.030000s
% 0.50/0.59 % Output :CNFRefutation 0.030000s
% 0.50/0.59 %-------------------------------------------
% 0.50/0.60 %------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% 0.50/0.60 % File : KRS129+1 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v3.1.0.
% 0.50/0.60 % Domain : Knowledge Representation (Semantic Web)
% 0.50/0.60 % Problem : An example combinging owl:oneOf and owl:inverseOf
% 0.50/0.60 % Version : Especial.
% 0.50/0.60 % English :
% 0.50/0.60
% 0.50/0.60 % Refs : [Bec03] Bechhofer (2003), Email to G. Sutcliffe
% 0.50/0.60 % : [TR+04] Tsarkov et al. (2004), Using Vampire to Reason with OW
% 0.50/0.60 % Source : [Bec03]
% 0.50/0.60 % Names : positive_I4.5-Manifest001 [Bec03]
% 0.50/0.60
% 0.50/0.60 % Status : Theorem
% 0.50/0.60 % Rating : 0.08 v8.1.0, 0.06 v7.4.0, 0.07 v7.2.0, 0.03 v7.1.0, 0.00 v6.1.0, 0.03 v6.0.0, 0.04 v5.4.0, 0.07 v5.3.0, 0.15 v5.2.0, 0.00 v4.1.0, 0.04 v4.0.1, 0.09 v4.0.0, 0.08 v3.7.0, 0.00 v3.2.0, 0.11 v3.1.0
% 0.50/0.60 % Syntax : Number of formulae : 27 ( 8 unt; 0 def)
% 0.50/0.60 % Number of atoms : 67 ( 18 equ)
% 0.50/0.60 % Maximal formula atoms : 7 ( 2 avg)
% 0.50/0.60 % Number of connectives : 44 ( 4 ~; 5 |; 17 &)
% 0.50/0.60 % ( 5 <=>; 13 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% 0.50/0.60 % Maximal formula depth : 8 ( 4 avg)
% 0.50/0.60 % Maximal term depth : 1 ( 1 avg)
% 0.50/0.60 % Number of predicates : 11 ( 10 usr; 0 prp; 1-2 aty)
% 0.50/0.60 % Number of functors : 7 ( 7 usr; 7 con; 0-0 aty)
% 0.50/0.60 % Number of variables : 39 ( 38 !; 1 ?)
% 0.50/0.60 % SPC : FOF_THM_RFO_SEQ
% 0.50/0.60
% 0.50/0.60 % Comments : Sean Bechhofer says there are some errors in the encoding of
% 0.50/0.60 % datatypes, so this problem may not be perfect. At least it's
% 0.50/0.60 % still representative of the type of reasoning required for OWL.
% 0.50/0.60 %------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% 0.50/0.60 fof(cEUCountry_substitution_1,axiom,
% 0.50/0.60 ! [A,B] :
% 0.50/0.60 ( ( A = B
% 0.50/0.60 & cEUCountry(A) )
% 0.50/0.60 => cEUCountry(B) ) ).
% 0.50/0.60
% 0.50/0.60 fof(cEuroMP_substitution_1,axiom,
% 0.50/0.60 ! [A,B] :
% 0.50/0.60 ( ( A = B
% 0.50/0.60 & cEuroMP(A) )
% 0.50/0.60 => cEuroMP(B) ) ).
% 0.50/0.60
% 0.50/0.60 fof(cEuropeanCountry_substitution_1,axiom,
% 0.50/0.60 ! [A,B] :
% 0.50/0.60 ( ( A = B
% 0.50/0.60 & cEuropeanCountry(A) )
% 0.50/0.60 => cEuropeanCountry(B) ) ).
% 0.50/0.60
% 0.50/0.60 fof(cPerson_substitution_1,axiom,
% 0.50/0.60 ! [A,B] :
% 0.50/0.60 ( ( A = B
% 0.50/0.60 & cPerson(A) )
% 0.50/0.60 => cPerson(B) ) ).
% 0.50/0.60
% 0.50/0.60 fof(cowlNothing_substitution_1,axiom,
% 0.50/0.60 ! [A,B] :
% 0.50/0.60 ( ( A = B
% 0.50/0.60 & cowlNothing(A) )
% 0.50/0.60 => cowlNothing(B) ) ).
% 0.50/0.60
% 0.50/0.60 fof(cowlThing_substitution_1,axiom,
% 0.50/0.60 ! [A,B] :
% 0.50/0.60 ( ( A = B
% 0.50/0.60 & cowlThing(A) )
% 0.50/0.60 => cowlThing(B) ) ).
% 0.50/0.60
% 0.50/0.60 fof(rhasEuroMP_substitution_1,axiom,
% 0.50/0.60 ! [A,B,C] :
% 0.50/0.60 ( ( A = B
% 0.50/0.60 & rhasEuroMP(A,C) )
% 0.50/0.60 => rhasEuroMP(B,C) ) ).
% 0.50/0.60
% 0.50/0.60 fof(rhasEuroMP_substitution_2,axiom,
% 0.50/0.60 ! [A,B,C] :
% 0.50/0.60 ( ( A = B
% 0.50/0.60 & rhasEuroMP(C,A) )
% 0.50/0.60 => rhasEuroMP(C,B) ) ).
% 0.50/0.60
% 0.50/0.60 fof(risEuroMPFrom_substitution_1,axiom,
% 0.50/0.60 ! [A,B,C] :
% 0.50/0.60 ( ( A = B
% 0.50/0.60 & risEuroMPFrom(A,C) )
% 0.50/0.60 => risEuroMPFrom(B,C) ) ).
% 0.50/0.60
% 0.50/0.60 fof(risEuroMPFrom_substitution_2,axiom,
% 0.50/0.60 ! [A,B,C] :
% 0.50/0.60 ( ( A = B
% 0.50/0.60 & risEuroMPFrom(C,A) )
% 0.50/0.60 => risEuroMPFrom(C,B) ) ).
% 0.50/0.60
% 0.50/0.60 fof(xsd_integer_substitution_1,axiom,
% 0.50/0.60 ! [A,B] :
% 0.50/0.60 ( ( A = B
% 0.50/0.60 & xsd_integer(A) )
% 0.50/0.60 => xsd_integer(B) ) ).
% 0.50/0.60
% 0.50/0.60 fof(xsd_string_substitution_1,axiom,
% 0.50/0.60 ! [A,B] :
% 0.50/0.60 ( ( A = B
% 0.50/0.60 & xsd_string(A) )
% 0.50/0.60 => xsd_string(B) ) ).
% 0.50/0.60
% 0.50/0.60 %----Thing and Nothing
% 0.50/0.60 fof(axiom_0,axiom,
% 0.50/0.60 ! [X] :
% 0.50/0.60 ( cowlThing(X)
% 0.50/0.60 & ~ cowlNothing(X) ) ).
% 0.50/0.60
% 0.50/0.60 %----String and Integer disjoint
% 0.50/0.60 fof(axiom_1,axiom,
% 0.50/0.60 ! [X] :
% 0.50/0.60 ( xsd_string(X)
% 0.50/0.60 <=> ~ xsd_integer(X) ) ).
% 0.50/0.60
% 0.50/0.60 %----Enumeration cEUCountry
% 0.50/0.60 fof(axiom_2,axiom,
% 0.50/0.60 ! [X] :
% 0.50/0.60 ( cEUCountry(X)
% 0.50/0.60 <=> ( X = iBE
% 0.50/0.60 | X = iFR
% 0.50/0.60 | X = iES
% 0.50/0.60 | X = iUK
% 0.50/0.60 | X = iNL
% 0.50/0.60 | X = iPT ) ) ).
% 0.50/0.60
% 0.50/0.60 %----Equality cEuroMP
% 0.50/0.60 fof(axiom_3,axiom,
% 0.50/0.60 ! [X] :
% 0.50/0.60 ( cEuroMP(X)
% 0.50/0.60 <=> ? [Y] :
% 0.50/0.60 ( risEuroMPFrom(X,Y)
% 0.50/0.60 & cowlThing(Y) ) ) ).
% 0.50/0.60
% 0.50/0.60 %----Domain: rhasEuroMP
% 0.50/0.60 fof(axiom_4,axiom,
% 0.50/0.60 ! [X,Y] :
% 0.50/0.60 ( rhasEuroMP(X,Y)
% 0.50/0.60 => cEUCountry(X) ) ).
% 0.50/0.60
% 0.50/0.60 %----Inverse: risEuroMPFrom
% 0.50/0.60 fof(axiom_5,axiom,
% 0.50/0.60 ! [X,Y] :
% 0.50/0.60 ( risEuroMPFrom(X,Y)
% 0.50/0.60 <=> rhasEuroMP(Y,X) ) ).
% 0.50/0.60
% 0.50/0.60 %----iBE
% 0.50/0.60 fof(axiom_6,axiom,
% 0.50/0.60 cEuropeanCountry(iBE) ).
% 0.50/0.60
% 0.50/0.60 %----iES
% 0.50/0.60 fof(axiom_7,axiom,
% 0.50/0.60 cEuropeanCountry(iES) ).
% 0.50/0.60
% 0.50/0.60 %----iFR
% 0.50/0.60 fof(axiom_8,axiom,
% 0.50/0.60 cEuropeanCountry(iFR) ).
% 0.50/0.60
% 0.50/0.60 %----iKinnock
% 0.50/0.60 fof(axiom_9,axiom,
% 0.50/0.60 cPerson(iKinnock) ).
% 0.50/0.60
% 0.50/0.60 %----iNL
% 0.50/0.60 fof(axiom_10,axiom,
% 0.50/0.60 cEuropeanCountry(iNL) ).
% 0.50/0.60
% 0.50/0.60 %----iPT
% 0.50/0.60 fof(axiom_11,axiom,
% 0.50/0.60 cEuropeanCountry(iPT) ).
% 0.50/0.60
% 0.50/0.60 %----iUK
% 0.50/0.60 fof(axiom_12,axiom,
% 0.50/0.60 cEuropeanCountry(iUK) ).
% 0.50/0.60
% 0.50/0.60 fof(axiom_13,axiom,
% 0.50/0.60 rhasEuroMP(iUK,iKinnock) ).
% 0.50/0.60
% 0.50/0.60 %----Thing and Nothing
% 0.50/0.60 %----String and Integer disjoint
% 0.50/0.60 %----iKinnock
% 0.50/0.60 fof(the_axiom,conjecture,
% 0.50/0.60 ( ! [X] :
% 0.50/0.60 ( cowlThing(X)
% 0.50/0.60 & ~ cowlNothing(X) )
% 0.50/0.60 & ! [X] :
% 0.50/0.60 ( xsd_string(X)
% 0.50/0.60 <=> ~ xsd_integer(X) )
% 0.50/0.60 & cEuroMP(iKinnock) ) ).
% 0.50/0.60
% 0.50/0.60 %------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% 0.50/0.60 %-------------------------------------------
% 0.50/0.60 % Proof found
% 0.50/0.60 % SZS status Theorem for theBenchmark
% 0.50/0.60 % SZS output start Proof
% 0.50/0.60 %ClaNum:40(EqnAxiom:15)
% 0.50/0.60 %VarNum:41(SingletonVarNum:19)
% 0.50/0.60 %MaxLitNum:7
% 0.50/0.60 %MaxfuncDepth:1
% 0.50/0.60 %SharedTerms:23
% 0.50/0.60 %goalClause: 33 34
% 0.50/0.60 [16]P1(a1)
% 0.50/0.60 [17]P1(a5)
% 0.50/0.60 [18]P1(a6)
% 0.50/0.60 [19]P1(a7)
% 0.50/0.60 [20]P1(a8)
% 0.50/0.60 [21]P1(a10)
% 0.50/0.60 [22]P4(a9)
% 0.50/0.60 [23]P5(a7,a9)
% 0.50/0.60 [24]~P6(x241)
% 0.50/0.60 [25]P2(x251)+~E(x251,a1)
% 0.50/0.60 [26]P2(x261)+~E(x261,a5)
% 0.50/0.60 [27]P2(x271)+~E(x271,a6)
% 0.50/0.60 [28]P2(x281)+~E(x281,a7)
% 0.50/0.60 [29]P2(x291)+~E(x291,a8)
% 0.50/0.60 [30]P2(x301)+~E(x301,a10)
% 0.50/0.60 [31]P9(x311)+P7(x311)
% 0.50/0.60 [32]~P9(x321)+~P7(x321)
% 0.50/0.60 [38]~P3(x381)+P8(x381,f3(x381))
% 0.50/0.60 [36]P2(x361)+~P5(x361,x362)
% 0.50/0.60 [37]P3(x371)+~P8(x371,x372)
% 0.50/0.60 [39]~P8(x392,x391)+P5(x391,x392)
% 0.50/0.60 [40]~P5(x402,x401)+P8(x401,x402)
% 0.50/0.60 [33]P6(a2)+P7(a4)+~P3(a9)+~P9(a4)
% 0.50/0.60 [34]P6(a2)+P9(a4)+~P3(a9)+~P7(a4)
% 0.50/0.60 [35]~P2(x351)+E(x351,a5)+E(x351,a6)+E(x351,a7)+E(x351,a8)+E(x351,a10)+E(x351,a1)
% 0.50/0.60 %EqnAxiom
% 0.50/0.60 [1]E(x11,x11)
% 0.50/0.60 [2]E(x22,x21)+~E(x21,x22)
% 0.50/0.60 [3]E(x31,x33)+~E(x31,x32)+~E(x32,x33)
% 0.50/0.60 [4]~E(x41,x42)+E(f3(x41),f3(x42))
% 0.50/0.60 [5]~P1(x51)+P1(x52)+~E(x51,x52)
% 0.50/0.60 [6]P5(x62,x63)+~E(x61,x62)+~P5(x61,x63)
% 0.50/0.60 [7]P5(x73,x72)+~E(x71,x72)+~P5(x73,x71)
% 0.50/0.60 [8]P8(x82,x83)+~E(x81,x82)+~P8(x81,x83)
% 0.50/0.60 [9]P8(x93,x92)+~E(x91,x92)+~P8(x93,x91)
% 0.50/0.60 [10]~P3(x101)+P3(x102)+~E(x101,x102)
% 0.50/0.60 [11]~P2(x111)+P2(x112)+~E(x111,x112)
% 0.50/0.60 [12]~P7(x121)+P7(x122)+~E(x121,x122)
% 0.50/0.60 [13]~P4(x131)+P4(x132)+~E(x131,x132)
% 0.50/0.60 [14]~P6(x141)+P6(x142)+~E(x141,x142)
% 0.50/0.60 [15]~P9(x151)+P9(x152)+~E(x151,x152)
% 0.50/0.60
% 0.50/0.60 %-------------------------------------------
% 0.50/0.60 cnf(42,plain,
% 0.50/0.60 (P3(a9)),
% 0.50/0.60 inference(scs_inference,[],[23,40,37])).
% 0.50/0.60 cnf(48,plain,
% 0.50/0.60 (~P7(a4)+P9(a4)),
% 0.50/0.61 inference(scs_inference,[],[24,22,23,40,37,36,38,13,34])).
% 0.50/0.61 cnf(53,plain,
% 0.50/0.61 (~P9(a4)+P7(a4)),
% 0.50/0.61 inference(scs_inference,[],[42,24,33])).
% 0.50/0.61 cnf(70,plain,
% 0.50/0.61 (P9(a4)),
% 0.50/0.61 inference(scs_inference,[],[48,31])).
% 0.50/0.61 cnf(71,plain,
% 0.50/0.61 (P7(a4)),
% 0.50/0.61 inference(scs_inference,[],[70,53])).
% 0.50/0.61 cnf(72,plain,
% 0.50/0.61 (~P7(a4)),
% 0.50/0.61 inference(scs_inference,[],[70,32])).
% 0.50/0.61 cnf(78,plain,
% 0.50/0.61 ($false),
% 0.50/0.61 inference(scs_inference,[],[71,72]),
% 0.50/0.61 ['proof']).
% 0.50/0.61 % SZS output end Proof
% 0.50/0.61 % Total time :0.030000s
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------