TSTP Solution File: KRS130+1 by CSE---1.6
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : CSE---1.6
% Problem : KRS130+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 : n013.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 0.21s 0.61s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.21s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : -
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----WARNING: Could not form TPTP format derivation
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.12 % Problem : KRS130+1 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v3.1.0.
% 0.00/0.13 % Command : java -jar /export/starexec/sandbox2/solver/bin/mcs_scs.jar %s %d
% 0.18/0.34 % Computer : n013.cluster.edu
% 0.18/0.34 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.18/0.34 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.18/0.34 % Memory : 8042.1875MB
% 0.18/0.34 % OS : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64
% 0.18/0.34 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.18/0.34 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.18/0.34 % DateTime : Mon Aug 28 01:53:32 EDT 2023
% 0.18/0.34 % CPUTime :
% 0.21/0.55 start to proof:theBenchmark
% 0.21/0.60 %-------------------------------------------
% 0.21/0.60 % File :CSE---1.6
% 0.21/0.60 % Problem :theBenchmark
% 0.21/0.60 % Transform :cnf
% 0.21/0.60 % Format :tptp:raw
% 0.21/0.60 % Command :java -jar mcs_scs.jar %d %s
% 0.21/0.60
% 0.21/0.60 % Result :Theorem 0.000000s
% 0.21/0.60 % Output :CNFRefutation 0.000000s
% 0.21/0.60 %-------------------------------------------
% 0.21/0.61 %------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% 0.21/0.61 % File : KRS130+1 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v3.1.0.
% 0.21/0.61 % Domain : Knowledge Representation (Semantic Web)
% 0.21/0.61 % Problem : owl:Nothing can be defined using OWL Lite restrictions
% 0.21/0.61 % Version : Especial.
% 0.21/0.61 % English : A class like owl:Nothing can be defined using OWL Lite
% 0.21/0.61 % restrictions.
% 0.21/0.61
% 0.21/0.61 % Refs : [Bec03] Bechhofer (2003), Email to G. Sutcliffe
% 0.21/0.61 % : [TR+04] Tsarkov et al. (2004), Using Vampire to Reason with OW
% 0.21/0.61 % Source : [Bec03]
% 0.21/0.61 % Names : positive_I5.2-Manifest002 [Bec03]
% 0.21/0.61
% 0.21/0.61 % Status : Theorem
% 0.21/0.61 % Rating : 0.00 v6.1.0, 0.04 v6.0.0, 0.25 v5.5.0, 0.12 v5.4.0, 0.04 v5.3.0, 0.13 v5.2.0, 0.00 v3.2.0, 0.11 v3.1.0
% 0.21/0.61 % Syntax : Number of formulae : 5 ( 0 unt; 0 def)
% 0.21/0.61 % Number of atoms : 14 ( 0 equ)
% 0.21/0.61 % Maximal formula atoms : 6 ( 2 avg)
% 0.21/0.61 % Number of connectives : 14 ( 5 ~; 0 |; 4 &)
% 0.21/0.61 % ( 3 <=>; 2 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% 0.21/0.61 % Maximal formula depth : 6 ( 5 avg)
% 0.21/0.61 % Maximal term depth : 1 ( 1 avg)
% 0.21/0.61 % Number of predicates : 6 ( 6 usr; 0 prp; 1-2 aty)
% 0.21/0.61 % Number of functors : 0 ( 0 usr; 0 con; --- aty)
% 0.21/0.61 % Number of variables : 9 ( 7 !; 2 ?)
% 0.21/0.61 % SPC : FOF_THM_RFO_NEQ
% 0.21/0.61
% 0.21/0.61 % Comments : Sean Bechhofer says there are some errors in the encoding of
% 0.21/0.61 % datatypes, so this problem may not be perfect. At least it's
% 0.21/0.61 % still representative of the type of reasoning required for OWL.
% 0.21/0.61 %------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% 0.21/0.61 %----Thing and Nothing
% 0.21/0.61 fof(axiom_0,axiom,
% 0.21/0.61 ! [X] :
% 0.21/0.61 ( cowlThing(X)
% 0.21/0.61 & ~ cowlNothing(X) ) ).
% 0.21/0.61
% 0.21/0.61 %----String and Integer disjoint
% 0.21/0.61 fof(axiom_1,axiom,
% 0.21/0.61 ! [X] :
% 0.21/0.61 ( xsd_string(X)
% 0.21/0.61 <=> ~ xsd_integer(X) ) ).
% 0.21/0.61
% 0.21/0.61 %----Super cNothing
% 0.21/0.61 fof(axiom_2,axiom,
% 0.21/0.61 ! [X] :
% 0.21/0.61 ( cNothing(X)
% 0.21/0.61 => ~ ? [Y] : rp(X,Y) ) ).
% 0.21/0.61
% 0.21/0.61 %----Super cNothing
% 0.21/0.61 fof(axiom_3,axiom,
% 0.21/0.61 ! [X] :
% 0.21/0.61 ( cNothing(X)
% 0.21/0.61 => ? [Y0] : rp(X,Y0) ) ).
% 0.21/0.61
% 0.21/0.61 %----Thing and Nothing
% 0.21/0.61 %----String and Integer disjoint
% 0.21/0.61 %----Equality cNothing
% 0.21/0.61 fof(the_axiom,conjecture,
% 0.21/0.61 ( ! [X] :
% 0.21/0.61 ( cowlThing(X)
% 0.21/0.61 & ~ cowlNothing(X) )
% 0.21/0.61 & ! [X] :
% 0.21/0.61 ( xsd_string(X)
% 0.21/0.61 <=> ~ xsd_integer(X) )
% 0.21/0.61 & ! [X] :
% 0.21/0.61 ( cNothing(X)
% 0.21/0.61 <=> cowlNothing(X) ) ) ).
% 0.21/0.61
% 0.21/0.61 %------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% 0.21/0.61 %-------------------------------------------
% 0.21/0.61 % Proof found
% 0.21/0.61 % SZS status Theorem for theBenchmark
% 0.21/0.61 % SZS output start Proof
% 0.21/0.61 %ClaNum:9(EqnAxiom:0)
% 0.21/0.61 %VarNum:11(SingletonVarNum:6)
% 0.21/0.61 %MaxLitNum:5
% 0.21/0.61 %MaxfuncDepth:1
% 0.21/0.61 %SharedTerms:12
% 0.21/0.61 %goalClause: 4 5
% 0.21/0.61 [1]~P1(x11)
% 0.21/0.61 [2]P4(x21)+P3(x21)
% 0.21/0.61 [3]~P4(x31)+~P3(x31)
% 0.21/0.61 [8]~P2(x81)+P5(x81,f2(x81))
% 0.21/0.61 [9]~P2(x91)+~P5(x91,x92)
% 0.21/0.61 [4]P1(a1)+P1(a3)+P3(a4)+P2(a3)+~P4(a4)
% 0.21/0.61 [5]P1(a1)+P1(a3)+P4(a4)+P2(a3)+~P3(a4)
% 0.21/0.61 %EqnAxiom
% 0.21/0.61
% 0.21/0.61 %-------------------------------------------
% 0.21/0.61 cnf(10,plain,
% 0.21/0.61 (P3(a4)+P2(a3)+~P4(a4)+P1(a1)),
% 0.21/0.61 inference(scs_inference,[],[1,4])).
% 0.21/0.61 cnf(11,plain,
% 0.21/0.61 (P4(a4)+P2(a3)+~P3(a4)+P1(a1)),
% 0.21/0.61 inference(scs_inference,[],[1,5])).
% 0.21/0.61 cnf(13,plain,
% 0.21/0.61 (~P4(a4)+P2(a3)+P3(a4)),
% 0.21/0.61 inference(scs_inference,[],[1,10])).
% 0.21/0.61 cnf(14,plain,
% 0.21/0.61 (~P3(a4)+P2(a3)+P4(a4)),
% 0.21/0.61 inference(scs_inference,[],[1,11])).
% 0.21/0.61 cnf(15,plain,
% 0.21/0.61 (~P5(a3,x151)+~P4(a4)+P3(a4)),
% 0.21/0.61 inference(scs_inference,[],[9,13])).
% 0.21/0.61 cnf(17,plain,
% 0.21/0.61 (~P2(a3)+~P4(a4)+P3(a4)),
% 0.21/0.61 inference(scs_inference,[],[15,8])).
% 0.21/0.61 cnf(18,plain,
% 0.21/0.61 (~P4(a4)+~P2(a3)),
% 0.21/0.61 inference(scs_inference,[],[17,3])).
% 0.21/0.61 cnf(19,plain,
% 0.21/0.61 (~P4(a4)+P3(a4)),
% 0.21/0.61 inference(scs_inference,[],[18,13])).
% 0.21/0.61 cnf(20,plain,
% 0.21/0.61 (~P4(a4)),
% 0.21/0.61 inference(scs_inference,[],[19,3])).
% 0.21/0.61 cnf(21,plain,
% 0.21/0.61 (P2(a3)+~P3(a4)),
% 0.21/0.61 inference(scs_inference,[],[20,14])).
% 0.21/0.61 cnf(28,plain,
% 0.21/0.61 ($false),
% 0.21/0.61 inference(scs_inference,[],[20,2,21,9,8]),
% 0.21/0.61 ['proof']).
% 0.21/0.61 % SZS output end Proof
% 0.21/0.61 % Total time :0.000000s
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------