TSTP Solution File: KRS163+1 by CSE---1.6
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : CSE---1.6
% Problem : KRS163+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 : n015.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 05:39:30 EDT 2023
% Result : Theorem 0.20s 0.64s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.20s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : -
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----WARNING: Could not form TPTP format derivation
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.12 % Problem : KRS163+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 : n015.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 02:23:09 EDT 2023
% 0.13/0.35 % CPUTime :
% 0.20/0.59 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 : KRS163+1 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v3.1.0.
% 0.20/0.63 % Domain : Knowledge Representation (Semantic Web)
% 0.20/0.63 % Problem : Disjoint classes have different members
% 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 : positive_disjointWith-Manifest001 [Bec03]
% 0.20/0.63
% 0.20/0.63 % Status : Theorem
% 0.20/0.63 % Rating : 0.00 v5.3.0, 0.09 v5.2.0, 0.00 v4.0.1, 0.04 v3.7.0, 0.00 v3.1.0
% 0.20/0.63 % Syntax : Number of formulae : 14 ( 4 unt; 0 def)
% 0.20/0.63 % Number of atoms : 35 ( 7 equ)
% 0.20/0.63 % Maximal formula atoms : 7 ( 2 avg)
% 0.20/0.63 % Number of connectives : 27 ( 6 ~; 0 |; 13 &)
% 0.20/0.63 % ( 2 <=>; 6 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% 0.20/0.63 % Maximal formula depth : 6 ( 4 avg)
% 0.20/0.63 % Maximal term depth : 1 ( 1 avg)
% 0.20/0.63 % Number of predicates : 7 ( 6 usr; 0 prp; 1-2 aty)
% 0.20/0.63 % Number of functors : 2 ( 2 usr; 2 con; 0-0 aty)
% 0.20/0.63 % Number of variables : 17 ( 17 !; 0 ?)
% 0.20/0.63 % SPC : FOF_THM_EPR_SEQ
% 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 fof(cA_substitution_1,axiom,
% 0.20/0.63 ! [A,B] :
% 0.20/0.63 ( ( A = B
% 0.20/0.63 & cA(A) )
% 0.20/0.63 => cA(B) ) ).
% 0.20/0.63
% 0.20/0.63 fof(cB_substitution_1,axiom,
% 0.20/0.63 ! [A,B] :
% 0.20/0.63 ( ( A = B
% 0.20/0.63 & cB(A) )
% 0.20/0.63 => cB(B) ) ).
% 0.20/0.63
% 0.20/0.63 fof(cowlNothing_substitution_1,axiom,
% 0.20/0.63 ! [A,B] :
% 0.20/0.63 ( ( A = B
% 0.20/0.63 & cowlNothing(A) )
% 0.20/0.63 => cowlNothing(B) ) ).
% 0.20/0.63
% 0.20/0.63 fof(cowlThing_substitution_1,axiom,
% 0.20/0.63 ! [A,B] :
% 0.20/0.63 ( ( A = B
% 0.20/0.63 & cowlThing(A) )
% 0.20/0.63 => cowlThing(B) ) ).
% 0.20/0.63
% 0.20/0.63 fof(xsd_integer_substitution_1,axiom,
% 0.20/0.63 ! [A,B] :
% 0.20/0.63 ( ( A = B
% 0.20/0.63 & xsd_integer(A) )
% 0.20/0.63 => xsd_integer(B) ) ).
% 0.20/0.63
% 0.20/0.63 fof(xsd_string_substitution_1,axiom,
% 0.20/0.63 ! [A,B] :
% 0.20/0.63 ( ( A = B
% 0.20/0.63 & xsd_string(A) )
% 0.20/0.63 => xsd_string(B) ) ).
% 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] :
% 0.20/0.64 ( xsd_string(X)
% 0.20/0.64 <=> ~ xsd_integer(X) ) ).
% 0.20/0.64
% 0.20/0.64 %----ia
% 0.20/0.64 fof(axiom_2,axiom,
% 0.20/0.64 cA(ia) ).
% 0.20/0.64
% 0.20/0.64 %----ia
% 0.20/0.64 fof(axiom_3,axiom,
% 0.20/0.64 cowlThing(ia) ).
% 0.20/0.64
% 0.20/0.64 %----ib
% 0.20/0.64 fof(axiom_4,axiom,
% 0.20/0.64 cB(ib) ).
% 0.20/0.64
% 0.20/0.64 %----ib
% 0.20/0.64 fof(axiom_5,axiom,
% 0.20/0.64 cowlThing(ib) ).
% 0.20/0.64
% 0.20/0.64 fof(axiom_6,axiom,
% 0.20/0.64 ! [X] :
% 0.20/0.64 ~ ( cB(X)
% 0.20/0.64 & cA(X) ) ).
% 0.20/0.64
% 0.20/0.64 %----Thing and Nothing
% 0.20/0.64 %----String and Integer disjoint
% 0.20/0.64 %----ia
% 0.20/0.64 %----ib
% 0.20/0.64 fof(the_axiom,conjecture,
% 0.20/0.64 ( ! [X] :
% 0.20/0.64 ( cowlThing(X)
% 0.20/0.64 & ~ cowlNothing(X) )
% 0.20/0.64 & ! [X] :
% 0.20/0.64 ( xsd_string(X)
% 0.20/0.64 <=> ~ xsd_integer(X) )
% 0.20/0.64 & cowlThing(ia)
% 0.20/0.64 & cowlThing(ib)
% 0.20/0.64 & ia != ib ) ).
% 0.20/0.64
% 0.20/0.64 %------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% 0.20/0.64 %-------------------------------------------
% 0.20/0.64 % Proof found
% 0.20/0.64 % SZS status Theorem for theBenchmark
% 0.20/0.64 % SZS output start Proof
% 0.20/0.64 %ClaNum:16(EqnAxiom:8)
% 0.20/0.64 %VarNum:7(SingletonVarNum:4)
% 0.20/0.64 %MaxLitNum:4
% 0.20/0.64 %MaxfuncDepth:0
% 0.20/0.64 %SharedTerms:12
% 0.20/0.64 %goalClause: 13 14
% 0.20/0.64 [9]P1(a1)
% 0.20/0.64 [10]P2(a4)
% 0.20/0.64 [11]~P3(x111)
% 0.20/0.64 [12]P5(x121)+P4(x121)
% 0.20/0.64 [15]~P2(x151)+~P1(x151)
% 0.20/0.64 [16]~P5(x161)+~P4(x161)
% 0.20/0.64 [13]E(a1,a4)+P3(a2)+P4(a3)+~P5(a3)
% 0.20/0.64 [14]E(a1,a4)+P3(a2)+P5(a3)+~P4(a3)
% 0.20/0.64 %EqnAxiom
% 0.20/0.64 [1]E(x11,x11)
% 0.20/0.64 [2]E(x22,x21)+~E(x21,x22)
% 0.20/0.64 [3]E(x31,x33)+~E(x31,x32)+~E(x32,x33)
% 0.20/0.64 [4]~P1(x41)+P1(x42)+~E(x41,x42)
% 0.20/0.64 [5]~P2(x51)+P2(x52)+~E(x51,x52)
% 0.20/0.64 [6]~P3(x61)+P3(x62)+~E(x61,x62)
% 0.20/0.64 [7]~P4(x71)+P4(x72)+~E(x71,x72)
% 0.20/0.64 [8]~P5(x81)+P5(x82)+~E(x81,x82)
% 0.20/0.64
% 0.20/0.64 %-------------------------------------------
% 0.20/0.64 cnf(18,plain,
% 0.20/0.64 (~E(a4,a1)),
% 0.20/0.64 inference(scs_inference,[],[9,10,15,5])).
% 0.20/0.64 cnf(21,plain,
% 0.20/0.64 (E(a1,a4)+~P5(a3)+P4(a3)),
% 0.20/0.64 inference(scs_inference,[],[11,13])).
% 0.20/0.64 cnf(22,plain,
% 0.20/0.64 (E(a1,a4)+~P4(a3)+P5(a3)),
% 0.20/0.64 inference(scs_inference,[],[11,14])).
% 0.20/0.64 cnf(23,plain,
% 0.20/0.64 (~E(a1,a4)),
% 0.20/0.64 inference(scs_inference,[],[18,2])).
% 0.20/0.64 cnf(27,plain,
% 0.20/0.64 (P5(a3)+~P4(a3)),
% 0.20/0.64 inference(scs_inference,[],[10,18,2,15,3,22])).
% 0.20/0.64 cnf(29,plain,
% 0.20/0.64 (~P5(a3)+P4(a3)),
% 0.20/0.64 inference(scs_inference,[],[23,21])).
% 0.20/0.64 cnf(31,plain,
% 0.20/0.64 (~P4(a3)),
% 0.20/0.64 inference(scs_inference,[],[27,16])).
% 0.20/0.64 cnf(32,plain,
% 0.20/0.64 (~P5(a3)),
% 0.20/0.64 inference(scs_inference,[],[31,29])).
% 0.20/0.64 cnf(33,plain,
% 0.20/0.64 (P5(a3)),
% 0.20/0.64 inference(scs_inference,[],[31,12])).
% 0.20/0.64 cnf(41,plain,
% 0.20/0.64 ($false),
% 0.20/0.64 inference(scs_inference,[],[32,33]),
% 0.20/0.64 ['proof']).
% 0.20/0.64 % SZS output end Proof
% 0.20/0.64 % Total time :0.000000s
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------