%------------------------------------------------------------------------------ % File : CSE---1.7 % Problem : KRS065+1 : TPTP v8.2.0. Released v3.1.0. % Transfm : none % Format : tptp:raw % Command : java -jar /export/starexec/sandbox/solver/bin/mcs_scs.jar %d %s % Computer : n027.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 : Mon Jun 24 10:08:22 EDT 2024 % Result : Unsatisfiable 0.53s 0.62s % Output : CNFRefutation 0.53s % Verified : % SZS Type : - % Comments : %------------------------------------------------------------------------------ %----WARNING: Could not form TPTP format derivation %------------------------------------------------------------------------------ %----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT % 0.11/0.12 % Problem : KRS065+1 : TPTP v8.2.0. Released v3.1.0. % 0.11/0.12 % Command : java -jar /export/starexec/sandbox/solver/bin/mcs_scs.jar %d %s % 0.12/0.33 % Computer : n027.cluster.edu % 0.12/0.33 % Model : x86_64 x86_64 % 0.12/0.33 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz % 0.12/0.33 % Memory : 8042.1875MB % 0.12/0.33 % OS : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64 % 0.12/0.33 % CPULimit : 300 % 0.12/0.33 % WCLimit : 300 % 0.12/0.34 % DateTime : Wed Jun 19 12:13:39 EDT 2024 % 0.12/0.34 % CPUTime : % 0.53/0.58 start to proof:theBenchmark % 0.53/0.62 %------------------------------------------- % 0.53/0.62 % File :CSE---1.7 % 0.53/0.62 % Problem :theBenchmark % 0.53/0.62 % Transform :cnf % 0.53/0.62 % Format :tptp:raw % 0.53/0.62 % Command :java -jar mcs_scs.jar %d %s % 0.53/0.62 % 0.53/0.62 % Result :Theorem 0.000000s % 0.53/0.62 % Output :CNFRefutation 0.000000s % 0.53/0.62 %------------------------------------------- % 0.53/0.62 %------------------------------------------------------------------------------ % 0.53/0.62 % File : KRS065+1 : TPTP v8.2.0. Released v3.1.0. % 0.53/0.62 % Domain : Knowledge Representation (Semantic Web) % 0.53/0.62 % Problem : The syntax for using the same restriction twice in OWL Lite % 0.53/0.62 % Version : Especial. % 0.53/0.62 % English : This test shows the syntax for using the same restriction twice % 0.53/0.62 % in OWL Lite. % 0.53/0.62 % 0.53/0.62 % Refs : [Bec03] Bechhofer (2003), Email to G. Sutcliffe % 0.53/0.62 % : [TR+04] Tsarkov et al. (2004), Using Vampire to Reason with OW % 0.53/0.62 % Source : [Bec03] % 0.53/0.62 % Names : inconsistent_Restriction-Manifest001 [Bec03] % 0.53/0.62 % 0.53/0.62 % Status : Unsatisfiable % 0.53/0.62 % Rating : 0.00 v3.1.0 % 0.53/0.62 % Syntax : Number of formulae : 4 ( 0 unt; 0 def) % 0.53/0.62 % Number of atoms : 8 ( 0 equ) % 0.53/0.62 % Maximal formula atoms : 2 ( 2 avg) % 0.53/0.62 % Number of connectives : 6 ( 2 ~; 0 |; 3 &) % 0.53/0.62 % ( 1 <=>; 0 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>) % 0.53/0.62 % Maximal formula depth : 4 ( 4 avg) % 0.53/0.62 % Maximal term depth : 1 ( 1 avg) % 0.53/0.62 % Number of predicates : 5 ( 5 usr; 0 prp; 1-2 aty) % 0.53/0.62 % Number of functors : 2 ( 2 usr; 2 con; 0-0 aty) % 0.53/0.62 % Number of variables : 4 ( 2 !; 2 ?) % 0.53/0.62 % SPC : FOF_UNS_EPR_NEQ % 0.53/0.62 % 0.53/0.62 % Comments : Sean Bechhofer says there are some errors in the encoding of % 0.53/0.62 % datatypes, so this problem may not be perfect. At least it's % 0.53/0.62 % still representative of the type of reasoning required for OWL. % 0.53/0.62 %------------------------------------------------------------------------------ % 0.53/0.62 %----Thing and Nothing % 0.53/0.62 fof(axiom_0,axiom, % 0.53/0.62 ! [X] : % 0.53/0.62 ( cowlThing(X) % 0.53/0.62 & ~ cowlNothing(X) ) ). % 0.53/0.62 % 0.53/0.62 %----String and Integer disjoint % 0.53/0.62 fof(axiom_1,axiom, % 0.53/0.62 ! [X] : % 0.53/0.62 ( xsd_string(X) % 0.53/0.62 <=> ~ xsd_integer(X) ) ). % 0.53/0.62 % 0.53/0.62 %----ia % 0.53/0.62 fof(axiom_2,axiom, % 0.53/0.62 ? [X] : % 0.53/0.62 ( rop(ia,X) % 0.53/0.62 & cowlNothing(X) ) ). % 0.53/0.62 % 0.53/0.62 %----ib % 0.53/0.62 fof(axiom_3,axiom, % 0.53/0.62 ? [X] : % 0.53/0.62 ( rop(ib,X) % 0.53/0.62 & cowlNothing(X) ) ). % 0.53/0.62 % 0.53/0.62 %------------------------------------------------------------------------------ % 0.53/0.62 %------------------------------------------- % 0.53/0.62 % Proof found % 0.53/0.62 % SZS status Theorem for theBenchmark % 0.53/0.62 % SZS output start Proof % 0.53/0.62 %ClaNum:7(EqnAxiom:0) % 0.53/0.62 %VarNum:5(SingletonVarNum:3) % 0.53/0.62 %MaxLitNum:2 % 0.53/0.62 %MaxfuncDepth:0 % 0.53/0.62 %SharedTerms:8 % 0.53/0.62 [1]P1(a1) % 0.53/0.62 [2]P1(a2) % 0.53/0.62 [3]P2(a3,a1) % 0.53/0.62 [4]P2(a4,a2) % 0.53/0.62 [5]~P1(x51) % 0.53/0.62 [6]P4(x61)+P3(x61) % 0.53/0.62 [7]~P4(x71)+~P3(x71) % 0.53/0.62 %EqnAxiom % 0.53/0.63 % 0.53/0.63 %------------------------------------------- % 0.53/0.63 cnf(8,plain, % 0.53/0.63 ($false), % 0.53/0.63 inference(scs_inference,[],[1,5]), % 0.53/0.63 ['proof']). % 0.53/0.63 % SZS output end Proof % 0.53/0.63 % Total time :0.000000s %------------------------------------------------------------------------------