%------------------------------------------------------------------------------ % File : CSE---1.7 % Problem : KRS067+1 : TPTP v8.2.0. Released v3.1.0. % Transfm : none % Format : tptp:raw % Command : java -jar /export/starexec/sandbox2/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 0.20s 0.58s % Output : CNFRefutation 0.20s % Verified : % SZS Type : - % Comments : %------------------------------------------------------------------------------ %----WARNING: Could not form TPTP format derivation %------------------------------------------------------------------------------ %----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT % 0.07/0.12 % Problem : KRS067+1 : TPTP v8.2.0. Released v3.1.0. % 0.07/0.12 % Command : java -jar /export/starexec/sandbox2/solver/bin/mcs_scs.jar %d %s % 0.12/0.34 % Computer : n027.cluster.edu % 0.12/0.34 % Model : x86_64 x86_64 % 0.12/0.34 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz % 0.12/0.34 % Memory : 8042.1875MB % 0.12/0.34 % OS : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64 % 0.12/0.34 % CPULimit : 300 % 0.12/0.34 % WCLimit : 300 % 0.12/0.34 % DateTime : Wed Jun 19 14:27:24 EDT 2024 % 0.12/0.34 % CPUTime : % 0.20/0.54 start to proof:theBenchmark % 0.20/0.57 %------------------------------------------- % 0.20/0.57 % File :CSE---1.7 % 0.20/0.57 % Problem :theBenchmark % 0.20/0.57 % Transform :cnf % 0.20/0.57 % Format :tptp:raw % 0.20/0.57 % Command :java -jar mcs_scs.jar %d %s % 0.20/0.57 % 0.20/0.57 % Result :Theorem 0.000000s % 0.20/0.57 % Output :CNFRefutation 0.000000s % 0.20/0.57 %------------------------------------------- % 0.20/0.58 %------------------------------------------------------------------------------ % 0.20/0.58 % File : KRS067+1 : TPTP v8.2.0. Released v3.1.0. % 0.20/0.58 % Domain : Knowledge Representation (Semantic Web) % 0.20/0.58 % Problem : DL Test: fact1.1 % 0.20/0.58 % Version : Especial. % 0.20/0.58 % English : If a, b and c are disjoint, then: % 0.20/0.58 % (a and b) or (b and c) or (c and a) % 0.20/0.58 % is unsatisfiable. % 0.20/0.58 % 0.20/0.58 % Refs : [Bec03] Bechhofer (2003), Email to G. Sutcliffe % 0.20/0.58 % : [TR+04] Tsarkov et al. (2004), Using Vampire to Reason with OW % 0.20/0.58 % Source : [Bec03] % 0.20/0.58 % Names : inconsistent_description-logic-Manifest001 [Bec03] % 0.20/0.58 % 0.20/0.58 % Status : Unsatisfiable % 0.20/0.58 % Rating : 0.00 v3.1.0 % 0.20/0.58 % Syntax : Number of formulae : 6 ( 1 unt; 0 def) % 0.20/0.58 % Number of atoms : 17 ( 0 equ) % 0.20/0.58 % Maximal formula atoms : 7 ( 2 avg) % 0.20/0.58 % Number of connectives : 15 ( 4 ~; 3 |; 4 &) % 0.20/0.58 % ( 2 <=>; 2 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>) % 0.20/0.58 % Maximal formula depth : 6 ( 4 avg) % 0.20/0.58 % Maximal term depth : 1 ( 1 avg) % 0.20/0.58 % Number of predicates : 8 ( 8 usr; 0 prp; 1-1 aty) % 0.20/0.58 % Number of functors : 1 ( 1 usr; 1 con; 0-0 aty) % 0.20/0.58 % Number of variables : 5 ( 5 !; 0 ?) % 0.20/0.58 % SPC : FOF_UNS_EPR_NEQ % 0.20/0.58 % 0.20/0.58 % Comments : Sean Bechhofer says there are some errors in the encoding of % 0.20/0.58 % datatypes, so this problem may not be perfect. At least it's % 0.20/0.58 % still representative of the type of reasoning required for OWL. % 0.20/0.58 %------------------------------------------------------------------------------ % 0.20/0.58 %----Thing and Nothing % 0.20/0.58 fof(axiom_0,axiom, % 0.20/0.58 ! [X] : % 0.20/0.58 ( cowlThing(X) % 0.20/0.58 & ~ cowlNothing(X) ) ). % 0.20/0.58 % 0.20/0.58 %----String and Integer disjoint % 0.20/0.58 fof(axiom_1,axiom, % 0.20/0.58 ! [X] : % 0.20/0.58 ( xsd_string(X) % 0.20/0.58 <=> ~ xsd_integer(X) ) ). % 0.20/0.58 % 0.20/0.58 %----Equality cUnsatisfiable % 0.20/0.58 fof(axiom_2,axiom, % 0.20/0.58 ! [X] : % 0.20/0.58 ( cUnsatisfiable(X) % 0.20/0.58 <=> ( ( cc(X) % 0.20/0.58 & cb(X) ) % 0.20/0.58 | ( cb(X) % 0.20/0.58 & ca(X) ) % 0.20/0.58 | ( cc(X) % 0.20/0.58 & ca(X) ) ) ) ). % 0.20/0.58 % 0.20/0.58 %----Super ca % 0.20/0.58 fof(axiom_3,axiom, % 0.20/0.58 ! [X] : % 0.20/0.58 ( ca(X) % 0.20/0.58 => ~ ( cc(X) % 0.20/0.58 | cb(X) ) ) ). % 0.20/0.58 % 0.20/0.58 %----Super cb % 0.20/0.58 fof(axiom_4,axiom, % 0.20/0.58 ! [X] : % 0.20/0.58 ( cb(X) % 0.20/0.58 => ~ cc(X) ) ). % 0.20/0.58 % 0.20/0.58 %----i2003_11_14_17_18_1956 % 0.20/0.58 fof(axiom_5,axiom, % 0.20/0.58 cUnsatisfiable(i2003_11_14_17_18_1956) ). % 0.20/0.58 % 0.20/0.58 %------------------------------------------------------------------------------ % 0.20/0.58 %------------------------------------------- % 0.20/0.58 % Proof found % 0.20/0.58 % SZS status Theorem for theBenchmark % 0.20/0.58 % SZS output start Proof % 0.20/0.59 %ClaNum:18(EqnAxiom:0) % 0.20/0.59 %VarNum:20(SingletonVarNum:9) % 0.20/0.59 %MaxLitNum:3 % 0.20/0.59 %MaxfuncDepth:0 % 0.20/0.59 %SharedTerms:2 % 0.20/0.59 [1]P1(a1) % 0.20/0.59 [2]~P2(x21) % 0.20/0.59 [3]P7(x31)+P6(x31) % 0.20/0.59 [4]~P7(x41)+~P6(x41) % 0.20/0.59 [5]~P4(x51)+~P3(x51) % 0.20/0.59 [6]~P5(x61)+~P3(x61) % 0.20/0.59 [7]~P5(x71)+~P4(x71) % 0.20/0.59 [9]P4(x91)+~P1(x91)+P3(x91) % 0.20/0.59 [11]P5(x111)+~P1(x111)+P3(x111) % 0.20/0.59 [13]P5(x131)+~P1(x131)+P4(x131) % 0.20/0.59 %EqnAxiom % 0.20/0.59 % 0.20/0.59 %------------------------------------------- % 0.20/0.59 cnf(25,plain, % 0.20/0.59 (P4(a1)), % 0.20/0.59 inference(scs_inference,[],[1,9,5,6,13])). % 0.20/0.59 cnf(30,plain, % 0.20/0.59 ($false), % 0.20/0.59 inference(scs_inference,[],[1,25,7,11,5]), % 0.20/0.59 ['proof']). % 0.20/0.59 % SZS output end Proof % 0.20/0.59 % Total time :0.000000s %------------------------------------------------------------------------------