%------------------------------------------------------------------------------ % File : CSE---1.7 % Problem : KRS091+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 : n032.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 10:08:28 EDT 2024 % Result : Unsatisfiable 0.52s 0.58s % Output : CNFRefutation 0.52s % Verified : % SZS Type : - % Comments : %------------------------------------------------------------------------------ %----WARNING: Could not form TPTP format derivation %------------------------------------------------------------------------------ %----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT % 0.03/0.10 % Problem : KRS091+1 : TPTP v8.2.0. Released v3.1.0. % 0.03/0.10 % Command : java -jar /export/starexec/sandbox/solver/bin/mcs_scs.jar %d %s % 0.08/0.29 % Computer : n032.cluster.edu % 0.08/0.29 % Model : x86_64 x86_64 % 0.08/0.29 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz % 0.08/0.29 % Memory : 8042.1875MB % 0.08/0.29 % OS : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64 % 0.08/0.29 % CPULimit : 300 % 0.08/0.29 % WCLimit : 300 % 0.08/0.29 % DateTime : Wed Jun 19 13:58:53 EDT 2024 % 0.08/0.29 % CPUTime : % 0.14/0.52 start to proof:theBenchmark % 0.50/0.57 %------------------------------------------- % 0.50/0.57 % File :CSE---1.7 % 0.50/0.57 % Problem :theBenchmark % 0.50/0.57 % Transform :cnf % 0.50/0.57 % Format :tptp:raw % 0.50/0.57 % Command :java -jar mcs_scs.jar %d %s % 0.50/0.57 % 0.50/0.57 % Result :Theorem 0.010000s % 0.50/0.57 % Output :CNFRefutation 0.010000s % 0.50/0.57 %------------------------------------------- % 0.52/0.57 %------------------------------------------------------------------------------ % 0.52/0.57 % File : KRS091+1 : TPTP v8.2.0. Released v3.1.0. % 0.52/0.57 % Domain : Knowledge Representation (Semantic Web) % 0.52/0.57 % Problem : DL Test: heinsohn1.1 % 0.52/0.57 % Version : Especial. % 0.52/0.57 % English : Tbox tests from [HK+94] % 0.52/0.57 % 0.52/0.57 % Refs : [HK+94] Heinsohn et al. (1994), An Empirical Analysis of Termi % 0.52/0.57 % : [Bec03] Bechhofer (2003), Email to G. Sutcliffe % 0.52/0.57 % : [TR+04] Tsarkov et al. (2004), Using Vampire to Reason with OW % 0.52/0.57 % Source : [Bec03] % 0.52/0.57 % Names : inconsistent_description-logic-Manifest101 [Bec03] % 0.52/0.57 % 0.52/0.57 % Status : Unsatisfiable % 0.52/0.57 % Rating : 0.00 v3.1.0 % 0.52/0.57 % Syntax : Number of formulae : 9 ( 1 unt; 0 def) % 0.52/0.57 % Number of atoms : 18 ( 0 equ) % 0.52/0.57 % Maximal formula atoms : 3 ( 2 avg) % 0.52/0.57 % Number of connectives : 13 ( 4 ~; 0 |; 2 &) % 0.52/0.57 % ( 2 <=>; 5 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>) % 0.52/0.58 % Maximal formula depth : 4 ( 3 avg) % 0.52/0.58 % Maximal term depth : 1 ( 1 avg) % 0.52/0.58 % Number of predicates : 11 ( 11 usr; 0 prp; 1-1 aty) % 0.52/0.58 % Number of functors : 1 ( 1 usr; 1 con; 0-0 aty) % 0.52/0.58 % Number of variables : 8 ( 8 !; 0 ?) % 0.52/0.58 % SPC : FOF_UNS_EPR_NEQ % 0.52/0.58 % 0.52/0.58 % Comments : Sean Bechhofer says there are some errors in the encoding of % 0.52/0.58 % datatypes, so this problem may not be perfect. At least it's % 0.52/0.58 % still representative of the type of reasoning required for OWL. % 0.52/0.58 % : Tests incoherency caused by disjoint concept % 0.52/0.58 %------------------------------------------------------------------------------ % 0.52/0.58 %----Thing and Nothing % 0.52/0.58 fof(axiom_0,axiom, % 0.52/0.58 ! [X] : % 0.52/0.58 ( cowlThing(X) % 0.52/0.58 & ~ cowlNothing(X) ) ). % 0.52/0.58 % 0.52/0.58 %----String and Integer disjoint % 0.52/0.58 fof(axiom_1,axiom, % 0.52/0.58 ! [X] : % 0.52/0.58 ( xsd_string(X) % 0.52/0.58 <=> ~ xsd_integer(X) ) ). % 0.52/0.58 % 0.52/0.58 %----Equality cUnsatisfiable % 0.52/0.58 fof(axiom_2,axiom, % 0.52/0.58 ! [X] : % 0.52/0.58 ( cUnsatisfiable(X) % 0.52/0.58 <=> ( cd(X) % 0.52/0.58 & cc(X) ) ) ). % 0.52/0.58 % 0.52/0.58 %----Super cc % 0.52/0.58 fof(axiom_3,axiom, % 0.52/0.58 ! [X] : % 0.52/0.58 ( cc(X) % 0.52/0.58 => ~ cd(X) ) ). % 0.52/0.58 % 0.52/0.58 %----Super cc1 % 0.52/0.58 fof(axiom_4,axiom, % 0.52/0.58 ! [X] : % 0.52/0.58 ( cc1(X) % 0.52/0.58 => ~ cd1(X) ) ). % 0.52/0.58 % 0.52/0.58 %----Super cc1 % 0.52/0.58 fof(axiom_5,axiom, % 0.52/0.58 ! [X] : % 0.52/0.58 ( cc1(X) % 0.52/0.58 => cd1(X) ) ). % 0.52/0.58 % 0.52/0.58 %----Super ce3 % 0.52/0.58 fof(axiom_6,axiom, % 0.52/0.58 ! [X] : % 0.52/0.58 ( ce3(X) % 0.52/0.58 => cc(X) ) ). % 0.52/0.58 % 0.52/0.58 %----Super cf % 0.52/0.58 fof(axiom_7,axiom, % 0.52/0.58 ! [X] : % 0.52/0.58 ( cf(X) % 0.52/0.58 => cd(X) ) ). % 0.52/0.58 % 0.52/0.58 %----i2003_11_14_17_20_00819 % 0.52/0.58 fof(axiom_8,axiom, % 0.52/0.58 cUnsatisfiable(i2003_11_14_17_20_00819) ). % 0.52/0.58 % 0.52/0.58 %------------------------------------------------------------------------------ % 0.52/0.58 %------------------------------------------- % 0.52/0.58 % Proof found % 0.52/0.58 % SZS status Theorem for theBenchmark % 0.52/0.58 % SZS output start Proof % 0.52/0.58 %ClaNum:12(EqnAxiom:0) % 0.52/0.58 %VarNum:19(SingletonVarNum:10) % 0.52/0.58 %MaxLitNum:2 % 0.52/0.58 %MaxfuncDepth:0 % 0.52/0.58 %SharedTerms:2 % 0.52/0.58 [1]P1(a1) % 0.52/0.58 [2]~P2(x21) % 0.52/0.58 [3]P10(x31)+P9(x31) % 0.52/0.58 [4]~P1(x41)+P3(x41) % 0.52/0.58 [5]~P6(x51)+P3(x51) % 0.52/0.58 [6]~P1(x61)+P4(x61) % 0.52/0.58 [7]~P7(x71)+P4(x71) % 0.52/0.58 [8]~P5(x81)+P8(x81) % 0.52/0.58 [9]~P10(x91)+~P9(x91) % 0.52/0.58 [10]~P4(x101)+~P3(x101) % 0.52/0.58 [11]~P8(x111)+~P5(x111) % 0.52/0.58 %EqnAxiom % 0.52/0.58 % 0.52/0.58 %------------------------------------------- % 0.52/0.58 cnf(14,plain, % 0.52/0.58 (~P4(a1)), % 0.52/0.58 inference(scs_inference,[],[1,4,10])). % 0.52/0.58 cnf(15,plain, % 0.52/0.58 ($false), % 0.52/0.59 inference(scs_inference,[],[1,14,6]), % 0.52/0.59 ['proof']). % 0.52/0.59 % SZS output end Proof % 0.52/0.59 % Total time :0.010000s %------------------------------------------------------------------------------