%------------------------------------------------------------------------------ % File : CSE---1.7 % Problem : KRS094+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 10:08:28 EDT 2024 % Result : Unsatisfiable 0.54s 0.64s % Output : CNFRefutation 0.55s % Verified : % SZS Type : - % Comments : %------------------------------------------------------------------------------ %----WARNING: Could not form TPTP format derivation %------------------------------------------------------------------------------ %----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT % 0.11/0.11 % Problem : KRS094+1 : TPTP v8.2.0. Released v3.1.0. % 0.11/0.11 % Command : java -jar /export/starexec/sandbox/solver/bin/mcs_scs.jar %d %s % 0.11/0.32 % Computer : n027.cluster.edu % 0.11/0.32 % Model : x86_64 x86_64 % 0.11/0.32 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz % 0.11/0.32 % Memory : 8042.1875MB % 0.11/0.32 % OS : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64 % 0.11/0.32 % CPULimit : 300 % 0.11/0.32 % WCLimit : 300 % 0.11/0.32 % DateTime : Wed Jun 19 14:29:38 EDT 2024 % 0.11/0.33 % CPUTime : % 0.52/0.59 start to proof:theBenchmark % 0.54/0.63 %------------------------------------------- % 0.54/0.63 % File :CSE---1.7 % 0.54/0.63 % Problem :theBenchmark % 0.54/0.63 % Transform :cnf % 0.54/0.63 % Format :tptp:raw % 0.54/0.63 % Command :java -jar mcs_scs.jar %d %s % 0.54/0.63 % 0.54/0.63 % Result :Theorem 0.000000s % 0.54/0.63 % Output :CNFRefutation 0.000000s % 0.54/0.63 %------------------------------------------- % 0.54/0.63 %------------------------------------------------------------------------------ % 0.54/0.63 % File : KRS094+1 : TPTP v8.2.0. Released v3.1.0. % 0.54/0.63 % Domain : Knowledge Representation (Semantic Web) % 0.54/0.63 % Problem : DL Test: heinsohn1.4 % 0.54/0.63 % Version : Especial. % 0.54/0.63 % English : Tbox tests from [HK+94] % 0.54/0.63 % 0.54/0.63 % Refs : [HK+94] Heinsohn et al. (1994), An Empirical Analysis of Termi % 0.54/0.63 % : [Bec03] Bechhofer (2003), Email to G. Sutcliffe % 0.54/0.63 % : [TR+04] Tsarkov et al. (2004), Using Vampire to Reason with OW % 0.54/0.63 % Source : [Bec03] % 0.54/0.63 % Names : inconsistent_description-logic-Manifest104 [Bec03] % 0.54/0.63 % 0.54/0.63 % Status : Unsatisfiable % 0.54/0.63 % Rating : 0.00 v3.1.0 % 0.54/0.63 % Syntax : Number of formulae : 9 ( 1 unt; 0 def) % 0.54/0.63 % Number of atoms : 17 ( 0 equ) % 0.54/0.63 % Maximal formula atoms : 2 ( 1 avg) % 0.54/0.63 % Number of connectives : 12 ( 4 ~; 0 |; 1 &) % 0.54/0.63 % ( 2 <=>; 5 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>) % 0.54/0.63 % Maximal formula depth : 4 ( 3 avg) % 0.54/0.63 % Maximal term depth : 1 ( 1 avg) % 0.54/0.63 % Number of predicates : 11 ( 11 usr; 0 prp; 1-1 aty) % 0.54/0.63 % Number of functors : 1 ( 1 usr; 1 con; 0-0 aty) % 0.54/0.63 % Number of variables : 8 ( 8 !; 0 ?) % 0.54/0.63 % SPC : FOF_UNS_EPR_NEQ % 0.54/0.63 % 0.54/0.63 % Comments : Sean Bechhofer says there are some errors in the encoding of % 0.54/0.63 % datatypes, so this problem may not be perfect. At least it's % 0.54/0.63 % still representative of the type of reasoning required for OWL. % 0.54/0.63 % : Tests incoherency caused by disjoint concept % 0.54/0.63 %------------------------------------------------------------------------------ % 0.54/0.63 %----Thing and Nothing % 0.54/0.63 fof(axiom_0,axiom, % 0.54/0.63 ! [X] : % 0.54/0.63 ( cowlThing(X) % 0.54/0.63 & ~ cowlNothing(X) ) ). % 0.54/0.63 % 0.54/0.63 %----String and Integer disjoint % 0.54/0.63 fof(axiom_1,axiom, % 0.54/0.63 ! [X] : % 0.54/0.64 ( xsd_string(X) % 0.54/0.64 <=> ~ xsd_integer(X) ) ). % 0.54/0.64 % 0.54/0.64 %----Equality cUnsatisfiable % 0.54/0.64 fof(axiom_2,axiom, % 0.54/0.64 ! [X] : % 0.54/0.64 ( cUnsatisfiable(X) % 0.54/0.64 <=> cc1(X) ) ). % 0.54/0.64 % 0.54/0.64 %----Super cc % 0.54/0.64 fof(axiom_3,axiom, % 0.54/0.64 ! [X] : % 0.54/0.64 ( cc(X) % 0.54/0.64 => ~ cd(X) ) ). % 0.54/0.64 % 0.54/0.64 %----Super cc1 % 0.54/0.64 fof(axiom_4,axiom, % 0.54/0.64 ! [X] : % 0.54/0.64 ( cc1(X) % 0.54/0.64 => ~ cd1(X) ) ). % 0.54/0.64 % 0.54/0.64 %----Super cc1 % 0.54/0.64 fof(axiom_5,axiom, % 0.54/0.64 ! [X] : % 0.54/0.64 ( cc1(X) % 0.54/0.64 => cd1(X) ) ). % 0.54/0.64 % 0.54/0.64 %----Super ce3 % 0.54/0.64 fof(axiom_6,axiom, % 0.54/0.64 ! [X] : % 0.54/0.64 ( ce3(X) % 0.54/0.64 => cc(X) ) ). % 0.54/0.64 % 0.54/0.64 %----Super cf % 0.54/0.64 fof(axiom_7,axiom, % 0.54/0.64 ! [X] : % 0.54/0.64 ( cf(X) % 0.54/0.64 => cd(X) ) ). % 0.54/0.64 % 0.54/0.64 %----i2003_11_14_17_20_11330 % 0.54/0.64 fof(axiom_8,axiom, % 0.54/0.64 cUnsatisfiable(i2003_11_14_17_20_11330) ). % 0.54/0.64 % 0.54/0.64 %------------------------------------------------------------------------------ % 0.54/0.64 %------------------------------------------- % 0.54/0.64 % Proof found % 0.54/0.64 % SZS status Theorem for theBenchmark % 0.54/0.64 % SZS output start Proof % 0.54/0.64 %ClaNum:11(EqnAxiom:0) % 0.54/0.64 %VarNum:19(SingletonVarNum:10) % 0.54/0.64 %MaxLitNum:2 % 0.54/0.64 %MaxfuncDepth:0 % 0.54/0.64 %SharedTerms:2 % 0.54/0.64 [1]P1(a1) % 0.54/0.64 [2]~P2(x21) % 0.54/0.64 [3]P10(x31)+P9(x31) % 0.54/0.64 [4]~P3(x41)+P1(x41) % 0.54/0.64 [5]~P1(x51)+P3(x51) % 0.54/0.64 [6]~P5(x61)+P4(x61) % 0.54/0.64 [7]~P8(x71)+P6(x71) % 0.54/0.64 [8]~P3(x81)+P7(x81) % 0.54/0.64 [9]~P10(x91)+~P9(x91) % 0.54/0.64 [10]~P7(x101)+~P3(x101) % 0.54/0.64 [11]~P6(x111)+~P4(x111) % 0.54/0.64 %EqnAxiom % 0.54/0.64 % 0.54/0.64 %------------------------------------------- % 0.55/0.64 cnf(14,plain, % 0.55/0.64 (~P3(x141)), % 0.55/0.64 inference(scs_inference,[],[8,10])). % 0.55/0.64 cnf(15,plain, % 0.55/0.64 ($false), % 0.55/0.64 inference(scs_inference,[],[1,14,5]), % 0.55/0.64 ['proof']). % 0.55/0.64 % SZS output end Proof % 0.55/0.64 % Total time :0.000000s %------------------------------------------------------------------------------