%------------------------------------------------------------------------------ % File : CSE---1.7 % Problem : KRS125+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 : n020.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 10:08:35 EDT 2024 % Result : Unsatisfiable 0.50s 0.64s % Output : CNFRefutation 0.50s % Verified : % SZS Type : - % Comments : %------------------------------------------------------------------------------ %----WARNING: Could not form TPTP format derivation %------------------------------------------------------------------------------ %----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT % 0.07/0.12 % Problem : KRS125+1 : TPTP v8.2.0. Released v3.1.0. % 0.07/0.12 % Command : java -jar /export/starexec/sandbox/solver/bin/mcs_scs.jar %d %s % 0.12/0.33 % Computer : n020.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 % 0.12/0.33 % DateTime : Wed Jun 19 14:12:39 EDT 2024 % 0.12/0.34 % CPUTime : % 0.50/0.58 start to proof:theBenchmark % 0.50/0.63 %------------------------------------------- % 0.50/0.63 % File :CSE---1.7 % 0.50/0.63 % Problem :theBenchmark % 0.50/0.63 % Transform :cnf % 0.50/0.63 % Format :tptp:raw % 0.50/0.63 % Command :java -jar mcs_scs.jar %d %s % 0.50/0.63 % 0.50/0.63 % Result :Theorem 0.000000s % 0.50/0.63 % Output :CNFRefutation 0.000000s % 0.50/0.63 %------------------------------------------- % 0.50/0.63 %------------------------------------------------------------------------------ % 0.50/0.63 % File : KRS125+1 : TPTP v8.2.0. Released v3.1.0. % 0.50/0.63 % Domain : Knowledge Representation (Semantic Web) % 0.50/0.63 % Problem : DL Test: heinsohn1.3 % 0.50/0.63 % Version : Especial. % 0.50/0.63 % English : Tbox tests from [HK+94] % 0.50/0.63 % 0.50/0.63 % Refs : [HK+94] Heinsohn et al. (1994), An Empirical Analysis of Termi % 0.50/0.63 % : [Bec03] Bechhofer (2003), Email to G. Sutcliffe % 0.50/0.63 % : [TR+04] Tsarkov et al. (2004), Using Vampire to Reason with OW % 0.50/0.63 % Source : [Bec03] % 0.50/0.63 % Names : inconsistent_description-logic-Manifest643 [Bec03] % 0.50/0.63 % 0.50/0.63 % Status : Unsatisfiable % 0.50/0.63 % Rating : 0.00 v6.4.0, 0.25 v6.3.0, 0.00 v6.2.0, 0.25 v6.1.0, 0.00 v3.1.0 % 0.50/0.63 % Syntax : Number of formulae : 13 ( 1 unt; 0 def) % 0.50/0.63 % Number of atoms : 26 ( 0 equ) % 0.50/0.63 % Maximal formula atoms : 3 ( 2 avg) % 0.50/0.63 % Number of connectives : 17 ( 4 ~; 0 |; 2 &) % 0.50/0.63 % ( 6 <=>; 5 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>) % 0.50/0.63 % Maximal formula depth : 5 ( 4 avg) % 0.50/0.63 % Maximal term depth : 1 ( 1 avg) % 0.50/0.63 % Number of predicates : 15 ( 15 usr; 0 prp; 1-2 aty) % 0.50/0.63 % Number of functors : 1 ( 1 usr; 1 con; 0-0 aty) % 0.50/0.63 % Number of variables : 16 ( 12 !; 4 ?) % 0.50/0.63 % SPC : FOF_UNS_RFO_NEQ % 0.50/0.63 % 0.50/0.63 % Comments : Sean Bechhofer says there are some errors in the encoding of % 0.50/0.63 % datatypes, so this problem may not be perfect. At least it's % 0.50/0.63 % still representative of the type of reasoning required for OWL. % 0.50/0.63 % : Tests incoherency caused by disjoint concept % 0.50/0.63 %------------------------------------------------------------------------------ % 0.50/0.63 %----Thing and Nothing % 0.50/0.63 fof(axiom_0,axiom, % 0.50/0.63 ! [X] : % 0.50/0.63 ( cowlThing(X) % 0.50/0.63 & ~ cowlNothing(X) ) ). % 0.50/0.63 % 0.50/0.63 %----String and Integer disjoint % 0.50/0.63 fof(axiom_1,axiom, % 0.50/0.63 ! [X] : % 0.50/0.63 ( xsd_string(X) % 0.50/0.63 <=> ~ xsd_integer(X) ) ). % 0.50/0.63 % 0.50/0.63 %----Equality cUnsatisfiable % 0.50/0.63 fof(axiom_2,axiom, % 0.50/0.63 ! [X] : % 0.50/0.63 ( cUnsatisfiable(X) % 0.50/0.63 <=> ( ce3(X) % 0.50/0.63 & cf(X) ) ) ). % 0.50/0.63 % 0.50/0.63 %----Super cc % 0.50/0.63 fof(axiom_3,axiom, % 0.50/0.63 ! [X] : % 0.50/0.63 ( cc(X) % 0.50/0.63 => cdxcomp(X) ) ). % 0.50/0.63 % 0.50/0.63 %----Super cc1 % 0.50/0.63 fof(axiom_4,axiom, % 0.50/0.63 ! [X] : % 0.50/0.63 ( cc1(X) % 0.50/0.63 => cd1xcomp(X) ) ). % 0.50/0.63 % 0.50/0.63 %----Super cc1 % 0.50/0.63 fof(axiom_5,axiom, % 0.50/0.63 ! [X] : % 0.50/0.63 ( cc1(X) % 0.50/0.63 => cd1(X) ) ). % 0.50/0.63 % 0.50/0.63 %----Equality cd % 0.50/0.63 fof(axiom_6,axiom, % 0.50/0.63 ! [X] : % 0.50/0.63 ( cd(X) % 0.50/0.63 <=> ~ ? [Y] : ra_Px1(X,Y) ) ). % 0.50/0.63 % 0.50/0.63 %----Equality cdxcomp % 0.50/0.64 fof(axiom_7,axiom, % 0.50/0.64 ! [X] : % 0.50/0.64 ( cdxcomp(X) % 0.50/0.64 <=> ? [Y0] : ra_Px1(X,Y0) ) ). % 0.50/0.64 % 0.50/0.64 %----Equality cd1 % 0.50/0.64 fof(axiom_8,axiom, % 0.50/0.64 ! [X] : % 0.50/0.64 ( cd1(X) % 0.50/0.64 <=> ? [Y0] : ra_Px2(X,Y0) ) ). % 0.50/0.64 % 0.50/0.64 %----Equality cd1xcomp % 0.50/0.64 fof(axiom_9,axiom, % 0.50/0.64 ! [X] : % 0.50/0.64 ( cd1xcomp(X) % 0.50/0.64 <=> ~ ? [Y] : ra_Px2(X,Y) ) ). % 0.50/0.64 % 0.50/0.64 %----Super ce3 % 0.50/0.64 fof(axiom_10,axiom, % 0.50/0.64 ! [X] : % 0.50/0.64 ( ce3(X) % 0.50/0.64 => cc(X) ) ). % 0.50/0.64 % 0.50/0.64 %----Super cf % 0.50/0.64 fof(axiom_11,axiom, % 0.50/0.64 ! [X] : % 0.50/0.64 ( cf(X) % 0.50/0.64 => cd(X) ) ). % 0.50/0.64 % 0.50/0.64 %----i2003_11_14_17_22_17947 % 0.50/0.64 fof(axiom_12,axiom, % 0.50/0.64 cUnsatisfiable(i2003_11_14_17_22_17947) ). % 0.50/0.64 % 0.50/0.64 %------------------------------------------------------------------------------ % 0.50/0.64 %------------------------------------------- % 0.50/0.64 % Proof found % 0.50/0.64 % SZS status Theorem for theBenchmark % 0.50/0.64 % SZS output start Proof % 0.50/0.64 %ClaNum:20(EqnAxiom:0) % 0.50/0.64 %VarNum:46(SingletonVarNum:23) % 0.50/0.64 %MaxLitNum:3 % 0.50/0.64 %MaxfuncDepth:1 % 0.50/0.64 %SharedTerms:2 % 0.50/0.64 [1]P1(a1) % 0.50/0.64 [2]~P2(x21) % 0.50/0.64 [3]P12(x31)+P11(x31) % 0.50/0.64 [4]~P1(x41)+P3(x41) % 0.50/0.64 [5]~P1(x51)+P10(x51) % 0.50/0.64 [6]~P3(x61)+P4(x61) % 0.50/0.64 [7]~P4(x71)+P5(x71) % 0.50/0.64 [8]~P7(x81)+P6(x81) % 0.50/0.64 [9]~P7(x91)+P8(x91) % 0.50/0.64 [10]~P10(x101)+P9(x101) % 0.50/0.64 [11]~P12(x111)+~P11(x111) % 0.50/0.64 [13]P6(x131)+P13(x131,f2(x131)) % 0.50/0.64 [14]P9(x141)+P14(x141,f3(x141)) % 0.50/0.64 [17]~P5(x171)+P14(x171,f4(x171)) % 0.50/0.64 [18]~P8(x181)+P13(x181,f5(x181)) % 0.50/0.64 [15]P5(x151)+~P14(x151,x152) % 0.50/0.64 [16]P8(x161)+~P13(x161,x162) % 0.50/0.64 [19]~P6(x191)+~P13(x191,x192) % 0.50/0.64 [20]~P9(x201)+~P14(x201,x202) % 0.50/0.64 [12]~P3(x121)+~P10(x121)+P1(x121) % 0.50/0.64 %EqnAxiom % 0.50/0.64 % 0.50/0.64 %------------------------------------------- % 0.50/0.64 cnf(22,plain, % 0.50/0.64 (P4(a1)), % 0.50/0.64 inference(scs_inference,[],[1,4,6])). % 0.50/0.64 cnf(23,plain, % 0.50/0.64 (P9(a1)), % 0.50/0.64 inference(scs_inference,[],[1,5,10])). % 0.50/0.64 cnf(28,plain, % 0.50/0.64 ($false), % 0.50/0.64 inference(scs_inference,[],[22,23,20,17,7]), % 0.50/0.64 ['proof']). % 0.50/0.64 % SZS output end Proof % 0.50/0.64 % Total time :0.000000s %------------------------------------------------------------------------------