%------------------------------------------------------------------------------ % File : CSE---1.7 % Problem : KRS126+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 : n018.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 0.56s 0.62s % Output : CNFRefutation 0.56s % Verified : % SZS Type : - % Comments : %------------------------------------------------------------------------------ %----WARNING: Could not form TPTP format derivation %------------------------------------------------------------------------------ %----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT % 0.00/0.12 % Problem : KRS126+1 : TPTP v8.2.0. Released v3.1.0. % 0.00/0.12 % Command : java -jar /export/starexec/sandbox/solver/bin/mcs_scs.jar %d %s % 0.12/0.33 % Computer : n018.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 14:30:23 EDT 2024 % 0.12/0.33 % CPUTime : % 0.55/0.57 start to proof:theBenchmark % 0.56/0.61 %------------------------------------------- % 0.56/0.61 % File :CSE---1.7 % 0.56/0.61 % Problem :theBenchmark % 0.56/0.61 % Transform :cnf % 0.56/0.61 % Format :tptp:raw % 0.56/0.61 % Command :java -jar mcs_scs.jar %d %s % 0.56/0.61 % 0.56/0.61 % Result :Theorem 0.000000s % 0.56/0.61 % Output :CNFRefutation 0.000000s % 0.56/0.61 %------------------------------------------- % 0.56/0.61 %------------------------------------------------------------------------------ % 0.56/0.61 % File : KRS126+1 : TPTP v8.2.0. Released v3.1.0. % 0.56/0.61 % Domain : Knowledge Representation (Semantic Web) % 0.56/0.61 % Problem : DL Test: heinsohn1.4 % 0.56/0.61 % Version : Especial. % 0.56/0.61 % English : Tbox tests from [HK+94] % 0.56/0.61 % 0.56/0.61 % Refs : [HK+94] Heinsohn et al. (1994), An Empirical Analysis of Termi % 0.56/0.61 % : [Bec03] Bechhofer (2003), Email to G. Sutcliffe % 0.56/0.61 % : [TR+04] Tsarkov et al. (2004), Using Vampire to Reason with OW % 0.56/0.61 % Source : [Bec03] % 0.56/0.61 % Names : inconsistent_description-logic-Manifest644 [Bec03] % 0.56/0.61 % 0.56/0.61 % Status : Unsatisfiable % 0.56/0.61 % 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 % 0.56/0.61 % Syntax : Number of formulae : 12 ( 1 unt; 0 def) % 0.56/0.61 % Number of atoms : 23 ( 0 equ) % 0.56/0.61 % Maximal formula atoms : 2 ( 1 avg) % 0.56/0.61 % Number of connectives : 15 ( 4 ~; 0 |; 1 &) % 0.56/0.61 % ( 5 <=>; 5 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>) % 0.56/0.61 % Maximal formula depth : 5 ( 4 avg) % 0.56/0.61 % Maximal term depth : 1 ( 1 avg) % 0.56/0.61 % Number of predicates : 14 ( 14 usr; 0 prp; 1-2 aty) % 0.56/0.61 % Number of functors : 1 ( 1 usr; 1 con; 0-0 aty) % 0.56/0.61 % Number of variables : 15 ( 11 !; 4 ?) % 0.56/0.61 % SPC : FOF_UNS_RFO_NEQ % 0.56/0.61 % 0.56/0.61 % Comments : Sean Bechhofer says there are some errors in the encoding of % 0.56/0.61 % datatypes, so this problem may not be perfect. At least it's % 0.56/0.61 % still representative of the type of reasoning required for OWL. % 0.56/0.61 % : Tests incoherency caused by disjoint concept % 0.56/0.61 %------------------------------------------------------------------------------ % 0.56/0.61 %----Thing and Nothing % 0.56/0.61 fof(axiom_0,axiom, % 0.56/0.61 ! [X] : % 0.56/0.61 ( cowlThing(X) % 0.56/0.61 & ~ cowlNothing(X) ) ). % 0.56/0.61 % 0.56/0.61 %----String and Integer disjoint % 0.56/0.61 fof(axiom_1,axiom, % 0.56/0.61 ! [X] : % 0.56/0.61 ( xsd_string(X) % 0.56/0.61 <=> ~ xsd_integer(X) ) ). % 0.56/0.61 % 0.56/0.61 %----Super cUnsatisfiable % 0.56/0.61 fof(axiom_2,axiom, % 0.56/0.61 ! [X] : % 0.56/0.61 ( cUnsatisfiable(X) % 0.56/0.61 => cd1xcomp(X) ) ). % 0.56/0.61 % 0.56/0.61 %----Super cUnsatisfiable % 0.56/0.61 fof(axiom_3,axiom, % 0.56/0.61 ! [X] : % 0.56/0.61 ( cUnsatisfiable(X) % 0.56/0.61 => cd1(X) ) ). % 0.56/0.61 % 0.56/0.61 %----Super cc % 0.56/0.61 fof(axiom_4,axiom, % 0.56/0.61 ! [X] : % 0.56/0.61 ( cc(X) % 0.56/0.61 => cdxcomp(X) ) ). % 0.56/0.61 % 0.56/0.61 %----Equality cd % 0.56/0.61 fof(axiom_5,axiom, % 0.56/0.61 ! [X] : % 0.56/0.61 ( cd(X) % 0.56/0.61 <=> ~ ? [Y] : ra_Px1(X,Y) ) ). % 0.56/0.61 % 0.56/0.61 %----Equality cdxcomp % 0.56/0.61 fof(axiom_6,axiom, % 0.56/0.61 ! [X] : % 0.56/0.61 ( cdxcomp(X) % 0.56/0.61 <=> ? [Y0] : ra_Px1(X,Y0) ) ). % 0.56/0.61 % 0.56/0.61 %----Equality cd1 % 0.56/0.61 fof(axiom_7,axiom, % 0.56/0.61 ! [X] : % 0.56/0.61 ( cd1(X) % 0.56/0.61 <=> ? [Y0] : ra_Px2(X,Y0) ) ). % 0.56/0.61 % 0.56/0.61 %----Equality cd1xcomp % 0.56/0.61 fof(axiom_8,axiom, % 0.56/0.61 ! [X] : % 0.56/0.61 ( cd1xcomp(X) % 0.56/0.61 <=> ~ ? [Y] : ra_Px2(X,Y) ) ). % 0.56/0.61 % 0.56/0.61 %----Super ce3 % 0.56/0.61 fof(axiom_9,axiom, % 0.56/0.62 ! [X] : % 0.56/0.62 ( ce3(X) % 0.56/0.62 => cc(X) ) ). % 0.56/0.62 % 0.56/0.62 %----Super cf % 0.56/0.62 fof(axiom_10,axiom, % 0.56/0.62 ! [X] : % 0.56/0.62 ( cf(X) % 0.56/0.62 => cd(X) ) ). % 0.56/0.62 % 0.56/0.62 %----i2003_11_14_17_22_23554 % 0.56/0.62 fof(axiom_11,axiom, % 0.56/0.62 cUnsatisfiable(i2003_11_14_17_22_23554) ). % 0.56/0.62 % 0.56/0.62 %------------------------------------------------------------------------------ % 0.56/0.62 %------------------------------------------- % 0.56/0.62 % Proof found % 0.56/0.62 % SZS status Theorem for theBenchmark % 0.56/0.62 % SZS output start Proof % 0.56/0.62 %ClaNum:17(EqnAxiom:0) % 0.56/0.62 %VarNum:39(SingletonVarNum:20) % 0.56/0.62 %MaxLitNum:2 % 0.56/0.62 %MaxfuncDepth:1 % 0.56/0.62 %SharedTerms:2 % 0.56/0.62 [1]P1(a1) % 0.56/0.62 [2]~P2(x21) % 0.56/0.62 [3]P11(x31)+P10(x31) % 0.56/0.62 [4]~P1(x41)+P3(x41) % 0.56/0.62 [5]~P1(x51)+P4(x51) % 0.56/0.62 [6]~P7(x61)+P5(x61) % 0.56/0.62 [7]~P5(x71)+P8(x71) % 0.56/0.62 [8]~P9(x81)+P6(x81) % 0.56/0.62 [9]~P11(x91)+~P10(x91) % 0.56/0.62 [10]P3(x101)+P12(x101,f2(x101)) % 0.56/0.62 [11]P6(x111)+P13(x111,f3(x111)) % 0.56/0.62 [14]~P8(x141)+P13(x141,f4(x141)) % 0.56/0.62 [15]~P4(x151)+P12(x151,f5(x151)) % 0.56/0.62 [12]P4(x121)+~P12(x121,x122) % 0.56/0.62 [13]P8(x131)+~P13(x131,x132) % 0.56/0.62 [16]~P3(x161)+~P12(x161,x162) % 0.56/0.62 [17]~P6(x171)+~P13(x171,x172) % 0.56/0.62 %EqnAxiom % 0.56/0.62 % 0.56/0.62 %------------------------------------------- % 0.56/0.62 cnf(19,plain, % 0.56/0.62 (~P12(a1,x191)), % 0.56/0.62 inference(scs_inference,[],[1,4,16])). % 0.56/0.62 cnf(21,plain, % 0.56/0.62 (~P12(a1,x211)), % 0.56/0.62 inference(rename_variables,[],[19])). % 0.56/0.62 cnf(26,plain, % 0.56/0.62 ($false), % 0.56/0.62 inference(scs_inference,[],[1,19,21,10,15,5]), % 0.56/0.62 ['proof']). % 0.56/0.62 % SZS output end Proof % 0.56/0.62 % Total time :0.000000s %------------------------------------------------------------------------------