%------------------------------------------------------------------------------ % File : CSE---1.7 % Problem : KRS130+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 : n029.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 10:08:36 EDT 2024 % Result : Theorem 0.57s 0.65s % Output : CNFRefutation 0.57s % Verified : % SZS Type : - % Comments : %------------------------------------------------------------------------------ %----WARNING: Could not form TPTP format derivation %------------------------------------------------------------------------------ %----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT % 0.07/0.13 % Problem : KRS130+1 : TPTP v8.2.0. Released v3.1.0. % 0.07/0.13 % Command : java -jar /export/starexec/sandbox2/solver/bin/mcs_scs.jar %d %s % 0.13/0.34 % Computer : n029.cluster.edu % 0.13/0.34 % Model : x86_64 x86_64 % 0.13/0.34 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz % 0.13/0.34 % Memory : 8042.1875MB % 0.13/0.34 % OS : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64 % 0.13/0.34 % CPULimit : 300 % 0.13/0.34 % WCLimit : 300 % 0.13/0.34 % DateTime : Wed Jun 19 13:56:09 EDT 2024 % 0.13/0.34 % CPUTime : % 0.20/0.57 start to proof:theBenchmark % 0.57/0.64 %------------------------------------------- % 0.57/0.64 % File :CSE---1.7 % 0.57/0.64 % Problem :theBenchmark % 0.57/0.64 % Transform :cnf % 0.57/0.64 % Format :tptp:raw % 0.57/0.64 % Command :java -jar mcs_scs.jar %d %s % 0.57/0.64 % 0.57/0.64 % Result :Theorem 0.010000s % 0.57/0.64 % Output :CNFRefutation 0.010000s % 0.57/0.64 %------------------------------------------- % 0.57/0.65 %------------------------------------------------------------------------------ % 0.57/0.65 % File : KRS130+1 : TPTP v8.2.0. Released v3.1.0. % 0.57/0.65 % Domain : Knowledge Representation (Semantic Web) % 0.57/0.65 % Problem : owl:Nothing can be defined using OWL Lite restrictions % 0.57/0.65 % Version : Especial. % 0.57/0.65 % English : A class like owl:Nothing can be defined using OWL Lite % 0.57/0.65 % restrictions. % 0.57/0.65 % 0.57/0.65 % Refs : [Bec03] Bechhofer (2003), Email to G. Sutcliffe % 0.57/0.65 % : [TR+04] Tsarkov et al. (2004), Using Vampire to Reason with OW % 0.57/0.65 % Source : [Bec03] % 0.57/0.65 % Names : positive_I5.2-Manifest002 [Bec03] % 0.57/0.65 % 0.57/0.65 % Status : Theorem % 0.57/0.65 % Rating : 0.00 v6.1.0, 0.04 v6.0.0, 0.25 v5.5.0, 0.12 v5.4.0, 0.04 v5.3.0, 0.13 v5.2.0, 0.00 v3.2.0, 0.11 v3.1.0 % 0.57/0.65 % Syntax : Number of formulae : 5 ( 0 unt; 0 def) % 0.57/0.65 % Number of atoms : 14 ( 0 equ) % 0.57/0.65 % Maximal formula atoms : 6 ( 2 avg) % 0.57/0.65 % Number of connectives : 14 ( 5 ~; 0 |; 4 &) % 0.57/0.65 % ( 3 <=>; 2 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>) % 0.57/0.65 % Maximal formula depth : 6 ( 5 avg) % 0.57/0.65 % Maximal term depth : 1 ( 1 avg) % 0.57/0.65 % Number of predicates : 6 ( 6 usr; 0 prp; 1-2 aty) % 0.57/0.65 % Number of functors : 0 ( 0 usr; 0 con; --- aty) % 0.57/0.65 % Number of variables : 9 ( 7 !; 2 ?) % 0.57/0.65 % SPC : FOF_THM_RFO_NEQ % 0.57/0.65 % 0.57/0.65 % Comments : Sean Bechhofer says there are some errors in the encoding of % 0.57/0.65 % datatypes, so this problem may not be perfect. At least it's % 0.57/0.65 % still representative of the type of reasoning required for OWL. % 0.57/0.65 %------------------------------------------------------------------------------ % 0.57/0.65 %----Thing and Nothing % 0.57/0.65 fof(axiom_0,axiom, % 0.57/0.65 ! [X] : % 0.57/0.65 ( cowlThing(X) % 0.57/0.65 & ~ cowlNothing(X) ) ). % 0.57/0.65 % 0.57/0.65 %----String and Integer disjoint % 0.57/0.65 fof(axiom_1,axiom, % 0.57/0.65 ! [X] : % 0.57/0.65 ( xsd_string(X) % 0.57/0.65 <=> ~ xsd_integer(X) ) ). % 0.57/0.65 % 0.57/0.65 %----Super cNothing % 0.57/0.65 fof(axiom_2,axiom, % 0.57/0.65 ! [X] : % 0.57/0.65 ( cNothing(X) % 0.57/0.65 => ~ ? [Y] : rp(X,Y) ) ). % 0.57/0.65 % 0.57/0.65 %----Super cNothing % 0.57/0.65 fof(axiom_3,axiom, % 0.57/0.65 ! [X] : % 0.57/0.65 ( cNothing(X) % 0.57/0.65 => ? [Y0] : rp(X,Y0) ) ). % 0.57/0.65 % 0.57/0.65 %----Thing and Nothing % 0.57/0.65 %----String and Integer disjoint % 0.57/0.65 %----Equality cNothing % 0.57/0.65 fof(the_axiom,conjecture, % 0.57/0.65 ( ! [X] : % 0.57/0.65 ( cowlThing(X) % 0.57/0.65 & ~ cowlNothing(X) ) % 0.57/0.65 & ! [X] : % 0.57/0.65 ( xsd_string(X) % 0.57/0.65 <=> ~ xsd_integer(X) ) % 0.57/0.65 & ! [X] : % 0.57/0.65 ( cNothing(X) % 0.57/0.65 <=> cowlNothing(X) ) ) ). % 0.57/0.65 % 0.57/0.65 %------------------------------------------------------------------------------ % 0.57/0.65 %------------------------------------------- % 0.57/0.65 % Proof found % 0.57/0.65 % SZS status Theorem for theBenchmark % 0.57/0.65 % SZS output start Proof % 0.57/0.65 %ClaNum:9(EqnAxiom:0) % 0.57/0.65 %VarNum:11(SingletonVarNum:6) % 0.57/0.65 %MaxLitNum:5 % 0.57/0.65 %MaxfuncDepth:1 % 0.57/0.65 %SharedTerms:12 % 0.57/0.65 %goalClause: 4 5 % 0.57/0.65 [1]~P1(x11) % 0.57/0.65 [2]P4(x21)+P3(x21) % 0.57/0.65 [3]~P4(x31)+~P3(x31) % 0.57/0.65 [8]~P2(x81)+P5(x81,f2(x81)) % 0.57/0.65 [9]~P2(x91)+~P5(x91,x92) % 0.57/0.65 [4]P1(a1)+P1(a3)+P3(a4)+P2(a3)+~P4(a4) % 0.57/0.65 [5]P1(a1)+P1(a3)+P4(a4)+P2(a3)+~P3(a4) % 0.57/0.65 %EqnAxiom % 0.57/0.65 % 0.57/0.65 %------------------------------------------- % 0.57/0.65 cnf(10,plain, % 0.57/0.65 (~P1(x101)), % 0.57/0.65 inference(rename_variables,[],[1])). % 0.57/0.65 cnf(12,plain, % 0.57/0.65 (P1(a3)+~P3(a4)+P2(a3)+P4(a4)), % 0.57/0.65 inference(scs_inference,[],[1,10,5])). % 0.57/0.65 cnf(13,plain, % 0.57/0.65 (P1(a3)+P3(a4)+P2(a3)+~P4(a4)), % 0.57/0.65 inference(scs_inference,[],[1,4])). % 0.57/0.65 cnf(17,plain, % 0.57/0.65 (~P3(a4)+P2(a3)+P4(a4)), % 0.57/0.65 inference(scs_inference,[],[1,12])). % 0.57/0.65 cnf(19,plain, % 0.57/0.65 (P2(a3)+~P4(a4)+P3(a4)), % 0.57/0.65 inference(scs_inference,[],[1,13])). % 0.57/0.65 cnf(21,plain, % 0.57/0.65 (~P5(a3,x211)+~P3(a4)+P4(a4)), % 0.57/0.65 inference(scs_inference,[],[9,17])). % 0.57/0.65 cnf(23,plain, % 0.57/0.65 (~P2(a3)+~P3(a4)+P4(a4)), % 0.57/0.65 inference(scs_inference,[],[21,8])). % 0.57/0.65 cnf(24,plain, % 0.57/0.65 (~P3(a4)+P4(a4)), % 0.57/0.65 inference(scs_inference,[],[23,17])). % 0.57/0.65 cnf(25,plain, % 0.57/0.65 (P4(a4)), % 0.57/0.65 inference(scs_inference,[],[24,2])). % 0.57/0.65 cnf(26,plain, % 0.57/0.65 (P2(a3)+P3(a4)), % 0.57/0.65 inference(scs_inference,[],[25,19])). % 0.57/0.65 cnf(28,plain, % 0.57/0.65 (~P5(a3,x281)+P3(a4)), % 0.57/0.65 inference(scs_inference,[],[26,9])). % 0.57/0.65 cnf(29,plain, % 0.57/0.65 (~P2(a3)+P3(a4)), % 0.57/0.65 inference(scs_inference,[],[28,8])). % 0.57/0.65 cnf(30,plain, % 0.57/0.65 (P3(a4)), % 0.57/0.65 inference(scs_inference,[],[29,26])). % 0.57/0.65 cnf(31,plain, % 0.57/0.65 ($false), % 0.57/0.65 inference(scs_inference,[],[25,30,3]), % 0.57/0.65 ['proof']). % 0.57/0.65 % SZS output end Proof % 0.57/0.65 % Total time :0.010000s %------------------------------------------------------------------------------