%------------------------------------------------------------------------------ % File : CSE---1.7 % Problem : KRS136+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 : n006.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 10:08:38 EDT 2024 % Result : Theorem 0.57s 0.61s % Output : CNFRefutation 0.57s % Verified : % SZS Type : - % Comments : %------------------------------------------------------------------------------ %----WARNING: Could not form TPTP format derivation %------------------------------------------------------------------------------ %----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT % 0.08/0.12 % Problem : KRS136+1 : TPTP v8.2.0. Released v3.1.0. % 0.08/0.12 % Command : java -jar /export/starexec/sandbox2/solver/bin/mcs_scs.jar %d %s % 0.13/0.33 % Computer : n006.cluster.edu % 0.13/0.33 % Model : x86_64 x86_64 % 0.13/0.33 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz % 0.13/0.33 % Memory : 8042.1875MB % 0.13/0.33 % OS : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64 % 0.13/0.33 % CPULimit : 300 % 0.13/0.33 % WCLimit : 300 % 0.13/0.33 % DateTime : Wed Jun 19 14:07:09 EDT 2024 % 0.13/0.34 % CPUTime : % 0.19/0.57 start to proof:theBenchmark % 0.19/0.60 %------------------------------------------- % 0.19/0.60 % File :CSE---1.7 % 0.19/0.60 % Problem :theBenchmark % 0.19/0.60 % Transform :cnf % 0.19/0.60 % Format :tptp:raw % 0.19/0.60 % Command :java -jar mcs_scs.jar %d %s % 0.19/0.60 % 0.19/0.60 % Result :Theorem 0.000000s % 0.19/0.60 % Output :CNFRefutation 0.000000s % 0.19/0.60 %------------------------------------------- % 0.19/0.60 %------------------------------------------------------------------------------ % 0.19/0.60 % File : KRS136+1 : TPTP v8.2.0. Released v3.1.0. % 0.19/0.60 % Domain : Knowledge Representation (Semantic Web) % 0.19/0.60 % Problem : Some set theory % 0.19/0.60 % Version : Especial. % 0.19/0.60 % English : The abstract syntax form of the conclusions is: % 0.19/0.60 % EquivalentClasses(restriction( first:p,minCardinality(1))) % 0.19/0.60 % ObjectProperty(first:p). This is trivially true given that % 0.19/0.60 % first:p is an individualvaluedPropertyID. % 0.19/0.60 % 0.19/0.61 % Refs : [Bec03] Bechhofer (2003), Email to G. Sutcliffe % 0.19/0.61 % : [TR+04] Tsarkov et al. (2004), Using Vampire to Reason with OW % 0.19/0.61 % Source : [Bec03] % 0.19/0.61 % Names : positive_I5.26-Manifest009 [Bec03] % 0.19/0.61 % 0.19/0.61 % Status : Theorem % 0.19/0.61 % Rating : 0.00 v5.3.0, 0.09 v5.2.0, 0.00 v3.1.0 % 0.19/0.61 % Syntax : Number of formulae : 3 ( 0 unt; 0 def) % 0.19/0.61 % Number of atoms : 8 ( 0 equ) % 0.19/0.61 % Maximal formula atoms : 4 ( 2 avg) % 0.19/0.61 % Number of connectives : 9 ( 4 ~; 0 |; 3 &) % 0.19/0.61 % ( 2 <=>; 0 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>) % 0.19/0.61 % Maximal formula depth : 5 ( 4 avg) % 0.19/0.61 % Maximal term depth : 1 ( 1 avg) % 0.19/0.61 % Number of predicates : 4 ( 4 usr; 0 prp; 1-1 aty) % 0.19/0.61 % Number of functors : 0 ( 0 usr; 0 con; --- aty) % 0.19/0.61 % Number of variables : 4 ( 4 !; 0 ?) % 0.19/0.61 % SPC : FOF_THM_EPR_NEQ % 0.19/0.61 % 0.19/0.61 % Comments : Sean Bechhofer says there are some errors in the encoding of % 0.19/0.61 % datatypes, so this problem may not be perfect. At least it's % 0.19/0.61 % still representative of the type of reasoning required for OWL. % 0.19/0.61 %------------------------------------------------------------------------------ % 0.19/0.61 %----Thing and Nothing % 0.19/0.61 fof(axiom_0,axiom, % 0.19/0.61 ! [X] : % 0.19/0.61 ( cowlThing(X) % 0.19/0.61 & ~ cowlNothing(X) ) ). % 0.19/0.61 % 0.19/0.61 %----String and Integer disjoint % 0.57/0.61 fof(axiom_1,axiom, % 0.57/0.61 ! [X] : % 0.57/0.61 ( xsd_string(X) % 0.57/0.61 <=> ~ xsd_integer(X) ) ). % 0.57/0.61 % 0.57/0.61 %----Thing and Nothing % 0.57/0.61 %----String and Integer disjoint % 0.57/0.61 fof(the_axiom,conjecture, % 0.57/0.61 ( ! [X] : % 0.57/0.61 ( cowlThing(X) % 0.57/0.61 & ~ cowlNothing(X) ) % 0.57/0.61 & ! [X] : % 0.57/0.61 ( xsd_string(X) % 0.57/0.61 <=> ~ xsd_integer(X) ) ) ). % 0.57/0.61 % 0.57/0.61 %------------------------------------------------------------------------------ % 0.57/0.61 %------------------------------------------- % 0.57/0.61 % Proof found % 0.57/0.61 % SZS status Theorem for theBenchmark % 0.57/0.61 % SZS output start Proof % 0.57/0.61 %ClaNum:5(EqnAxiom:0) % 0.57/0.61 %VarNum:5(SingletonVarNum:3) % 0.57/0.61 %MaxLitNum:3 % 0.57/0.61 %MaxfuncDepth:0 % 0.57/0.61 %SharedTerms:7 % 0.57/0.61 %goalClause: 3 4 % 0.57/0.61 [1]~P1(x11) % 0.57/0.61 [2]P3(x21)+P2(x21) % 0.57/0.61 [5]~P3(x51)+~P2(x51) % 0.57/0.61 [3]P1(a1)+P2(a2)+~P3(a2) % 0.57/0.61 [4]P1(a1)+P3(a2)+~P2(a2) % 0.57/0.61 %EqnAxiom % 0.57/0.61 % 0.57/0.61 %------------------------------------------- % 0.57/0.61 cnf(7,plain, % 0.57/0.61 (~P1(x71)), % 0.57/0.61 inference(rename_variables,[],[1])). % 0.57/0.61 cnf(11,plain, % 0.57/0.61 (~P3(a2)), % 0.57/0.61 inference(scs_inference,[],[1,7,3,4,5])). % 0.57/0.61 cnf(12,plain, % 0.57/0.61 (~P2(a2)), % 0.57/0.61 inference(scs_inference,[],[1,11,4])). % 0.57/0.61 cnf(13,plain, % 0.57/0.61 ($false), % 0.57/0.61 inference(scs_inference,[],[11,12,2]), % 0.57/0.61 ['proof']). % 0.57/0.61 % SZS output end Proof % 0.57/0.61 % Total time :0.000000s %------------------------------------------------------------------------------