%------------------------------------------------------------------------------ % File : CSE---1.7 % Problem : KRS137+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 10:08:38 EDT 2024 % Result : Theorem 0.20s 0.54s % Output : CNFRefutation 0.20s % Verified : % SZS Type : - % Comments : %------------------------------------------------------------------------------ %----WARNING: Could not form TPTP format derivation %------------------------------------------------------------------------------ %----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT % 0.04/0.12 % Problem : KRS137+1 : TPTP v8.2.0. Released v3.1.0. % 0.04/0.12 % 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 14:01:39 EDT 2024 % 0.12/0.33 % CPUTime : % 0.20/0.49 start to proof:theBenchmark % 0.20/0.54 %------------------------------------------- % 0.20/0.54 % File :CSE---1.7 % 0.20/0.54 % Problem :theBenchmark % 0.20/0.54 % Transform :cnf % 0.20/0.54 % Format :tptp:raw % 0.20/0.54 % Command :java -jar mcs_scs.jar %d %s % 0.20/0.54 % 0.20/0.54 % Result :Theorem 0.010000s % 0.20/0.54 % Output :CNFRefutation 0.010000s % 0.20/0.54 %------------------------------------------- % 0.20/0.54 %------------------------------------------------------------------------------ % 0.20/0.54 % File : KRS137+1 : TPTP v8.2.0. Released v3.1.0. % 0.20/0.54 % Domain : Knowledge Representation (Semantic Web) % 0.20/0.54 % Problem : A variation of equivalentClass-001 % 0.20/0.54 % Version : Especial. % 0.20/0.54 % English : This is a variation of equivalentClass-001, showing the use of % 0.20/0.54 % owl:Ontology triples in the premises and conclusions. % 0.20/0.54 % 0.20/0.54 % Refs : [Bec03] Bechhofer (2003), Email to G. Sutcliffe % 0.20/0.54 % : [TR+04] Tsarkov et al. (2004), Using Vampire to Reason with OW % 0.20/0.54 % Source : [Bec03] % 0.20/0.54 % Names : positive_Ontology-Manifest001 [Bec03] % 0.20/0.54 % 0.20/0.54 % Status : Theorem % 0.20/0.54 % Rating : 0.00 v5.3.0, 0.09 v5.2.0, 0.00 v3.1.0 % 0.20/0.54 % Syntax : Number of formulae : 8 ( 4 unt; 0 def) % 0.20/0.54 % Number of atoms : 18 ( 0 equ) % 0.20/0.54 % Maximal formula atoms : 8 ( 2 avg) % 0.20/0.54 % Number of connectives : 14 ( 4 ~; 0 |; 7 &) % 0.20/0.54 % ( 3 <=>; 0 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>) % 0.20/0.54 % Maximal formula depth : 6 ( 3 avg) % 0.20/0.54 % Maximal term depth : 1 ( 1 avg) % 0.20/0.54 % Number of predicates : 6 ( 6 usr; 0 prp; 1-1 aty) % 0.20/0.54 % Number of functors : 2 ( 2 usr; 2 con; 0-0 aty) % 0.20/0.54 % Number of variables : 5 ( 5 !; 0 ?) % 0.20/0.54 % SPC : FOF_THM_EPR_NEQ % 0.20/0.54 % 0.20/0.54 % Comments : Sean Bechhofer says there are some errors in the encoding of % 0.20/0.54 % datatypes, so this problem may not be perfect. At least it's % 0.20/0.54 % still representative of the type of reasoning required for OWL. % 0.20/0.54 %------------------------------------------------------------------------------ % 0.20/0.54 %----Thing and Nothing % 0.20/0.54 fof(axiom_0,axiom, % 0.20/0.54 ! [X] : % 0.20/0.54 ( cowlThing(X) % 0.20/0.54 & ~ cowlNothing(X) ) ). % 0.20/0.54 % 0.20/0.54 %----String and Integer disjoint % 0.20/0.54 fof(axiom_1,axiom, % 0.20/0.54 ! [X] : % 0.20/0.54 ( xsd_string(X) % 0.20/0.54 <=> ~ xsd_integer(X) ) ). % 0.20/0.54 % 0.20/0.54 %----Equality cCar % 0.20/0.54 fof(axiom_2,axiom, % 0.20/0.54 ! [X] : % 0.20/0.54 ( cCar(X) % 0.20/0.54 <=> cAutomobile(X) ) ). % 0.20/0.54 % 0.20/0.54 %----iauto % 0.20/0.54 fof(axiom_3,axiom, % 0.20/0.54 cowlThing(iauto) ). % 0.20/0.54 % 0.20/0.54 %----iauto % 0.20/0.54 fof(axiom_4,axiom, % 0.20/0.54 cAutomobile(iauto) ). % 0.20/0.54 % 0.20/0.54 %----icar % 0.20/0.54 fof(axiom_5,axiom, % 0.20/0.54 cowlThing(icar) ). % 0.20/0.54 % 0.20/0.54 %----icar % 0.20/0.54 fof(axiom_6,axiom, % 0.20/0.54 cCar(icar) ). % 0.20/0.54 % 0.20/0.54 %----Thing and Nothing % 0.20/0.54 %----String and Integer disjoint % 0.20/0.54 %----iauto % 0.20/0.54 %----iauto % 0.20/0.54 %----icar % 0.20/0.54 %----icar % 0.20/0.54 fof(the_axiom,conjecture, % 0.20/0.54 ( ! [X] : % 0.20/0.54 ( cowlThing(X) % 0.20/0.54 & ~ cowlNothing(X) ) % 0.20/0.54 & ! [X] : % 0.20/0.54 ( xsd_string(X) % 0.20/0.54 <=> ~ xsd_integer(X) ) % 0.20/0.54 & cCar(iauto) % 0.20/0.54 & cowlThing(iauto) % 0.20/0.54 & cowlThing(icar) % 0.20/0.54 & cAutomobile(icar) ) ). % 0.20/0.54 % 0.20/0.54 %------------------------------------------------------------------------------ % 0.20/0.54 %------------------------------------------- % 0.20/0.54 % Proof found % 0.20/0.54 % SZS status Theorem for theBenchmark % 0.20/0.54 % SZS output start Proof % 0.20/0.54 %ClaNum:9(EqnAxiom:0) % 0.20/0.54 %VarNum:9(SingletonVarNum:5) % 0.20/0.54 %MaxLitNum:5 % 0.20/0.54 %MaxfuncDepth:0 % 0.20/0.54 %SharedTerms:13 % 0.20/0.54 %goalClause: 8 9 % 0.20/0.54 [1]P1(a1) % 0.20/0.54 [2]P2(a2) % 0.20/0.54 [3]~P3(x31) % 0.20/0.54 [4]P5(x41)+P4(x41) % 0.20/0.54 [5]~P2(x51)+P1(x51) % 0.20/0.55 [6]~P1(x61)+P2(x61) % 0.20/0.55 [7]~P5(x71)+~P4(x71) % 0.20/0.55 [8]P3(a3)+P4(a4)+~P5(a4)+~P1(a2)+~P2(a1) % 0.20/0.55 [9]P3(a3)+P5(a4)+~P4(a4)+~P1(a2)+~P2(a1) % 0.20/0.55 %EqnAxiom % 0.20/0.55 % 0.20/0.55 %------------------------------------------- % 0.20/0.55 cnf(13,plain, % 0.20/0.55 (P4(a4)+~P5(a4)+~P1(a2)+~P2(a1)), % 0.20/0.55 inference(scs_inference,[],[3,8])). % 0.20/0.55 cnf(14,plain, % 0.20/0.55 (P5(a4)+~P4(a4)+~P1(a2)+~P2(a1)), % 0.20/0.55 inference(scs_inference,[],[3,9])). % 0.20/0.55 cnf(16,plain, % 0.20/0.55 (P4(a4)+~P5(a4)+~P2(a1)), % 0.20/0.55 inference(scs_inference,[],[2,5,13])). % 0.20/0.55 cnf(17,plain, % 0.20/0.55 (P4(a4)+~P5(a4)), % 0.20/0.55 inference(scs_inference,[],[1,6,16])). % 0.20/0.55 cnf(18,plain, % 0.20/0.55 (~P5(a4)), % 0.20/0.55 inference(scs_inference,[],[17,7])). % 0.20/0.55 cnf(19,plain, % 0.20/0.55 (~P4(a4)+~P1(a2)+~P2(a1)), % 0.20/0.55 inference(scs_inference,[],[18,14])). % 0.20/0.55 cnf(20,plain, % 0.20/0.55 (~P1(a2)+~P2(a1)), % 0.20/0.55 inference(scs_inference,[],[18,19,4])). % 0.20/0.55 cnf(21,plain, % 0.20/0.55 (~P2(a1)), % 0.20/0.55 inference(scs_inference,[],[2,20,5])). % 0.20/0.55 cnf(22,plain, % 0.20/0.55 ($false), % 0.20/0.55 inference(scs_inference,[],[1,21,6]), % 0.20/0.55 ['proof']). % 0.20/0.55 % SZS output end Proof % 0.20/0.55 % Total time :0.010000s %------------------------------------------------------------------------------