%------------------------------------------------------------------------------ % File : CSE---1.7 % Problem : KRS163+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 : n032.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 10:08:44 EDT 2024 % Result : Theorem 0.16s 0.53s % Output : CNFRefutation 0.48s % Verified : % SZS Type : - % Comments : %------------------------------------------------------------------------------ %----WARNING: Could not form TPTP format derivation %------------------------------------------------------------------------------ %----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT % 0.03/0.10 % Problem : KRS163+1 : TPTP v8.2.0. Released v3.1.0. % 0.03/0.10 % Command : java -jar /export/starexec/sandbox2/solver/bin/mcs_scs.jar %d %s % 0.10/0.30 % Computer : n032.cluster.edu % 0.10/0.30 % Model : x86_64 x86_64 % 0.10/0.30 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz % 0.10/0.30 % Memory : 8042.1875MB % 0.10/0.30 % OS : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64 % 0.10/0.30 % CPULimit : 300 % 0.10/0.30 % WCLimit : 300 % 0.10/0.30 % DateTime : Wed Jun 19 14:08:38 EDT 2024 % 0.10/0.30 % CPUTime : % 0.16/0.49 start to proof:theBenchmark % 0.16/0.53 %------------------------------------------- % 0.16/0.53 % File :CSE---1.7 % 0.16/0.53 % Problem :theBenchmark % 0.16/0.53 % Transform :cnf % 0.16/0.53 % Format :tptp:raw % 0.16/0.53 % Command :java -jar mcs_scs.jar %d %s % 0.16/0.53 % 0.16/0.53 % Result :Theorem 0.010000s % 0.16/0.53 % Output :CNFRefutation 0.010000s % 0.16/0.53 %------------------------------------------- % 0.16/0.53 %------------------------------------------------------------------------------ % 0.16/0.53 % File : KRS163+1 : TPTP v8.2.0. Released v3.1.0. % 0.16/0.53 % Domain : Knowledge Representation (Semantic Web) % 0.16/0.53 % Problem : Disjoint classes have different members % 0.16/0.53 % Version : Especial. % 0.16/0.53 % English : % 0.16/0.53 % 0.16/0.53 % Refs : [Bec03] Bechhofer (2003), Email to G. Sutcliffe % 0.16/0.53 % : [TR+04] Tsarkov et al. (2004), Using Vampire to Reason with OW % 0.16/0.53 % Source : [Bec03] % 0.16/0.53 % Names : positive_disjointWith-Manifest001 [Bec03] % 0.16/0.53 % 0.16/0.53 % Status : Theorem % 0.16/0.53 % Rating : 0.00 v5.3.0, 0.09 v5.2.0, 0.00 v4.0.1, 0.04 v3.7.0, 0.00 v3.1.0 % 0.16/0.53 % Syntax : Number of formulae : 14 ( 4 unt; 0 def) % 0.16/0.53 % Number of atoms : 35 ( 7 equ) % 0.16/0.53 % Maximal formula atoms : 7 ( 2 avg) % 0.16/0.53 % Number of connectives : 27 ( 6 ~; 0 |; 13 &) % 0.16/0.53 % ( 2 <=>; 6 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>) % 0.16/0.53 % Maximal formula depth : 6 ( 4 avg) % 0.16/0.53 % Maximal term depth : 1 ( 1 avg) % 0.16/0.53 % Number of predicates : 7 ( 6 usr; 0 prp; 1-2 aty) % 0.16/0.53 % Number of functors : 2 ( 2 usr; 2 con; 0-0 aty) % 0.16/0.53 % Number of variables : 17 ( 17 !; 0 ?) % 0.16/0.53 % SPC : FOF_THM_EPR_SEQ % 0.16/0.53 % 0.16/0.53 % Comments : Sean Bechhofer says there are some errors in the encoding of % 0.16/0.53 % datatypes, so this problem may not be perfect. At least it's % 0.16/0.53 % still representative of the type of reasoning required for OWL. % 0.16/0.53 %------------------------------------------------------------------------------ % 0.16/0.53 fof(cA_substitution_1,axiom, % 0.16/0.53 ! [A,B] : % 0.16/0.53 ( ( A = B % 0.16/0.53 & cA(A) ) % 0.16/0.53 => cA(B) ) ). % 0.16/0.53 % 0.16/0.53 fof(cB_substitution_1,axiom, % 0.16/0.53 ! [A,B] : % 0.16/0.53 ( ( A = B % 0.16/0.53 & cB(A) ) % 0.16/0.53 => cB(B) ) ). % 0.16/0.53 % 0.16/0.53 fof(cowlNothing_substitution_1,axiom, % 0.16/0.53 ! [A,B] : % 0.16/0.53 ( ( A = B % 0.16/0.53 & cowlNothing(A) ) % 0.16/0.53 => cowlNothing(B) ) ). % 0.16/0.53 % 0.16/0.53 fof(cowlThing_substitution_1,axiom, % 0.16/0.53 ! [A,B] : % 0.16/0.53 ( ( A = B % 0.16/0.53 & cowlThing(A) ) % 0.16/0.53 => cowlThing(B) ) ). % 0.16/0.53 % 0.16/0.53 fof(xsd_integer_substitution_1,axiom, % 0.16/0.53 ! [A,B] : % 0.16/0.53 ( ( A = B % 0.16/0.53 & xsd_integer(A) ) % 0.16/0.53 => xsd_integer(B) ) ). % 0.16/0.53 % 0.16/0.53 fof(xsd_string_substitution_1,axiom, % 0.16/0.53 ! [A,B] : % 0.16/0.53 ( ( A = B % 0.16/0.53 & xsd_string(A) ) % 0.16/0.53 => xsd_string(B) ) ). % 0.16/0.53 % 0.16/0.53 %----Thing and Nothing % 0.16/0.53 fof(axiom_0,axiom, % 0.16/0.53 ! [X] : % 0.16/0.53 ( cowlThing(X) % 0.16/0.53 & ~ cowlNothing(X) ) ). % 0.16/0.53 % 0.16/0.53 %----String and Integer disjoint % 0.16/0.53 fof(axiom_1,axiom, % 0.16/0.53 ! [X] : % 0.16/0.53 ( xsd_string(X) % 0.16/0.53 <=> ~ xsd_integer(X) ) ). % 0.16/0.53 % 0.16/0.53 %----ia % 0.16/0.53 fof(axiom_2,axiom, % 0.16/0.53 cA(ia) ). % 0.16/0.53 % 0.16/0.53 %----ia % 0.16/0.53 fof(axiom_3,axiom, % 0.16/0.53 cowlThing(ia) ). % 0.16/0.53 % 0.16/0.53 %----ib % 0.16/0.53 fof(axiom_4,axiom, % 0.16/0.53 cB(ib) ). % 0.16/0.53 % 0.16/0.53 %----ib % 0.16/0.53 fof(axiom_5,axiom, % 0.16/0.53 cowlThing(ib) ). % 0.16/0.53 % 0.16/0.53 fof(axiom_6,axiom, % 0.16/0.53 ! [X] : % 0.16/0.53 ~ ( cB(X) % 0.16/0.53 & cA(X) ) ). % 0.16/0.53 % 0.16/0.53 %----Thing and Nothing % 0.16/0.53 %----String and Integer disjoint % 0.16/0.53 %----ia % 0.16/0.53 %----ib % 0.16/0.53 fof(the_axiom,conjecture, % 0.16/0.53 ( ! [X] : % 0.16/0.53 ( cowlThing(X) % 0.16/0.53 & ~ cowlNothing(X) ) % 0.16/0.53 & ! [X] : % 0.16/0.53 ( xsd_string(X) % 0.16/0.53 <=> ~ xsd_integer(X) ) % 0.16/0.53 & cowlThing(ia) % 0.16/0.53 & cowlThing(ib) % 0.16/0.53 & ia != ib ) ). % 0.16/0.53 % 0.16/0.53 %------------------------------------------------------------------------------ % 0.16/0.53 %------------------------------------------- % 0.16/0.53 % Proof found % 0.16/0.53 % SZS status Theorem for theBenchmark % 0.16/0.53 % SZS output start Proof % 0.16/0.54 %ClaNum:16(EqnAxiom:8) % 0.16/0.54 %VarNum:7(SingletonVarNum:4) % 0.16/0.54 %MaxLitNum:4 % 0.16/0.54 %MaxfuncDepth:0 % 0.16/0.54 %SharedTerms:12 % 0.16/0.54 %goalClause: 13 14 % 0.16/0.54 [9]P1(a1) % 0.16/0.54 [10]P2(a4) % 0.16/0.54 [11]~P3(x111) % 0.16/0.54 [12]P5(x121)+P4(x121) % 0.16/0.54 [15]~P2(x151)+~P1(x151) % 0.16/0.54 [16]~P5(x161)+~P4(x161) % 0.16/0.54 [13]E(a1,a4)+P3(a2)+P4(a3)+~P5(a3) % 0.16/0.54 [14]E(a1,a4)+P3(a2)+P5(a3)+~P4(a3) % 0.16/0.54 %EqnAxiom % 0.16/0.54 [1]E(x11,x11) % 0.16/0.54 [2]E(x22,x21)+~E(x21,x22) % 0.16/0.54 [3]E(x31,x33)+~E(x31,x32)+~E(x32,x33) % 0.16/0.54 [4]~P1(x41)+P1(x42)+~E(x41,x42) % 0.16/0.54 [5]~P2(x51)+P2(x52)+~E(x51,x52) % 0.16/0.54 [6]~P3(x61)+P3(x62)+~E(x61,x62) % 0.16/0.54 [7]~P4(x71)+P4(x72)+~E(x71,x72) % 0.16/0.54 [8]~P5(x81)+P5(x82)+~E(x81,x82) % 0.16/0.54 % 0.16/0.54 %------------------------------------------- % 0.16/0.55 cnf(17,plain, % 0.16/0.55 (~P2(a1)), % 0.48/0.55 inference(scs_inference,[],[9,15])). % 0.48/0.55 cnf(22,plain, % 0.48/0.55 (E(a1,a4)+P4(a3)+~P5(a3)), % 0.48/0.55 inference(scs_inference,[],[11,13])). % 0.48/0.55 cnf(23,plain, % 0.48/0.55 (E(a1,a4)+P5(a3)+~P4(a3)), % 0.48/0.55 inference(scs_inference,[],[11,14])). % 0.48/0.55 cnf(28,plain, % 0.48/0.55 (~E(a1,a4)), % 0.48/0.55 inference(scs_inference,[],[10,17,5,2])). % 0.48/0.55 cnf(29,plain, % 0.48/0.55 (P4(a3)+~P5(a3)), % 0.48/0.55 inference(scs_inference,[],[28,22])). % 0.48/0.55 cnf(30,plain, % 0.48/0.55 (P5(a3)+~P4(a3)), % 0.48/0.55 inference(scs_inference,[],[28,23])). % 0.48/0.55 cnf(31,plain, % 0.48/0.55 (~P5(a3)), % 0.48/0.55 inference(scs_inference,[],[29,16])). % 0.48/0.55 cnf(32,plain, % 0.48/0.55 (~P4(a3)), % 0.48/0.55 inference(scs_inference,[],[31,30])). % 0.48/0.55 cnf(33,plain, % 0.48/0.55 ($false), % 0.48/0.55 inference(scs_inference,[],[32,31,12]), % 0.48/0.55 ['proof']). % 0.48/0.55 % SZS output end Proof % 0.48/0.55 % Total time :0.010000s %------------------------------------------------------------------------------