%------------------------------------------------------------------------------ % File : CARINE---0.734 % Problem : CAT007-3 : TPTP v5.0.0. Released v1.0.0. % Transfm : add_equality % Format : carine % Command : carine %s t=%d xo=off uct=32000 % Computer : art05.cs.miami.edu % Model : i686 i686 % CPU : Intel(R) Pentium(R) 4 CPU 2.80GHz @ 2793MHz % Memory : 2018MB % OS : Linux 2.6.26.8-57.fc8 % CPULimit : 300s % DateTime : Sat Nov 27 17:44:13 EST 2010 % Result : Unsatisfiable 0.14s % Output : Refutation 0.14s % Verified : % SZS Type : None (Parsing solution fails) % Syntax : Number of formulae : 0 % Comments : %------------------------------------------------------------------------------ %----ERROR: Could not form TPTP format derivation %------------------------------------------------------------------------------ %----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT % Command entered: % /home/graph/tptp/Systems/CARINE---0.734/carine /tmp/SystemOnTPTP17060/CAT/CAT007-3+noeq.car t=300 xo=off uct=32000 % CARINE version 0.734 (Dec 2003) % Initializing tables ... done. % Parsing ............ done. % Calculating time slices ... done. % Building Lookup Tables ... done. % Looking for a proof at depth = 1 ... % t = 0 secs [nr = 26] [nf = 0] [nu = 13] [ut = 10] % Looking for a proof at depth = 2 ... % +================================================+ % | | % | Congratulations!!! ........ A proof was found. | % | | % +================================================+ % Base Clauses and Unit Clauses used in proof: % ============================================ % Base Clauses: % ------------- % B0: ~there_exists_1(compose_2(c2_0(),c1_0())) % B9: ~there_exists_1(domain_1(x0)) | ~equalish_2(domain_1(x0),codomain_1(x1)) | there_exists_1(compose_2(x0,x1)) % Unit Clauses: % -------------- % U1: < d0 v0 dv0 f1 c1 t2 td2 b > there_exists_1(domain_1(c2_0())) % U4: < d0 v0 dv0 f2 c2 t4 td2 b > equalish_2(domain_1(c2_0()),codomain_1(c1_0())) % U10: < d2 v0 dv0 f2 c2 t4 td2 > ~equalish_2(domain_1(c2_0()),codomain_1(c1_0())) % --------------- Start of Proof --------------- % Derivation of unit clause U1: % there_exists_1(domain_1(c2_0())) ....... U1 % Derivation of unit clause U4: % equalish_2(domain_1(c2_0()),codomain_1(c1_0())) ....... U4 % Derivation of unit clause U10: % ~there_exists_1(compose_2(c2_0(),c1_0())) ....... B0 % ~there_exists_1(domain_1(x0)) | ~equalish_2(domain_1(x0),codomain_1(x1)) | there_exists_1(compose_2(x0,x1)) ....... B9 % ~there_exists_1(domain_1(c2_0())) | ~equalish_2(domain_1(c2_0()), codomain_1(c1_0())) ....... R1 [B0:L0, B9:L2] % there_exists_1(domain_1(c2_0())) ....... U1 % ~equalish_2(domain_1(c2_0()), codomain_1(c1_0())) ....... R2 [R1:L0, U1:L0] % Derivation of the empty clause: % ~equalish_2(domain_1(c2_0()),codomain_1(c1_0())) ....... U10 % equalish_2(domain_1(c2_0()),codomain_1(c1_0())) ....... U4 % [] ....... R1 [U10:L0, U4:L0] % --------------- End of Proof --------------- % PROOF FOUND! % --------------------------------------------- % | Statistics | % --------------------------------------------- % Profile 3: Performance Statistics: % ================================== % Total number of generated clauses: 29 % resolvents: 29 factors: 0 % Number of unit clauses generated: 15 % % unit clauses generated to total clauses generated: 51.72 % Number of unit clauses constructed and retained at depth [x]: % ============================================================= % [0] = 5 [1] = 5 [2] = 1 % Total = 11 % Number of generated clauses having [x] literals: % ------------------------------------------------ % [1] = 15 [2] = 14 % Average size of a generated clause: 2.0 % Number of unit clauses per predicate list: % ========================================== % [0] there_exists_1 (+)4 (-)3 % [1] equalish_2 (+)3 (-)1 % ------------------ % Total: (+)7 (-)4 % Total number of unit clauses retained: 11 % Number of clauses skipped because of their length: 12 % N base clauses skippped in resolve-with-all-base-clauses % because of the shortest resolvents table: 0 % Number of successful unifications: 31 % Number of unification failures: 2 % Number of unit to unit unification failures: 13 % N literal unification failure due to lookup root_id table: 27 % N base clause resolution failure due to lookup table: 30 % N UC-BCL resolution dropped due to lookup table: 0 % Max entries in substitution set: 2 % N unit clauses dropped because they exceeded max values: 8 % N unit clauses dropped because too much nesting: 1 % N unit clauses not constrcuted because table was full: 0 % N unit clauses dropped because UCFA table was full: 0 % Max number of terms in a unit clause: 5 % Max term depth in a unit clause: 4 % Number of states in UCFA table: 26 % Total number of terms of all unit clauses in table: 32 % Max allowed number of states in UCFA: 80000 % Ratio n states used/total allowed states: 0.00 % Ratio n states used/total unit clauses terms: 0.81 % Number of symbols (columns) in UCFA: 42 % Profile 2: Number of calls to: % ============================== % PTUnify() = 33 % ConstructUnitClause() = 14 % Profile 1: Time spent in: % ========================= % ConstructUnitClause() : 0.00 secs % -------------------------------------------------------- % | | % Inferences per sec: inf % | | % -------------------------------------------------------- % Elapsed time: 0 secs % CPU time: 0.14 secs % %------------------------------------------------------------------------------