%------------------------------------------------------------------------------ % File : CARINE---0.734 % Problem : COM001-1 : TPTP v5.0.0. Released v1.0.0. % Transfm : add_equality % Format : carine % Command : carine %s t=%d xo=off uct=32000 % Computer : art02.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 18:04:10 EST 2010 % Result : Unsatisfiable 0.16s % Output : Refutation 0.16s % 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/SystemOnTPTP27361/COM/COM001-1+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 = 15] [nf = 0] [nu = 10] [ut = 12] % Looking for a proof at depth = 2 ... % +================================================+ % | | % | Congratulations!!! ........ A proof was found. | % | | % +================================================+ % Base Clauses and Unit Clauses used in proof: % ============================================ % Base Clauses: % ------------- % B0: ~succeeds_2(p3_0(),p3_0()) % B2: follows_2(p8_0(),p3_0()) % B3: labels_2(loop_0(),p3_0()) % B8: ~follows_2(x0,x1) | succeeds_2(x0,x1) % B9: ~succeeds_2(x2,x1) | ~succeeds_2(x0,x2) | succeeds_2(x0,x1) % B10: ~has_2(x1,goto_1(x2)) | ~labels_2(x2,x0) | succeeds_2(x0,x1) % Unit Clauses: % -------------- % U5: < d0 v0 dv0 f1 c2 t3 td2 b > has_2(p8_0(),goto_1(loop_0())) % U10: < d1 v0 dv0 f0 c2 t2 td1 > succeeds_2(p8_0(),p3_0()) % U12: < d2 v0 dv0 f0 c2 t2 td1 > ~succeeds_2(p3_0(),p8_0()) % U15: < d2 v0 dv0 f0 c2 t2 td1 > succeeds_2(p3_0(),p8_0()) % --------------- Start of Proof --------------- % Derivation of unit clause U5: % has_2(p8_0(),goto_1(loop_0())) ....... U5 % Derivation of unit clause U10: % follows_2(p8_0(),p3_0()) ....... B2 % ~follows_2(x0,x1) | succeeds_2(x0,x1) ....... B8 % succeeds_2(p8_0(), p3_0()) ....... R1 [B2:L0, B8:L0] % Derivation of unit clause U12: % ~succeeds_2(p3_0(),p3_0()) ....... B0 % ~succeeds_2(x2,x1) | ~succeeds_2(x0,x2) | succeeds_2(x0,x1) ....... B9 % ~succeeds_2(x0, p3_0()) | ~succeeds_2(p3_0(), x0) ....... R1 [B0:L0, B9:L2] % succeeds_2(p8_0(),p3_0()) ....... U10 % ~succeeds_2(p3_0(), p8_0()) ....... R2 [R1:L0, U10:L0] % Derivation of unit clause U15: % labels_2(loop_0(),p3_0()) ....... B3 % ~has_2(x1,goto_1(x2)) | ~labels_2(x2,x0) | succeeds_2(x0,x1) ....... B10 % ~has_2(x0, goto_1(loop_0())) | succeeds_2(p3_0(), x0) ....... R1 [B3:L0, B10:L1] % has_2(p8_0(),goto_1(loop_0())) ....... U5 % succeeds_2(p3_0(), p8_0()) ....... R2 [R1:L0, U5:L0] % Derivation of the empty clause: % succeeds_2(p3_0(),p8_0()) ....... U15 % ~succeeds_2(p3_0(),p8_0()) ....... U12 % [] ....... R1 [U15:L0, U12:L0] % --------------- End of Proof --------------- % PROOF FOUND! % --------------------------------------------- % | Statistics | % --------------------------------------------- % Profile 3: Performance Statistics: % ================================== % Total number of generated clauses: 32 % resolvents: 30 factors: 2 % Number of unit clauses generated: 20 % % unit clauses generated to total clauses generated: 62.50 % Number of unit clauses constructed and retained at depth [x]: % ============================================================= % [0] = 7 [1] = 5 [2] = 4 % Total = 16 % Number of generated clauses having [x] literals: % ------------------------------------------------ % [1] = 20 [2] = 12 % Average size of a generated clause: 2.0 % Number of unit clauses per predicate list: % ========================================== % [0] follows_2 (+)2 (-)1 % [1] has_2 (+)3 (-)2 % [2] labels_2 (+)1 (-)0 % [3] succeeds_2 (+)4 (-)3 % ------------------ % Total: (+)10 (-)6 % Total number of unit clauses retained: 16 % Number of clauses skipped because of their length: 8 % N base clauses skippped in resolve-with-all-base-clauses % because of the shortest resolvents table: 0 % Number of successful unifications: 37 % Number of unification failures: 7 % Number of unit to unit unification failures: 18 % N literal unification failure due to lookup root_id table: 31 % N base clause resolution failure due to lookup table: 32 % N UC-BCL resolution dropped due to lookup table: 0 % Max entries in substitution set: 4 % N unit clauses dropped because they exceeded max values: 7 % N unit clauses dropped because too much nesting: 0 % 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: 6 % Max term depth in a unit clause: 3 % Number of states in UCFA table: 32 % Total number of terms of all unit clauses in table: 41 % Max allowed number of states in UCFA: 96000 % Ratio n states used/total allowed states: 0.00 % Ratio n states used/total unit clauses terms: 0.78 % Number of symbols (columns) in UCFA: 49 % Profile 2: Number of calls to: % ============================== % PTUnify() = 44 % ConstructUnitClause() = 16 % Profile 1: Time spent in: % ========================= % ConstructUnitClause() : 0.00 secs % -------------------------------------------------------- % | | % Inferences per sec: inf % | | % -------------------------------------------------------- % Elapsed time: 0 secs % CPU time: 0.16 secs % %------------------------------------------------------------------------------