%------------------------------------------------------------------------------ % File : CARINE---0.734 % Problem : COM002-1 : TPTP v5.0.0. Released v1.0.0. % Transfm : add_equality % Format : carine % Command : carine %s t=%d xo=off uct=32000 % Computer : art09.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 18:04:14 EST 2010 % Result : Unsatisfiable 0.17s % Output : Refutation 0.17s % 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/SystemOnTPTP21024/COM/COM002-1+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 = 23] [nf = 0] [nu = 18] [ut = 24] % Looking for a proof at depth = 2 ... % t = 0 secs [nr = 103] [nf = 4] [nu = 56] [ut = 32] % Looking for a proof at depth = 3 ... % +================================================+ % | | % | Congratulations!!! ........ A proof was found. | % | | % +================================================+ % Base Clauses and Unit Clauses used in proof: % ============================================ % Base Clauses: % ------------- % B0: ~succeeds_2(p3_0(),p3_0()) % B4: follows_2(p6_0(),p3_0()) % B7: labels_2(loop_0(),p3_0()) % B16: ~follows_2(x0,x1) | succeeds_2(x0,x1) % B17: ~succeeds_2(x2,x1) | ~succeeds_2(x0,x2) | succeeds_2(x0,x1) % B18: ~has_2(x1,goto_1(x2)) | ~labels_2(x2,x0) | succeeds_2(x0,x1) % Unit Clauses: % -------------- % U5: < d0 v0 dv0 f0 c2 t2 td1 b > follows_2(p7_0(),p6_0()) % U6: < d0 v0 dv0 f0 c2 t2 td1 b > follows_2(p8_0(),p7_0()) % U9: < d0 v0 dv0 f1 c2 t3 td2 b > has_2(p8_0(),goto_1(loop_0())) % U20: < d1 v0 dv0 f0 c2 t2 td1 > succeeds_2(p6_0(),p3_0()) % U24: < d2 v0 dv0 f0 c2 t2 td1 > ~succeeds_2(p3_0(),p6_0()) % U28: < d2 v0 dv0 f0 c2 t2 td1 > succeeds_2(p3_0(),p8_0()) % U62: < d3 v0 dv0 f0 c2 t2 td1 > ~succeeds_2(p3_0(),p7_0()) % U64: < d3 v0 dv0 f0 c2 t2 td1 > succeeds_2(p3_0(),p7_0()) % --------------- Start of Proof --------------- % Derivation of unit clause U5: % follows_2(p7_0(),p6_0()) ....... U5 % Derivation of unit clause U6: % follows_2(p8_0(),p7_0()) ....... U6 % Derivation of unit clause U9: % has_2(p8_0(),goto_1(loop_0())) ....... U9 % Derivation of unit clause U20: % follows_2(p6_0(),p3_0()) ....... B4 % ~follows_2(x0,x1) | succeeds_2(x0,x1) ....... B16 % succeeds_2(p6_0(), p3_0()) ....... R1 [B4:L0, B16:L0] % Derivation of unit clause U24: % ~succeeds_2(p3_0(),p3_0()) ....... B0 % ~succeeds_2(x2,x1) | ~succeeds_2(x0,x2) | succeeds_2(x0,x1) ....... B17 % ~succeeds_2(x0, p3_0()) | ~succeeds_2(p3_0(), x0) ....... R1 [B0:L0, B17:L2] % succeeds_2(p6_0(),p3_0()) ....... U20 % ~succeeds_2(p3_0(), p6_0()) ....... R2 [R1:L0, U20:L0] % Derivation of unit clause U28: % labels_2(loop_0(),p3_0()) ....... B7 % ~has_2(x1,goto_1(x2)) | ~labels_2(x2,x0) | succeeds_2(x0,x1) ....... B18 % ~has_2(x0, goto_1(loop_0())) | succeeds_2(p3_0(), x0) ....... R1 [B7:L0, B18:L1] % has_2(p8_0(),goto_1(loop_0())) ....... U9 % succeeds_2(p3_0(), p8_0()) ....... R2 [R1:L0, U9:L0] % Derivation of unit clause U62: % ~follows_2(x0,x1) | succeeds_2(x0,x1) ....... B16 % ~succeeds_2(x2,x1) | ~succeeds_2(x0,x2) | succeeds_2(x0,x1) ....... B17 % ~follows_2(x0, x1) | ~succeeds_2(x2, x0) | succeeds_2(x2, x1) ....... R1 [B16:L1, B17:L0] % follows_2(p7_0(),p6_0()) ....... U5 % ~succeeds_2(x0, p7_0()) | succeeds_2(x0, p6_0()) ....... R2 [R1:L0, U5:L0] % ~succeeds_2(p3_0(),p6_0()) ....... U24 % ~succeeds_2(p3_0(), p7_0()) ....... R3 [R2:L1, U24:L0] % Derivation of unit clause U64: % ~follows_2(x0,x1) | succeeds_2(x0,x1) ....... B16 % ~succeeds_2(x2,x1) | ~succeeds_2(x0,x2) | succeeds_2(x0,x1) ....... B17 % ~follows_2(x0, x1) | ~succeeds_2(x2, x0) | succeeds_2(x2, x1) ....... R1 [B16:L1, B17:L0] % follows_2(p8_0(),p7_0()) ....... U6 % ~succeeds_2(x0, p8_0()) | succeeds_2(x0, p7_0()) ....... R2 [R1:L0, U6:L0] % succeeds_2(p3_0(),p8_0()) ....... U28 % succeeds_2(p3_0(), p7_0()) ....... R3 [R2:L0, U28:L0] % Derivation of the empty clause: % succeeds_2(p3_0(),p7_0()) ....... U64 % ~succeeds_2(p3_0(),p7_0()) ....... U62 % [] ....... R1 [U64:L0, U62:L0] % --------------- End of Proof --------------- % PROOF FOUND! % --------------------------------------------- % | Statistics | % --------------------------------------------- % Profile 3: Performance Statistics: % ================================== % Total number of generated clauses: 330 % resolvents: 314 factors: 16 % Number of unit clauses generated: 163 % % unit clauses generated to total clauses generated: 49.39 % Number of unit clauses constructed and retained at depth [x]: % ============================================================= % [0] = 15 [1] = 9 [2] = 8 [3] = 33 % Total = 65 % Number of generated clauses having [x] literals: % ------------------------------------------------ % [1] = 163 [2] = 146 [3] = 21 % Average size of a generated clause: 2.0 % Number of unit clauses per predicate list: % ========================================== % [0] follows_2 (+)6 (-)5 % [1] has_2 (+)7 (-)17 % [2] labels_2 (+)1 (-)1 % [3] succeeds_2 (+)18 (-)10 % ------------------ % Total: (+)32 (-)33 % Total number of unit clauses retained: 65 % Number of clauses skipped because of their length: 118 % N base clauses skippped in resolve-with-all-base-clauses % because of the shortest resolvents table: 0 % Number of successful unifications: 341 % Number of unification failures: 425 % Number of unit to unit unification failures: 328 % N literal unification failure due to lookup root_id table: 525 % N base clause resolution failure due to lookup table: 242 % N UC-BCL resolution dropped due to lookup table: 0 % Max entries in substitution set: 7 % N unit clauses dropped because they exceeded max values: 51 % 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: 74 % Total number of terms of all unit clauses in table: 179 % 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: 0.41 % Number of symbols (columns) in UCFA: 60 % Profile 2: Number of calls to: % ============================== % PTUnify() = 766 % ConstructUnitClause() = 101 % Profile 1: Time spent in: % ========================= % ConstructUnitClause() : 0.00 secs % -------------------------------------------------------- % | | % Inferences per sec: inf % | | % -------------------------------------------------------- % Elapsed time: 0 secs % CPU time: 0.17 secs % %------------------------------------------------------------------------------