%------------------------------------------------------------------------------ % File : CARINE---0.734 % Problem : COM002-2 : 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 18:04:18 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/SystemOnTPTP21152/COM/COM002-2+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 = 97] [nf = 0] [nu = 52] [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: fails_2(p3_0(),p3_0()) % B4: follows_2(p6_0(),p3_0()) % B7: labels_2(loop_0(),p3_0()) % B16: ~fails_2(x0,x1) | ~follows_2(x0,x1) % B17: ~fails_2(x0,x1) | fails_2(x0,x2) | fails_2(x2,x1) % B18: ~fails_2(x0,x1) | ~has_2(x1,goto_1(x2)) | ~labels_2(x2,x0) % 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 > ~fails_2(p6_0(),p3_0()) % U25: < d2 v0 dv0 f0 c2 t2 td1 > fails_2(p3_0(),p6_0()) % U30: < d2 v0 dv0 f0 c2 t2 td1 > ~fails_2(p3_0(),p8_0()) % U89: < d3 v0 dv0 f0 c2 t2 td1 > fails_2(p3_0(),p7_0()) % U92: < d3 v0 dv0 f0 c2 t2 td1 > fails_2(p3_0(),p8_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 % ~fails_2(x0,x1) | ~follows_2(x0,x1) ....... B16 % ~fails_2(p6_0(), p3_0()) ....... R1 [B4:L0, B16:L1] % Derivation of unit clause U25: % fails_2(p3_0(),p3_0()) ....... B0 % ~fails_2(x0,x1) | fails_2(x0,x2) | fails_2(x2,x1) ....... B17 % fails_2(p3_0(), x0) | fails_2(x0, p3_0()) ....... R1 [B0:L0, B17:L0] % ~fails_2(p6_0(),p3_0()) ....... U20 % fails_2(p3_0(), p6_0()) ....... R2 [R1:L1, U20:L0] % Derivation of unit clause U30: % labels_2(loop_0(),p3_0()) ....... B7 % ~fails_2(x0,x1) | ~has_2(x1,goto_1(x2)) | ~labels_2(x2,x0) ....... B18 % ~fails_2(p3_0(), x0) | ~has_2(x0, goto_1(loop_0())) ....... R1 [B7:L0, B18:L2] % has_2(p8_0(),goto_1(loop_0())) ....... U9 % ~fails_2(p3_0(), p8_0()) ....... R2 [R1:L1, U9:L0] % Derivation of unit clause U89: % ~fails_2(x0,x1) | ~follows_2(x0,x1) ....... B16 % ~fails_2(x0,x1) | fails_2(x0,x2) | fails_2(x2,x1) ....... B17 % ~follows_2(x0, x1) | ~fails_2(x2, x1) | fails_2(x2, x0) ....... R1 [B16:L0, B17:L2] % follows_2(p7_0(),p6_0()) ....... U5 % ~fails_2(x0, p6_0()) | fails_2(x0, p7_0()) ....... R2 [R1:L0, U5:L0] % fails_2(p3_0(),p6_0()) ....... U25 % fails_2(p3_0(), p7_0()) ....... R3 [R2:L0, U25:L0] % Derivation of unit clause U92: % ~fails_2(x0,x1) | ~follows_2(x0,x1) ....... B16 % ~fails_2(x0,x1) | fails_2(x0,x2) | fails_2(x2,x1) ....... B17 % ~follows_2(x0, x1) | ~fails_2(x2, x1) | fails_2(x2, x0) ....... R1 [B16:L0, B17:L2] % follows_2(p8_0(),p7_0()) ....... U6 % ~fails_2(x0, p7_0()) | fails_2(x0, p8_0()) ....... R2 [R1:L0, U6:L0] % fails_2(p3_0(),p7_0()) ....... U89 % fails_2(p3_0(), p8_0()) ....... R3 [R2:L0, U89:L0] % Derivation of the empty clause: % fails_2(p3_0(),p8_0()) ....... U92 % ~fails_2(p3_0(),p8_0()) ....... U30 % [] ....... R1 [U92:L0, U30:L0] % --------------- End of Proof --------------- % PROOF FOUND! % --------------------------------------------- % | Statistics | % --------------------------------------------- % Profile 3: Performance Statistics: % ================================== % Total number of generated clauses: 478 % resolvents: 475 factors: 3 % Number of unit clauses generated: 252 % % unit clauses generated to total clauses generated: 52.72 % Number of unit clauses constructed and retained at depth [x]: % ============================================================= % [0] = 15 [1] = 9 [2] = 8 [3] = 61 % Total = 93 % Number of generated clauses having [x] literals: % ------------------------------------------------ % [1] = 252 [2] = 202 [3] = 24 % Average size of a generated clause: 2.0 % Number of unit clauses per predicate list: % ========================================== % [0] fails_2 (+)16 (-)28 % [1] follows_2 (+)6 (-)18 % [2] has_2 (+)7 (-)16 % [3] labels_2 (+)1 (-)1 % ------------------ % Total: (+)30 (-)63 % Total number of unit clauses retained: 93 % Number of clauses skipped because of their length: 198 % N base clauses skippped in resolve-with-all-base-clauses % because of the shortest resolvents table: 0 % Number of successful unifications: 489 % Number of unification failures: 1215 % Number of unit to unit unification failures: 648 % N literal unification failure due to lookup root_id table: 681 % N base clause resolution failure due to lookup table: 314 % 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: 114 % 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: 76 % Total number of terms of all unit clauses in table: 233 % 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: 0.33 % Number of symbols (columns) in UCFA: 60 % Profile 2: Number of calls to: % ============================== % PTUnify() = 1704 % ConstructUnitClause() = 192 % Profile 1: Time spent in: % ========================= % ConstructUnitClause() : 0.00 secs % -------------------------------------------------------- % | | % Inferences per sec: inf % | | % -------------------------------------------------------- % Elapsed time: 0 secs % CPU time: 0.16 secs % %------------------------------------------------------------------------------