%------------------------------------------------------------------------------ % File : CARINE---0.734 % Problem : COM003-2 : TPTP v5.0.0. Released v1.1.0. % Transfm : add_equality % Format : carine % Command : carine %s t=%d xo=off uct=32000 % Computer : art01.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 18:04:25 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/SystemOnTPTP3468/COM/COM003-2+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 = 36] [nf = 0] [nu = 10] [ut = 8] % Looking for a proof at depth = 2 ... % +================================================+ % | | % | Congratulations!!! ........ A proof was found. | % | | % +================================================+ % Base Clauses and Unit Clauses used in proof: % ============================================ % Base Clauses: % ------------- % B0: algorithm_program_decides_1(c4_0()) % B2: ~program_halts2_halts3_outputs_4(x0,x1,x2,x3) | program_halts2_2(x1,x2) % B3: ~program_not_halts2_halts3_outputs_4(x0,x1,x2,x3) | program_not_halts2_2(x1,x2) % B7: ~program_program_decides_1(x0) | program_halts2_halts3_outputs_4(x0,x1,x2,good_0()) % B8: ~program_program_decides_1(x0) | program_not_halts2_halts3_outputs_4(x0,x1,x2,bad_0()) % B17: ~halts2_2(x0,x1) | ~program_not_halts2_2(x0,x1) % B18: ~program_halts2_2(x0,x1) | halts2_2(x0,x1) % B21: ~algorithm_program_decides_1(x0) | program_program_decides_1(c1_0()) % Unit Clauses: % -------------- % U3: < d1 v0 dv0 f0 c1 t1 td1 > program_program_decides_1(c1_0()) % U4: < d1 v2 dv2 f0 c2 t4 td1 > program_halts2_halts3_outputs_4(c1_0(),x0,x1,good_0()) % U5: < d1 v2 dv2 f0 c2 t4 td1 > program_not_halts2_halts3_outputs_4(c1_0(),x0,x1,bad_0()) % U12: < d2 v2 dv2 f0 c0 t2 td1 > halts2_2(x0,x1) % U14: < d2 v2 dv2 f0 c0 t2 td1 > ~halts2_2(x0,x1) % --------------- Start of Proof --------------- % Derivation of unit clause U3: % algorithm_program_decides_1(c4_0()) ....... B0 % ~algorithm_program_decides_1(x0) | program_program_decides_1(c1_0()) ....... B21 % program_program_decides_1(c1_0()) ....... R1 [B0:L0, B21:L0] % Derivation of unit clause U4: % ~program_program_decides_1(x0) | program_halts2_halts3_outputs_4(x0,x1,x2,good_0()) ....... B7 % program_program_decides_1(c1_0()) ....... U3 % program_halts2_halts3_outputs_4(c1_0(), x0, x1, good_0()) ....... R1 [B7:L0, U3:L0] % Derivation of unit clause U5: % ~program_program_decides_1(x0) | program_not_halts2_halts3_outputs_4(x0,x1,x2,bad_0()) ....... B8 % program_program_decides_1(c1_0()) ....... U3 % program_not_halts2_halts3_outputs_4(c1_0(), x0, x1, bad_0()) ....... R1 [B8:L0, U3:L0] % Derivation of unit clause U12: % ~program_halts2_halts3_outputs_4(x0,x1,x2,x3) | program_halts2_2(x1,x2) ....... B2 % ~program_halts2_2(x0,x1) | halts2_2(x0,x1) ....... B18 % ~program_halts2_halts3_outputs_4(x0, x1, x2, x3) | halts2_2(x1, x2) ....... R1 [B2:L1, B18:L0] % program_halts2_halts3_outputs_4(c1_0(),x0,x1,good_0()) ....... U4 % halts2_2(x0, x1) ....... R2 [R1:L0, U4:L0] % Derivation of unit clause U14: % ~program_not_halts2_halts3_outputs_4(x0,x1,x2,x3) | program_not_halts2_2(x1,x2) ....... B3 % ~halts2_2(x0,x1) | ~program_not_halts2_2(x0,x1) ....... B17 % ~program_not_halts2_halts3_outputs_4(x0, x1, x2, x3) | ~halts2_2(x1, x2) ....... R1 [B3:L1, B17:L1] % program_not_halts2_halts3_outputs_4(c1_0(),x0,x1,bad_0()) ....... U5 % ~halts2_2(x0, x1) ....... R2 [R1:L0, U5:L0] % Derivation of the empty clause: % ~halts2_2(x0,x1) ....... U14 % halts2_2(x0,x1) ....... U12 % [] ....... R1 [U14:L0, U12:L0] % --------------- End of Proof --------------- % PROOF FOUND! % --------------------------------------------- % | Statistics | % --------------------------------------------- % Profile 3: Performance Statistics: % ================================== % Total number of generated clauses: 75 % resolvents: 75 factors: 0 % Number of unit clauses generated: 23 % % unit clauses generated to total clauses generated: 30.67 % Number of unit clauses constructed and retained at depth [x]: % ============================================================= % [0] = 1 [1] = 7 [2] = 7 % Total = 15 % Number of generated clauses having [x] literals: % ------------------------------------------------ % [1] = 23 [2] = 46 [3] = 6 % Average size of a generated clause: 2.0 % Number of unit clauses per predicate list: % ========================================== % [0] algorithm_1 (+)1 (-)0 % [1] algorithm_program_decides_1 (+)1 (-)0 % [2] program_1 (+)2 (-)0 % [3] program_decides_1 (+)2 (-)0 % [4] program_program_decides_1 (+)1 (-)0 % [5] halts2_2 (+)1 (-)1 % [6] outputs_2 (+)2 (-)0 % [7] program_halts2_2 (+)1 (-)0 % [8] program_not_halts2_2 (+)1 (-)0 % [9] decides_3 (+)0 (-)0 % [10] halts2_outputs_3 (+)0 (-)0 % [11] halts3_3 (+)0 (-)0 % [12] program_halts2_halts2_outputs_3 (+)0 (-)0 % [13] program_not_halts2_halts2_outputs_3 (+)0 (-)0 % [14] halts3_outputs_4 (+)0 (-)0 % [15] program_halts2_halts3_outputs_4 (+)1 (-)0 % [16] program_not_halts2_halts3_outputs_4 (+)1 (-)0 % ------------------ % Total: (+)14 (-)1 % Total number of unit clauses retained: 15 % Number of clauses skipped because of their length: 363 % N base clauses skippped in resolve-with-all-base-clauses % because of the shortest resolvents table: 0 % Number of successful unifications: 82 % Number of unification failures: 0 % Number of unit to unit unification failures: 0 % N literal unification failure due to lookup root_id table: 190 % N base clause resolution failure due to lookup table: 756 % N UC-BCL resolution dropped due to lookup table: 0 % Max entries in substitution set: 8 % N unit clauses dropped because they exceeded max values: 4 % 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: 4 % Max term depth in a unit clause: 1 % Number of states in UCFA table: 26 % Total number of terms of all unit clauses in table: 27 % 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: 0.96 % Number of symbols (columns) in UCFA: 61 % Profile 2: Number of calls to: % ============================== % PTUnify() = 82 % ConstructUnitClause() = 18 % Profile 1: Time spent in: % ========================= % ConstructUnitClause() : 0.00 secs % -------------------------------------------------------- % | | % Inferences per sec: inf % | | % -------------------------------------------------------- % Elapsed time: 0 secs % CPU time: 0.16 secs % %------------------------------------------------------------------------------