%------------------------------------------------------------------------------ % File : CARINE---0.734 % Problem : FLD005-3 : TPTP v5.0.0. Bugfixed v2.1.0. % 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 18:09:40 EST 2010 % Result : Unsatisfiable 0.43s % Output : Refutation 0.43s % 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/SystemOnTPTP21754/FLD/FLD005-3+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 = 144] [nf = 0] [nu = 91] [ut = 57] % Looking for a proof at depth = 2 ... % t = 0 secs [nr = 151348] [nf = 70] [nu = 115314] [ut = 3841] % Looking for a proof at depth = 3 ... % +================================================+ % | | % | Congratulations!!! ........ A proof was found. | % | | % +================================================+ % Base Clauses and Unit Clauses used in proof: % ============================================ % Base Clauses: % ------------- % B0: ~sum_3(a_0(),x0,b_0()) % B3: defined_1(a_0()) % B4: defined_1(b_0()) % B7: ~sum_3(x1,x0,x2) | sum_3(x0,x1,x2) % B9: ~defined_1(x0) | sum_3(additive_identity_0(),x0,x0) % B10: ~defined_1(x0) | defined_1(additive_inverse_1(x0)) % B11: ~defined_1(x0) | sum_3(additive_inverse_1(x0),x0,additive_identity_0()) % B17: ~defined_1(x1) | ~defined_1(x0) | sum_3(x0,x1,add_2(x0,x1)) % B23: ~sum_3(x4,x5,x2) | ~sum_3(x3,x5,x1) | ~sum_3(x0,x3,x4) | sum_3(x0,x1,x2) % Unit Clauses: % -------------- % U17: < d1 v0 dv0 f1 c1 t2 td2 > defined_1(additive_inverse_1(a_0())) % U18: < d1 v0 dv0 f1 c3 t4 td2 > sum_3(additive_inverse_1(a_0()),a_0(),additive_identity_0()) % U20: < d1 v0 dv0 f0 c3 t3 td1 > sum_3(additive_identity_0(),b_0(),b_0()) % U30: < d1 v0 dv0 f1 c3 t4 td2 > sum_3(a_0(),additive_inverse_1(a_0()),additive_identity_0()) % U3595: < d2 v0 dv0 f3 c4 t7 td3 > sum_3(additive_inverse_1(a_0()),b_0(),add_2(additive_inverse_1(a_0()),b_0())) % U3929: < d3 v0 dv0 f1 c3 t4 td2 > ~sum_3(a_0(),additive_inverse_1(a_0()),additive_identity_0()) % --------------- Start of Proof --------------- % Derivation of unit clause U17: % defined_1(a_0()) ....... B3 % ~defined_1(x0) | defined_1(additive_inverse_1(x0)) ....... B10 % defined_1(additive_inverse_1(a_0())) ....... R1 [B3:L0, B10:L0] % Derivation of unit clause U18: % defined_1(a_0()) ....... B3 % ~defined_1(x0) | sum_3(additive_inverse_1(x0),x0,additive_identity_0()) ....... B11 % sum_3(additive_inverse_1(a_0()), a_0(), additive_identity_0()) ....... R1 [B3:L0, B11:L0] % Derivation of unit clause U20: % defined_1(b_0()) ....... B4 % ~defined_1(x0) | sum_3(additive_identity_0(),x0,x0) ....... B9 % sum_3(additive_identity_0(), b_0(), b_0()) ....... R1 [B4:L0, B9:L0] % Derivation of unit clause U30: % ~sum_3(x1,x0,x2) | sum_3(x0,x1,x2) ....... B7 % sum_3(additive_inverse_1(a_0()),a_0(),additive_identity_0()) ....... U18 % sum_3(a_0(), additive_inverse_1(a_0()), additive_identity_0()) ....... R1 [B7:L0, U18:L0] % Derivation of unit clause U3595: % defined_1(b_0()) ....... B4 % ~defined_1(x1) | ~defined_1(x0) | sum_3(x0,x1,add_2(x0,x1)) ....... B17 % ~defined_1(x0) | sum_3(x0, b_0(), add_2(x0, b_0())) ....... R1 [B4:L0, B17:L0] % defined_1(additive_inverse_1(a_0())) ....... U17 % sum_3(additive_inverse_1(a_0()), b_0(), add_2(additive_inverse_1(a_0()), b_0())) ....... R2 [R1:L0, U17:L0] % Derivation of unit clause U3929: % ~sum_3(a_0(),x0,b_0()) ....... B0 % ~sum_3(x4,x5,x2) | ~sum_3(x3,x5,x1) | ~sum_3(x0,x3,x4) | sum_3(x0,x1,x2) ....... B23 % ~sum_3(x0, x1, b_0()) | ~sum_3(x2, x1, x3) | ~sum_3(a_0(), x2, x0) ....... R1 [B0:L0, B23:L3] % sum_3(additive_identity_0(),b_0(),b_0()) ....... U20 % ~sum_3(x0, b_0(), x1) | ~sum_3(a_0(), x0, additive_identity_0()) ....... R2 [R1:L0, U20:L0] % sum_3(additive_inverse_1(a_0()),b_0(),add_2(additive_inverse_1(a_0()),b_0())) ....... U3595 % ~sum_3(a_0(), additive_inverse_1(a_0()), additive_identity_0()) ....... R3 [R2:L0, U3595:L0] % Derivation of the empty clause: % ~sum_3(a_0(),additive_inverse_1(a_0()),additive_identity_0()) ....... U3929 % sum_3(a_0(),additive_inverse_1(a_0()),additive_identity_0()) ....... U30 % [] ....... R1 [U3929:L0, U30:L0] % --------------- End of Proof --------------- % PROOF FOUND! % --------------------------------------------- % | Statistics | % --------------------------------------------- % Profile 3: Performance Statistics: % ================================== % Total number of generated clauses: 152167 % resolvents: 152085 factors: 82 % Number of unit clauses generated: 115514 % % unit clauses generated to total clauses generated: 75.91 % Number of unit clauses constructed and retained at depth [x]: % ============================================================= % [0] = 6 [1] = 51 [2] = 3784 [3] = 89 % Total = 3930 % Number of generated clauses having [x] literals: % ------------------------------------------------ % [1] = 115514 [2] = 36604 [3] = 49 % Average size of a generated clause: 2.0 % Number of unit clauses per predicate list: % ========================================== % [0] defined_1 (+)3576 (-)0 % [1] less_or_equal_2 (+)0 (-)0 % [2] product_3 (+)103 (-)0 % [3] sum_3 (+)159 (-)92 % ------------------ % Total: (+)3838 (-)92 % Total number of unit clauses retained: 3930 % Number of clauses skipped because of their length: 2025 % N base clauses skippped in resolve-with-all-base-clauses % because of the shortest resolvents table: 0 % Number of successful unifications: 152176 % Number of unification failures: 55291 % Number of unit to unit unification failures: 14481 % N literal unification failure due to lookup root_id table: 1920 % N base clause resolution failure due to lookup table: 937 % N UC-BCL resolution dropped due to lookup table: 0 % Max entries in substitution set: 9 % N unit clauses dropped because they exceeded max values: 97546 % N unit clauses dropped because too much nesting: 44462 % 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: 8 % Max term depth in a unit clause: 4 % Number of states in UCFA table: 3290 % Total number of terms of all unit clauses in table: 25288 % Max allowed number of states in UCFA: 80000 % Ratio n states used/total allowed states: 0.04 % Ratio n states used/total unit clauses terms: 0.13 % Number of symbols (columns) in UCFA: 46 % Profile 2: Number of calls to: % ============================== % PTUnify() = 207467 % ConstructUnitClause() = 101470 % Profile 1: Time spent in: % ========================= % ConstructUnitClause() : 0.12 secs % -------------------------------------------------------- % | | % Inferences per sec: inf % | | % -------------------------------------------------------- % Elapsed time: 0 secs % CPU time: 0.43 secs % %------------------------------------------------------------------------------