%------------------------------------------------------------------------------ % File : CARINE---0.734 % Problem : FLD019-3 : TPTP v5.0.0. Bugfixed v2.1.0. % Transfm : add_equality % Format : carine % Command : carine %s t=%d xo=off uct=32000 % Computer : art04.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 18:22:42 EST 2010 % Result : Unsatisfiable 0.24s % Output : Refutation 0.24s % 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/SystemOnTPTP18054/FLD/FLD019-3+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 = 118] [nf = 0] [nu = 72] [ut = 45] % Looking for a proof at depth = 2 ... % t = 1 secs [nr = 57841] [nf = 72] [nu = 43183] [ut = 1623] % 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(additive_identity_0(),additive_inverse_1(a_0()),additive_identity_0()) % B2: defined_1(additive_identity_0()) % B4: defined_1(a_0()) % B9: ~defined_1(x0) | sum_3(additive_identity_0(),x0,x0) % B11: ~defined_1(x0) | sum_3(additive_inverse_1(x0),x0,additive_identity_0()) % B22: ~sum_3(x3,x5,x2) | ~sum_3(x4,x1,x5) | ~sum_3(x3,x4,x0) | sum_3(x0,x1,x2) % Unit Clauses: % -------------- % U1: < d0 v0 dv0 f0 c3 t3 td1 b nc > ~sum_3(additive_identity_0(),a_0(),additive_identity_0()) % U9: < d1 v0 dv0 f0 c3 t3 td1 > sum_3(additive_identity_0(),additive_identity_0(),additive_identity_0()) % U19: < d1 v0 dv0 f1 c3 t4 td2 > sum_3(additive_inverse_1(a_0()),a_0(),additive_identity_0()) % U1681: < d3 v0 dv0 f0 c3 t3 td1 > sum_3(additive_identity_0(),a_0(),additive_identity_0()) % --------------- Start of Proof --------------- % Derivation of unit clause U1: % ~sum_3(additive_identity_0(),a_0(),additive_identity_0()) ....... U1 % Derivation of unit clause U9: % defined_1(additive_identity_0()) ....... B2 % ~defined_1(x0) | sum_3(additive_identity_0(),x0,x0) ....... B9 % sum_3(additive_identity_0(), additive_identity_0(), additive_identity_0()) ....... R1 [B2:L0, B9:L0] % Derivation of unit clause U19: % defined_1(a_0()) ....... B4 % ~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 [B4:L0, B11:L0] % Derivation of unit clause U1681: % sum_3(additive_identity_0(),additive_inverse_1(a_0()),additive_identity_0()) ....... B0 % ~sum_3(x3,x5,x2) | ~sum_3(x4,x1,x5) | ~sum_3(x3,x4,x0) | sum_3(x0,x1,x2) ....... B22 % ~sum_3(additive_identity_0(), x0, x1) | ~sum_3(additive_inverse_1(a_0()), x2, x0) | sum_3(additive_identity_0(), x2, x1) ....... R1 [B0:L0, B22:L2] % sum_3(additive_identity_0(),additive_identity_0(),additive_identity_0()) ....... U9 % ~sum_3(additive_inverse_1(a_0()), x0, additive_identity_0()) | sum_3(additive_identity_0(), x0, additive_identity_0()) ....... R2 [R1:L0, U9:L0] % sum_3(additive_inverse_1(a_0()),a_0(),additive_identity_0()) ....... U19 % sum_3(additive_identity_0(), a_0(), additive_identity_0()) ....... R3 [R2:L0, U19:L0] % Derivation of the empty clause: % sum_3(additive_identity_0(),a_0(),additive_identity_0()) ....... U1681 % ~sum_3(additive_identity_0(),a_0(),additive_identity_0()) ....... U1 % [] ....... R1 [U1681:L0, U1:L0] % --------------- End of Proof --------------- % PROOF FOUND! % --------------------------------------------- % | Statistics | % --------------------------------------------- % Profile 3: Performance Statistics: % ================================== % Total number of generated clauses: 58502 % resolvents: 58422 factors: 80 % Number of unit clauses generated: 43415 % % unit clauses generated to total clauses generated: 74.21 % Number of unit clauses constructed and retained at depth [x]: % ============================================================= % [0] = 6 [1] = 39 [2] = 1578 [3] = 59 % Total = 1682 % Number of generated clauses having [x] literals: % ------------------------------------------------ % [1] = 43415 [2] = 15026 [3] = 61 % Average size of a generated clause: 2.0 % Number of unit clauses per predicate list: % ========================================== % [0] defined_1 (+)1439 (-)0 % [1] less_or_equal_2 (+)0 (-)0 % [2] product_3 (+)71 (-)0 % [3] sum_3 (+)160 (-)12 % ------------------ % Total: (+)1670 (-)12 % Total number of unit clauses retained: 1682 % Number of clauses skipped because of their length: 1452 % N base clauses skippped in resolve-with-all-base-clauses % because of the shortest resolvents table: 0 % Number of successful unifications: 58507 % Number of unification failures: 17136 % Number of unit to unit unification failures: 1908 % N literal unification failure due to lookup root_id table: 1644 % N base clause resolution failure due to lookup table: 733 % 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: 36124 % N unit clauses dropped because too much nesting: 15922 % 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: 1986 % Total number of terms of all unit clauses in table: 10609 % Max allowed number of states in UCFA: 80000 % Ratio n states used/total allowed states: 0.02 % Ratio n states used/total unit clauses terms: 0.19 % Number of symbols (columns) in UCFA: 45 % Profile 2: Number of calls to: % ============================== % PTUnify() = 75643 % ConstructUnitClause() = 37800 % Profile 1: Time spent in: % ========================= % ConstructUnitClause() : 0.07 secs % -------------------------------------------------------- % | | % Inferences per sec: inf % | | % -------------------------------------------------------- % Elapsed time: 1 secs % CPU time: 0.24 secs % %------------------------------------------------------------------------------