%------------------------------------------------------------------------------ % File : CARINE---0.734 % Problem : FLD023-1 : 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 18:23:43 EST 2010 % Result : Unsatisfiable 0.19s % Output : Refutation 0.19s % 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/SystemOnTPTP18438/FLD/FLD023-1+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 = 218] [nf = 0] [nu = 145] [ut = 90] % Looking for a proof at depth = 2 ... % +================================================+ % | | % | Congratulations!!! ........ A proof was found. | % | | % +================================================+ % Base Clauses and Unit Clauses used in proof: % ============================================ % Base Clauses: % ------------- % B0: equalish_2(a_0(),b_0()) % B1: ~equalish_2(additive_identity_0(),add_2(b_0(),additive_inverse_1(a_0()))) % B4: defined_1(a_0()) % B7: ~equalish_2(x1,x0) | equalish_2(x0,x1) % B9: ~defined_1(x0) | defined_1(additive_inverse_1(x0)) % B12: ~defined_1(x0) | equalish_2(add_2(x0,additive_inverse_1(x0)),additive_identity_0()) % B14: ~equalish_2(x2,x1) | ~equalish_2(x0,x2) | equalish_2(x0,x1) % B16: ~defined_1(x1) | ~equalish_2(x0,x2) | equalish_2(add_2(x0,x1),add_2(x2,x1)) % Unit Clauses: % -------------- % U20: < d1 v0 dv0 f1 c1 t2 td2 > defined_1(additive_inverse_1(a_0())) % U23: < d1 v0 dv0 f2 c3 t5 td3 > equalish_2(add_2(a_0(),additive_inverse_1(a_0())),additive_identity_0()) % U38: < d1 v0 dv0 f2 c3 t5 td3 > equalish_2(additive_identity_0(),add_2(a_0(),additive_inverse_1(a_0()))) % U100: < d2 v0 dv0 f4 c4 t8 td3 > equalish_2(add_2(a_0(),additive_inverse_1(a_0())),add_2(b_0(),additive_inverse_1(a_0()))) % U126: < d2 v0 dv0 f2 c3 t5 td3 > ~equalish_2(additive_identity_0(),add_2(a_0(),additive_inverse_1(a_0()))) % --------------- Start of Proof --------------- % Derivation of unit clause U20: % defined_1(a_0()) ....... B4 % ~defined_1(x0) | defined_1(additive_inverse_1(x0)) ....... B9 % defined_1(additive_inverse_1(a_0())) ....... R1 [B4:L0, B9:L0] % Derivation of unit clause U23: % defined_1(a_0()) ....... B4 % ~defined_1(x0) | equalish_2(add_2(x0,additive_inverse_1(x0)),additive_identity_0()) ....... B12 % equalish_2(add_2(a_0(), additive_inverse_1(a_0())), additive_identity_0()) ....... R1 [B4:L0, B12:L0] % Derivation of unit clause U38: % ~equalish_2(x1,x0) | equalish_2(x0,x1) ....... B7 % equalish_2(add_2(a_0(),additive_inverse_1(a_0())),additive_identity_0()) ....... U23 % equalish_2(additive_identity_0(), add_2(a_0(), additive_inverse_1(a_0()))) ....... R1 [B7:L0, U23:L0] % Derivation of unit clause U100: % equalish_2(a_0(),b_0()) ....... B0 % ~defined_1(x1) | ~equalish_2(x0,x2) | equalish_2(add_2(x0,x1),add_2(x2,x1)) ....... B16 % ~defined_1(x0) | equalish_2(add_2(a_0(), x0), add_2(b_0(), x0)) ....... R1 [B0:L0, B16:L1] % defined_1(additive_inverse_1(a_0())) ....... U20 % equalish_2(add_2(a_0(), additive_inverse_1(a_0())), add_2(b_0(), additive_inverse_1(a_0()))) ....... R2 [R1:L0, U20:L0] % Derivation of unit clause U126: % ~equalish_2(additive_identity_0(),add_2(b_0(),additive_inverse_1(a_0()))) ....... B1 % ~equalish_2(x2,x1) | ~equalish_2(x0,x2) | equalish_2(x0,x1) ....... B14 % ~equalish_2(x0, add_2(b_0(), additive_inverse_1(a_0()))) | ~equalish_2(additive_identity_0(), x0) ....... R1 [B1:L0, B14:L2] % equalish_2(add_2(a_0(),additive_inverse_1(a_0())),add_2(b_0(),additive_inverse_1(a_0()))) ....... U100 % ~equalish_2(additive_identity_0(), add_2(a_0(), additive_inverse_1(a_0()))) ....... R2 [R1:L0, U100:L0] % Derivation of the empty clause: % ~equalish_2(additive_identity_0(),add_2(a_0(),additive_inverse_1(a_0()))) ....... U126 % equalish_2(additive_identity_0(),add_2(a_0(),additive_inverse_1(a_0()))) ....... U38 % [] ....... R1 [U126:L0, U38:L0] % --------------- End of Proof --------------- % PROOF FOUND! % --------------------------------------------- % | Statistics | % --------------------------------------------- % Profile 3: Performance Statistics: % ================================== % Total number of generated clauses: 287 % resolvents: 287 factors: 0 % Number of unit clauses generated: 196 % % unit clauses generated to total clauses generated: 68.29 % Number of unit clauses constructed and retained at depth [x]: % ============================================================= % [0] = 7 [1] = 83 [2] = 37 % Total = 127 % Number of generated clauses having [x] literals: % ------------------------------------------------ % [1] = 196 [2] = 91 % Average size of a generated clause: 2.0 % Number of unit clauses per predicate list: % ========================================== % [0] defined_1 (+)20 (-)0 % [1] equalish_2 (+)102 (-)5 % [2] less_or_equal_2 (+)0 (-)0 % ------------------ % Total: (+)122 (-)5 % Total number of unit clauses retained: 127 % Number of clauses skipped because of their length: 182 % N base clauses skippped in resolve-with-all-base-clauses % because of the shortest resolvents table: 0 % Number of successful unifications: 294 % Number of unification failures: 232 % Number of unit to unit unification failures: 434 % N literal unification failure due to lookup root_id table: 237 % N base clause resolution failure due to lookup table: 112 % N UC-BCL resolution dropped due to lookup table: 0 % Max entries in substitution set: 4 % N unit clauses dropped because they exceeded max values: 74 % N unit clauses dropped because too much nesting: 28 % 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: 12 % Max term depth in a unit clause: 5 % Number of states in UCFA table: 343 % Total number of terms of all unit clauses in table: 771 % Max allowed number of states in UCFA: 144000 % Ratio n states used/total allowed states: 0.00 % Ratio n states used/total unit clauses terms: 0.44 % Number of symbols (columns) in UCFA: 45 % Profile 2: Number of calls to: % ============================== % PTUnify() = 526 % ConstructUnitClause() = 194 % Profile 1: Time spent in: % ========================= % ConstructUnitClause() : 0.00 secs % -------------------------------------------------------- % | | % Inferences per sec: inf % | | % -------------------------------------------------------- % Elapsed time: 0 secs % CPU time: 0.18 secs % %------------------------------------------------------------------------------