%------------------------------------------------------------------------------ % File : CARINE---0.734 % Problem : FLD030-1 : 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 18:30:12 EST 2010 % Result : Unsatisfiable 0.18s % Output : Refutation 0.18s % 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/SystemOnTPTP19332/FLD/FLD030-1+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 = 266] [nf = 0] [nu = 179] [ut = 111] % 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(),d_0()) % B1: ~equalish_2(multiply_2(d_0(),b_0()),multiply_2(a_0(),b_0())) % B8: ~equalish_2(x1,x0) | equalish_2(x0,x1) % B18: ~defined_1(x1) | ~equalish_2(x0,x2) | equalish_2(multiply_2(x0,x1),multiply_2(x2,x1)) % Unit Clauses: % -------------- % U5: < d0 v0 dv0 f0 c1 t1 td1 b > defined_1(b_0()) % U9: < d1 v0 dv0 f2 c4 t6 td2 > ~equalish_2(multiply_2(a_0(),b_0()),multiply_2(d_0(),b_0())) % U138: < d2 v0 dv0 f2 c4 t6 td2 > equalish_2(multiply_2(a_0(),b_0()),multiply_2(d_0(),b_0())) % --------------- Start of Proof --------------- % Derivation of unit clause U5: % defined_1(b_0()) ....... U5 % Derivation of unit clause U9: % ~equalish_2(multiply_2(d_0(),b_0()),multiply_2(a_0(),b_0())) ....... B1 % ~equalish_2(x1,x0) | equalish_2(x0,x1) ....... B8 % ~equalish_2(multiply_2(a_0(), b_0()), multiply_2(d_0(), b_0())) ....... R1 [B1:L0, B8:L1] % Derivation of unit clause U138: % equalish_2(a_0(),d_0()) ....... B0 % ~defined_1(x1) | ~equalish_2(x0,x2) | equalish_2(multiply_2(x0,x1),multiply_2(x2,x1)) ....... B18 % ~defined_1(x0) | equalish_2(multiply_2(a_0(), x0), multiply_2(d_0(), x0)) ....... R1 [B0:L0, B18:L1] % defined_1(b_0()) ....... U5 % equalish_2(multiply_2(a_0(), b_0()), multiply_2(d_0(), b_0())) ....... R2 [R1:L0, U5:L0] % Derivation of the empty clause: % equalish_2(multiply_2(a_0(),b_0()),multiply_2(d_0(),b_0())) ....... U138 % ~equalish_2(multiply_2(a_0(),b_0()),multiply_2(d_0(),b_0())) ....... U9 % [] ....... R1 [U138:L0, U9:L0] % --------------- End of Proof --------------- % PROOF FOUND! % --------------------------------------------- % | Statistics | % --------------------------------------------- % Profile 3: Performance Statistics: % ================================== % Total number of generated clauses: 319 % resolvents: 319 factors: 0 % Number of unit clauses generated: 217 % % unit clauses generated to total clauses generated: 68.03 % Number of unit clauses constructed and retained at depth [x]: % ============================================================= % [0] = 8 [1] = 103 [2] = 28 % Total = 139 % Number of generated clauses having [x] literals: % ------------------------------------------------ % [1] = 217 [2] = 102 % Average size of a generated clause: 2.0 % Number of unit clauses per predicate list: % ========================================== % [0] defined_1 (+)25 (-)0 % [1] equalish_2 (+)110 (-)4 % [2] less_or_equal_2 (+)0 (-)0 % ------------------ % Total: (+)135 (-)4 % Total number of unit clauses retained: 139 % Number of clauses skipped because of their length: 172 % N base clauses skippped in resolve-with-all-base-clauses % because of the shortest resolvents table: 0 % Number of successful unifications: 322 % Number of unification failures: 184 % Number of unit to unit unification failures: 438 % N literal unification failure due to lookup root_id table: 230 % N base clause resolution failure due to lookup table: 98 % 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: 85 % N unit clauses dropped because too much nesting: 30 % 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: 339 % Total number of terms of all unit clauses in table: 795 % 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: 0.43 % Number of symbols (columns) in UCFA: 46 % Profile 2: Number of calls to: % ============================== % PTUnify() = 506 % ConstructUnitClause() = 216 % Profile 1: Time spent in: % ========================= % ConstructUnitClause() : 0.00 secs % -------------------------------------------------------- % | | % Inferences per sec: inf % | | % -------------------------------------------------------- % Elapsed time: 0 secs % CPU time: 0.18 secs % %------------------------------------------------------------------------------