%------------------------------------------------------------------------------ % File : CARINE---0.734 % Problem : FLD039-1 : 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 18:36:51 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/SystemOnTPTP20026/FLD/FLD039-1+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 ... % +================================================+ % | | % | Congratulations!!! ........ A proof was found. | % | | % +================================================+ % Base Clauses and Unit Clauses used in proof: % ============================================ % Base Clauses: % ------------- % B0: ~equalish_2(a_0(),additive_identity_0()) % B1: equalish_2(multiplicative_identity_0(),additive_identity_0()) % B6: ~equalish_2(x1,x0) | equalish_2(x0,x1) % Unit Clauses: % -------------- % U5: < d0 v0 dv0 f0 c2 t2 td1 b > ~equalish_2(additive_identity_0(),multiplicative_identity_0()) % U7: < d1 v0 dv0 f0 c2 t2 td1 > equalish_2(additive_identity_0(),multiplicative_identity_0()) % --------------- Start of Proof --------------- % Derivation of unit clause U5: % ~equalish_2(additive_identity_0(),multiplicative_identity_0()) ....... U5 % Derivation of unit clause U7: % equalish_2(multiplicative_identity_0(),additive_identity_0()) ....... B1 % ~equalish_2(x1,x0) | equalish_2(x0,x1) ....... B6 % equalish_2(additive_identity_0(), multiplicative_identity_0()) ....... R1 [B1:L0, B6:L0] % Derivation of the empty clause: % equalish_2(additive_identity_0(),multiplicative_identity_0()) ....... U7 % ~equalish_2(additive_identity_0(),multiplicative_identity_0()) ....... U5 % [] ....... R1 [U7:L0, U5:L0] % --------------- End of Proof --------------- % PROOF FOUND! % --------------------------------------------- % | Statistics | % --------------------------------------------- % Profile 3: Performance Statistics: % ================================== % Total number of generated clauses: 6 % resolvents: 6 factors: 0 % Number of unit clauses generated: 2 % % unit clauses generated to total clauses generated: 33.33 % Number of unit clauses constructed and retained at depth [x]: % ============================================================= % [0] = 6 [1] = 2 % Total = 8 % Number of generated clauses having [x] literals: % ------------------------------------------------ % [1] = 2 [2] = 4 % Average size of a generated clause: 2.0 % Number of unit clauses per predicate list: % ========================================== % [0] defined_1 (+)3 (-)0 % [1] equalish_2 (+)2 (-)3 % [2] less_or_equal_2 (+)0 (-)0 % ------------------ % Total: (+)5 (-)3 % Total number of unit clauses retained: 8 % Number of clauses skipped because of their length: 4 % N base clauses skippped in resolve-with-all-base-clauses % because of the shortest resolvents table: 0 % Number of successful unifications: 7 % Number of unification failures: 0 % Number of unit to unit unification failures: 4 % N literal unification failure due to lookup root_id table: 9 % N base clause resolution failure due to lookup table: 15 % N UC-BCL resolution dropped due to lookup table: 0 % Max entries in substitution set: 2 % N unit clauses dropped because they exceeded max values: 0 % 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: 2 % Max term depth in a unit clause: 1 % Number of states in UCFA table: 10 % Total number of terms of all unit clauses in table: 13 % 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: 0.77 % Number of symbols (columns) in UCFA: 44 % Profile 2: Number of calls to: % ============================== % PTUnify() = 7 % ConstructUnitClause() = 2 % Profile 1: Time spent in: % ========================= % ConstructUnitClause() : 0.00 secs % -------------------------------------------------------- % | | % Inferences per sec: inf % | | % -------------------------------------------------------- % Elapsed time: 0 secs % CPU time: 0.17 secs % %------------------------------------------------------------------------------