%------------------------------------------------------------------------------ % File : CARINE---0.734 % Problem : FLD056-1 : TPTP v5.0.0. Bugfixed v2.1.0. % Transfm : add_equality % Format : carine % Command : carine %s t=%d xo=off uct=32000 % Computer : art05.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 19:08:17 EST 2010 % Result : Unsatisfiable 0.97s % Output : Refutation 0.97s % 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/SystemOnTPTP27005/FLD/FLD056-1+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 = 160] [nf = 0] [nu = 105] [ut = 66] % Looking for a proof at depth = 2 ... % t = 1 secs [nr = 418011] [nf = 134] [nu = 248860] [ut = 21984] % Looking for a proof at depth = 3 ... % +================================================+ % | | % | Congratulations!!! ........ A proof was found. | % | | % +================================================+ % Base Clauses and Unit Clauses used in proof: % ============================================ % Base Clauses: % ------------- % B0: ~less_or_equal_2(a_0(),a_0()) % B28: ~defined_1(x1) | ~defined_1(x0) | less_or_equal_2(x0,x1) | less_or_equal_2(x1,x0) % Unit Clauses: % -------------- % U0: < d0 v0 dv0 f0 c2 t2 td1 b nc > ~less_or_equal_2(a_0(),a_0()) % U3: < d0 v0 dv0 f0 c1 t1 td1 b > defined_1(a_0()) % U21984: < d3 v0 dv0 f0 c2 t2 td1 > less_or_equal_2(a_0(),a_0()) % --------------- Start of Proof --------------- % Derivation of unit clause U0: % ~less_or_equal_2(a_0(),a_0()) ....... U0 % Derivation of unit clause U3: % defined_1(a_0()) ....... U3 % Derivation of unit clause U21984: % ~less_or_equal_2(a_0(),a_0()) ....... B0 % ~defined_1(x1) | ~defined_1(x0) | less_or_equal_2(x0,x1) | less_or_equal_2(x1,x0) ....... B28 % ~defined_1(a_0()) | ~defined_1(a_0()) | less_or_equal_2(a_0(), a_0()) ....... R1 [B0:L0, B28:L2] % ~defined_1(a_0()) | less_or_equal_2(a_0(), a_0()) ....... R2 [R1:L1, R1:L0] % defined_1(a_0()) ....... U3 % less_or_equal_2(a_0(), a_0()) ....... R3 [R2:L0, U3:L0] % Derivation of the empty clause: % less_or_equal_2(a_0(),a_0()) ....... U21984 % ~less_or_equal_2(a_0(),a_0()) ....... U0 % [] ....... R1 [U21984:L0, U0:L0] % --------------- End of Proof --------------- % PROOF FOUND! % --------------------------------------------- % | Statistics | % --------------------------------------------- % Profile 3: Performance Statistics: % ================================== % Total number of generated clauses: 418194 % resolvents: 418038 factors: 156 % Number of unit clauses generated: 248872 % % unit clauses generated to total clauses generated: 59.51 % Number of unit clauses constructed and retained at depth [x]: % ============================================================= % [0] = 5 [1] = 61 [2] = 21918 [3] = 1 % Total = 21985 % Number of generated clauses having [x] literals: % ------------------------------------------------ % [1] = 248872 [2] = 169216 [3] = 106 % Average size of a generated clause: 2.0 % Number of unit clauses per predicate list: % ========================================== % [0] defined_1 (+)8734 (-)0 % [1] equalish_2 (+)13237 (-)10 % [2] less_or_equal_2 (+)1 (-)3 % ------------------ % Total: (+)21972 (-)13 % Total number of unit clauses retained: 21985 % Number of clauses skipped because of their length: 1259 % N base clauses skippped in resolve-with-all-base-clauses % because of the shortest resolvents table: 0 % Number of successful unifications: 418197 % Number of unification failures: 84471 % Number of unit to unit unification failures: 132370 % N literal unification failure due to lookup root_id table: 1369 % N base clause resolution failure due to lookup table: 433 % N UC-BCL resolution dropped due to lookup table: 0 % Max entries in substitution set: 6 % N unit clauses dropped because they exceeded max values: 190598 % N unit clauses dropped because too much nesting: 144034 % 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: 16 % Max term depth in a unit clause: 5 % Number of states in UCFA table: 108222 % Total number of terms of all unit clauses in table: 274598 % Max allowed number of states in UCFA: 144000 % Ratio n states used/total allowed states: 0.75 % Ratio n states used/total unit clauses terms: 0.39 % Number of symbols (columns) in UCFA: 44 % Profile 2: Number of calls to: % ============================== % PTUnify() = 502668 % ConstructUnitClause() = 212578 % Profile 1: Time spent in: % ========================= % ConstructUnitClause() : 0.27 secs % -------------------------------------------------------- % | | % Inferences per sec: inf % | | % -------------------------------------------------------- % Elapsed time: 1 secs % CPU time: 0.96 secs % %------------------------------------------------------------------------------