%------------------------------------------------------------------------------ % File : CARINE---0.734 % Problem : FLD056-3 : 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 19:08:22 EST 2010 % Result : Unsatisfiable 0.23s % Output : Refutation 0.23s % 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/SystemOnTPTP27133/FLD/FLD056-3+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 = 110] [nf = 0] [nu = 66] [ut = 42] % Looking for a proof at depth = 2 ... % t = 0 secs [nr = 53920] [nf = 66] [nu = 40220] [ut = 1507] % 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()) % B25: ~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()) % U1508: < 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 U1508: % ~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) ....... B25 % ~defined_1(a_0()) | ~defined_1(a_0()) | less_or_equal_2(a_0(), a_0()) ....... R1 [B0:L0, B25: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()) ....... U1508 % ~less_or_equal_2(a_0(),a_0()) ....... U0 % [] ....... R1 [U1508:L0, U0:L0] % --------------- End of Proof --------------- % PROOF FOUND! % --------------------------------------------- % | Statistics | % --------------------------------------------- % Profile 3: Performance Statistics: % ================================== % Total number of generated clauses: 54033 % resolvents: 53952 factors: 81 % Number of unit clauses generated: 40231 % % unit clauses generated to total clauses generated: 74.46 % Number of unit clauses constructed and retained at depth [x]: % ============================================================= % [0] = 5 [1] = 37 [2] = 1465 [3] = 2 % Total = 1509 % Number of generated clauses having [x] literals: % ------------------------------------------------ % [1] = 40231 [2] = 13755 [3] = 47 % Average size of a generated clause: 2.0 % Number of unit clauses per predicate list: % ========================================== % [0] defined_1 (+)1345 (-)0 % [1] less_or_equal_2 (+)1 (-)2 % [2] product_3 (+)62 (-)0 % [3] sum_3 (+)98 (-)1 % ------------------ % Total: (+)1506 (-)3 % Total number of unit clauses retained: 1509 % Number of clauses skipped because of their length: 624 % N base clauses skippped in resolve-with-all-base-clauses % because of the shortest resolvents table: 0 % Number of successful unifications: 54036 % Number of unification failures: 799 % Number of unit to unit unification failures: 98 % N literal unification failure due to lookup root_id table: 809 % N base clause resolution failure due to lookup table: 421 % N UC-BCL resolution dropped due to lookup table: 0 % Max entries in substitution set: 7 % N unit clauses dropped because they exceeded max values: 33495 % N unit clauses dropped because too much nesting: 14813 % 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: 1690 % Total number of terms of all unit clauses in table: 9552 % 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: 0.18 % Number of symbols (columns) in UCFA: 45 % Profile 2: Number of calls to: % ============================== % PTUnify() = 54835 % ConstructUnitClause() = 34999 % Profile 1: Time spent in: % ========================= % ConstructUnitClause() : 0.02 secs % -------------------------------------------------------- % | | % Inferences per sec: inf % | | % -------------------------------------------------------- % Elapsed time: 0 secs % CPU time: 0.23 secs % %------------------------------------------------------------------------------