%------------------------------------------------------------------------------ % File : CARINE---0.734 % Problem : FLD058-1 : 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 19:09:19 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/SystemOnTPTP22521/FLD/FLD058-1+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 = 234] [nf = 0] [nu = 145] [ut = 92] % 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(),additive_identity_0()) % B1: less_or_equal_2(a_0(),b_0()) % B2: less_or_equal_2(additive_identity_0(),a_0()) % B3: equalish_2(b_0(),additive_identity_0()) % B9: ~equalish_2(x1,x0) | equalish_2(x0,x1) % B15: ~equalish_2(x2,x0) | ~less_or_equal_2(x2,x1) | less_or_equal_2(x0,x1) % B16: ~equalish_2(x2,x1) | ~equalish_2(x0,x2) | equalish_2(x0,x1) % B21: ~less_or_equal_2(x1,x0) | ~less_or_equal_2(x0,x1) | equalish_2(x0,x1) % Unit Clauses: % -------------- % U3: < d0 v0 dv0 f0 c2 t2 td1 b nc > equalish_2(b_0(),additive_identity_0()) % U10: < d1 v0 dv0 f0 c2 t2 td1 > equalish_2(additive_identity_0(),b_0()) % U92: < d2 v0 dv0 f0 c2 t2 td1 > ~equalish_2(a_0(),b_0()) % U133: < d2 v0 dv0 f0 c2 t2 td1 > ~less_or_equal_2(b_0(),a_0()) % U134: < d2 v0 dv0 f0 c2 t2 td1 > less_or_equal_2(b_0(),a_0()) % --------------- Start of Proof --------------- % Derivation of unit clause U3: % equalish_2(b_0(),additive_identity_0()) ....... U3 % Derivation of unit clause U10: % equalish_2(b_0(),additive_identity_0()) ....... B3 % ~equalish_2(x1,x0) | equalish_2(x0,x1) ....... B9 % equalish_2(additive_identity_0(), b_0()) ....... R1 [B3:L0, B9:L0] % Derivation of unit clause U92: % ~equalish_2(a_0(),additive_identity_0()) ....... B0 % ~equalish_2(x2,x1) | ~equalish_2(x0,x2) | equalish_2(x0,x1) ....... B16 % ~equalish_2(x0, additive_identity_0()) | ~equalish_2(a_0(), x0) ....... R1 [B0:L0, B16:L2] % equalish_2(b_0(),additive_identity_0()) ....... U3 % ~equalish_2(a_0(), b_0()) ....... R2 [R1:L0, U3:L0] % Derivation of unit clause U133: % less_or_equal_2(a_0(),b_0()) ....... B1 % ~less_or_equal_2(x1,x0) | ~less_or_equal_2(x0,x1) | equalish_2(x0,x1) ....... B21 % ~less_or_equal_2(b_0(), a_0()) | equalish_2(a_0(), b_0()) ....... R1 [B1:L0, B21:L1] % ~equalish_2(a_0(),b_0()) ....... U92 % ~less_or_equal_2(b_0(), a_0()) ....... R2 [R1:L1, U92:L0] % Derivation of unit clause U134: % less_or_equal_2(additive_identity_0(),a_0()) ....... B2 % ~equalish_2(x2,x0) | ~less_or_equal_2(x2,x1) | less_or_equal_2(x0,x1) ....... B15 % ~equalish_2(additive_identity_0(), x0) | less_or_equal_2(x0, a_0()) ....... R1 [B2:L0, B15:L1] % equalish_2(additive_identity_0(),b_0()) ....... U10 % less_or_equal_2(b_0(), a_0()) ....... R2 [R1:L0, U10:L0] % Derivation of the empty clause: % less_or_equal_2(b_0(),a_0()) ....... U134 % ~less_or_equal_2(b_0(),a_0()) ....... U133 % [] ....... R1 [U134:L0, U133:L0] % --------------- End of Proof --------------- % PROOF FOUND! % --------------------------------------------- % | Statistics | % --------------------------------------------- % Profile 3: Performance Statistics: % ================================== % Total number of generated clauses: 314 % resolvents: 314 factors: 0 % Number of unit clauses generated: 196 % % unit clauses generated to total clauses generated: 62.42 % Number of unit clauses constructed and retained at depth [x]: % ============================================================= % [0] = 9 [1] = 83 [2] = 43 % Total = 135 % Number of generated clauses having [x] literals: % ------------------------------------------------ % [1] = 196 [2] = 118 % Average size of a generated clause: 2.0 % Number of unit clauses per predicate list: % ========================================== % [0] defined_1 (+)21 (-)0 % [1] equalish_2 (+)67 (-)21 % [2] less_or_equal_2 (+)23 (-)3 % ------------------ % Total: (+)111 (-)24 % Total number of unit clauses retained: 135 % Number of clauses skipped because of their length: 260 % N base clauses skippped in resolve-with-all-base-clauses % because of the shortest resolvents table: 0 % Number of successful unifications: 321 % Number of unification failures: 359 % Number of unit to unit unification failures: 1475 % N literal unification failure due to lookup root_id table: 227 % N base clause resolution failure due to lookup table: 196 % 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: 69 % N unit clauses dropped because too much nesting: 24 % 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: 331 % Total number of terms of all unit clauses in table: 739 % 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: 0.45 % Number of symbols (columns) in UCFA: 45 % Profile 2: Number of calls to: % ============================== % PTUnify() = 680 % ConstructUnitClause() = 195 % Profile 1: Time spent in: % ========================= % ConstructUnitClause() : 0.00 secs % -------------------------------------------------------- % | | % Inferences per sec: inf % | | % -------------------------------------------------------- % Elapsed time: 0 secs % CPU time: 0.18 secs % %------------------------------------------------------------------------------