%------------------------------------------------------------------------------ % File : CARINE---0.734 % Problem : FLD058-3 : 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 19:09:35 EST 2010 % Result : Unsatisfiable 0.46s % Output : Refutation 0.46s % 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/SystemOnTPTP22649/FLD/FLD058-3+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 = 158] [nf = 0] [nu = 94] [ut = 61] % Looking for a proof at depth = 2 ... % t = 0 secs [nr = 158305] [nf = 76] [nu = 120654] [ut = 4027] % Looking for a proof at depth = 3 ... % +================================================+ % | | % | Congratulations!!! ........ A proof was found. | % | | % +================================================+ % Base Clauses and Unit Clauses used in proof: % ============================================ % Base Clauses: % ------------- % B0: ~sum_3(additive_identity_0(),a_0(),additive_identity_0()) % B1: less_or_equal_2(a_0(),b_0()) % B3: sum_3(additive_identity_0(),b_0(),additive_identity_0()) % B6: defined_1(a_0()) % B10: ~sum_3(x1,x0,x2) | sum_3(x0,x1,x2) % B12: ~defined_1(x0) | sum_3(additive_identity_0(),x0,x0) % B16: ~less_or_equal_2(x1,x0) | ~less_or_equal_2(x0,x1) | sum_3(additive_identity_0(),x0,x1) % B27: ~less_or_equal_2(x2,x3) | ~sum_3(x3,x4,x1) | ~sum_3(x2,x4,x0) | less_or_equal_2(x0,x1) % Unit Clauses: % -------------- % U2: < d0 v0 dv0 f0 c2 t2 td1 b nc > less_or_equal_2(additive_identity_0(),a_0()) % U10: < d1 v0 dv0 f0 c3 t3 td1 > sum_3(b_0(),additive_identity_0(),additive_identity_0()) % U20: < d1 v0 dv0 f0 c3 t3 td1 > sum_3(additive_identity_0(),a_0(),a_0()) % U33: < d1 v0 dv0 f0 c3 t3 td1 > sum_3(a_0(),additive_identity_0(),a_0()) % U61: < d2 v0 dv0 f0 c2 t2 td1 > ~less_or_equal_2(a_0(),additive_identity_0()) % U4127: < d3 v0 dv0 f0 c2 t2 td1 > less_or_equal_2(a_0(),additive_identity_0()) % --------------- Start of Proof --------------- % Derivation of unit clause U2: % less_or_equal_2(additive_identity_0(),a_0()) ....... U2 % Derivation of unit clause U10: % sum_3(additive_identity_0(),b_0(),additive_identity_0()) ....... B3 % ~sum_3(x1,x0,x2) | sum_3(x0,x1,x2) ....... B10 % sum_3(b_0(), additive_identity_0(), additive_identity_0()) ....... R1 [B3:L0, B10:L0] % Derivation of unit clause U20: % defined_1(a_0()) ....... B6 % ~defined_1(x0) | sum_3(additive_identity_0(),x0,x0) ....... B12 % sum_3(additive_identity_0(), a_0(), a_0()) ....... R1 [B6:L0, B12:L0] % Derivation of unit clause U33: % ~sum_3(x1,x0,x2) | sum_3(x0,x1,x2) ....... B10 % sum_3(additive_identity_0(),a_0(),a_0()) ....... U20 % sum_3(a_0(), additive_identity_0(), a_0()) ....... R1 [B10:L0, U20:L0] % Derivation of unit clause U61: % ~sum_3(additive_identity_0(),a_0(),additive_identity_0()) ....... B0 % ~less_or_equal_2(x1,x0) | ~less_or_equal_2(x0,x1) | sum_3(additive_identity_0(),x0,x1) ....... B16 % ~less_or_equal_2(additive_identity_0(), a_0()) | ~less_or_equal_2(a_0(), additive_identity_0()) ....... R1 [B0:L0, B16:L2] % less_or_equal_2(additive_identity_0(),a_0()) ....... U2 % ~less_or_equal_2(a_0(), additive_identity_0()) ....... R2 [R1:L0, U2:L0] % Derivation of unit clause U4127: % less_or_equal_2(a_0(),b_0()) ....... B1 % ~less_or_equal_2(x2,x3) | ~sum_3(x3,x4,x1) | ~sum_3(x2,x4,x0) | less_or_equal_2(x0,x1) ....... B27 % ~sum_3(b_0(), x0, x1) | ~sum_3(a_0(), x0, x2) | less_or_equal_2(x2, x1) ....... R1 [B1:L0, B27:L0] % sum_3(b_0(),additive_identity_0(),additive_identity_0()) ....... U10 % ~sum_3(a_0(), additive_identity_0(), x0) | less_or_equal_2(x0, additive_identity_0()) ....... R2 [R1:L0, U10:L0] % sum_3(a_0(),additive_identity_0(),a_0()) ....... U33 % less_or_equal_2(a_0(), additive_identity_0()) ....... R3 [R2:L0, U33:L0] % Derivation of the empty clause: % less_or_equal_2(a_0(),additive_identity_0()) ....... U4127 % ~less_or_equal_2(a_0(),additive_identity_0()) ....... U61 % [] ....... R1 [U4127:L0, U61:L0] % --------------- End of Proof --------------- % PROOF FOUND! % --------------------------------------------- % | Statistics | % --------------------------------------------- % Profile 3: Performance Statistics: % ================================== % Total number of generated clauses: 159796 % resolvents: 159686 factors: 110 % Number of unit clauses generated: 121107 % % unit clauses generated to total clauses generated: 75.79 % Number of unit clauses constructed and retained at depth [x]: % ============================================================= % [0] = 9 [1] = 52 [2] = 3966 [3] = 101 % Total = 4128 % Number of generated clauses having [x] literals: % ------------------------------------------------ % [1] = 121107 [2] = 38594 [3] = 95 % Average size of a generated clause: 2.0 % Number of unit clauses per predicate list: % ========================================== % [0] defined_1 (+)3733 (-)0 % [1] less_or_equal_2 (+)4 (-)3 % [2] product_3 (+)116 (-)0 % [3] sum_3 (+)175 (-)97 % ------------------ % Total: (+)4028 (-)100 % Total number of unit clauses retained: 4128 % Number of clauses skipped because of their length: 2723 % N base clauses skippped in resolve-with-all-base-clauses % because of the shortest resolvents table: 0 % Number of successful unifications: 159804 % Number of unification failures: 109103 % Number of unit to unit unification failures: 16984 % N literal unification failure due to lookup root_id table: 2541 % N base clause resolution failure due to lookup table: 1387 % N UC-BCL resolution dropped due to lookup table: 0 % Max entries in substitution set: 9 % N unit clauses dropped because they exceeded max values: 102304 % N unit clauses dropped because too much nesting: 46557 % 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: 3628 % Total number of terms of all unit clauses in table: 26475 % Max allowed number of states in UCFA: 80000 % Ratio n states used/total allowed states: 0.05 % Ratio n states used/total unit clauses terms: 0.14 % Number of symbols (columns) in UCFA: 46 % Profile 2: Number of calls to: % ============================== % PTUnify() = 268907 % ConstructUnitClause() = 106423 % Profile 1: Time spent in: % ========================= % ConstructUnitClause() : 0.12 secs % -------------------------------------------------------- % | | % Inferences per sec: inf % | | % -------------------------------------------------------- % Elapsed time: 0 secs % CPU time: 0.45 secs % %------------------------------------------------------------------------------