%------------------------------------------------------------------------------ % File : CARINE---0.734 % Problem : FLD064-3 : TPTP v5.0.0. Bugfixed v2.1.0. % Transfm : add_equality % Format : carine % Command : carine %s t=%d xo=off uct=32000 % Computer : art11.cs.miami.edu % Model : i686 i686 % CPU : Intel(R) Pentium(R) 4 CPU 3.00GHz @ 3000MHz % Memory : 2006MB % OS : Linux 2.6.31.5-127.fc12.i686.PAE % CPULimit : 300s % DateTime : Sat Nov 27 19:19:32 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/SystemOnTPTP24946/FLD/FLD064-3+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 = 114] [nf = 0] [nu = 66] [ut = 43] % Looking for a proof at depth = 2 ... % t = 0 secs [nr = 53935] [nf = 58] [nu = 40216] [ut = 1508] % 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(additive_identity_0(),a_0()) % B4: defined_1(a_0()) % B7: ~sum_3(x1,x0,x2) | sum_3(x0,x1,x2) % B9: ~defined_1(x0) | sum_3(additive_identity_0(),x0,x0) % B10: ~defined_1(x0) | defined_1(additive_inverse_1(x0)) % B11: ~defined_1(x0) | sum_3(additive_inverse_1(x0),x0,additive_identity_0()) % B24: ~less_or_equal_2(x2,x3) | ~sum_3(x3,x4,x1) | ~sum_3(x2,x4,x0) | less_or_equal_2(x0,x1) % Unit Clauses: % -------------- % U1: < d0 v0 dv0 f1 c2 t3 td2 b nc > ~less_or_equal_2(additive_inverse_1(a_0()),additive_identity_0()) % U16: < d1 v0 dv0 f1 c1 t2 td2 > defined_1(additive_inverse_1(a_0())) % U17: < d1 v0 dv0 f1 c3 t4 td2 > sum_3(additive_inverse_1(a_0()),a_0(),additive_identity_0()) % U24: < d1 v0 dv0 f1 c3 t4 td2 > sum_3(a_0(),additive_inverse_1(a_0()),additive_identity_0()) % U30: < d1 v0 dv0 f2 c3 t5 td2 > sum_3(additive_identity_0(),additive_inverse_1(a_0()),additive_inverse_1(a_0())) % U1509: < d3 v0 dv0 f1 c2 t3 td2 > less_or_equal_2(additive_inverse_1(a_0()),additive_identity_0()) % --------------- Start of Proof --------------- % Derivation of unit clause U1: % ~less_or_equal_2(additive_inverse_1(a_0()),additive_identity_0()) ....... U1 % Derivation of unit clause U16: % defined_1(a_0()) ....... B4 % ~defined_1(x0) | defined_1(additive_inverse_1(x0)) ....... B10 % defined_1(additive_inverse_1(a_0())) ....... R1 [B4:L0, B10:L0] % Derivation of unit clause U17: % defined_1(a_0()) ....... B4 % ~defined_1(x0) | sum_3(additive_inverse_1(x0),x0,additive_identity_0()) ....... B11 % sum_3(additive_inverse_1(a_0()), a_0(), additive_identity_0()) ....... R1 [B4:L0, B11:L0] % Derivation of unit clause U24: % ~sum_3(x1,x0,x2) | sum_3(x0,x1,x2) ....... B7 % sum_3(additive_inverse_1(a_0()),a_0(),additive_identity_0()) ....... U17 % sum_3(a_0(), additive_inverse_1(a_0()), additive_identity_0()) ....... R1 [B7:L0, U17:L0] % Derivation of unit clause U30: % ~defined_1(x0) | sum_3(additive_identity_0(),x0,x0) ....... B9 % defined_1(additive_inverse_1(a_0())) ....... U16 % sum_3(additive_identity_0(), additive_inverse_1(a_0()), additive_inverse_1(a_0())) ....... R1 [B9:L0, U16:L0] % Derivation of unit clause U1509: % less_or_equal_2(additive_identity_0(),a_0()) ....... B0 % ~less_or_equal_2(x2,x3) | ~sum_3(x3,x4,x1) | ~sum_3(x2,x4,x0) | less_or_equal_2(x0,x1) ....... B24 % ~sum_3(a_0(), x0, x1) | ~sum_3(additive_identity_0(), x0, x2) | less_or_equal_2(x2, x1) ....... R1 [B0:L0, B24:L0] % sum_3(a_0(),additive_inverse_1(a_0()),additive_identity_0()) ....... U24 % ~sum_3(additive_identity_0(), additive_inverse_1(a_0()), x0) | less_or_equal_2(x0, additive_identity_0()) ....... R2 [R1:L0, U24:L0] % sum_3(additive_identity_0(),additive_inverse_1(a_0()),additive_inverse_1(a_0())) ....... U30 % less_or_equal_2(additive_inverse_1(a_0()), additive_identity_0()) ....... R3 [R2:L0, U30:L0] % Derivation of the empty clause: % less_or_equal_2(additive_inverse_1(a_0()),additive_identity_0()) ....... U1509 % ~less_or_equal_2(additive_inverse_1(a_0()),additive_identity_0()) ....... U1 % [] ....... R1 [U1509:L0, U1:L0] % --------------- End of Proof --------------- % PROOF FOUND! % --------------------------------------------- % | Statistics | % --------------------------------------------- % Profile 3: Performance Statistics: % ================================== % Total number of generated clauses: 54029 % resolvents: 53963 factors: 66 % Number of unit clauses generated: 40219 % % unit clauses generated to total clauses generated: 74.44 % Number of unit clauses constructed and retained at depth [x]: % ============================================================= % [0] = 6 [1] = 37 [2] = 1465 [3] = 2 % Total = 1510 % Number of generated clauses having [x] literals: % ------------------------------------------------ % [1] = 40219 [2] = 13755 [3] = 55 % 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 (+)3 (-)1 % [2] product_3 (+)62 (-)0 % [3] sum_3 (+)98 (-)1 % ------------------ % Total: (+)1508 (-)2 % Total number of unit clauses retained: 1510 % Number of clauses skipped because of their length: 648 % 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: 185 % Number of unit to unit unification failures: 100 % N literal unification failure due to lookup root_id table: 796 % N base clause resolution failure due to lookup table: 504 % N UC-BCL resolution dropped due to lookup table: 0 % Max entries in substitution set: 8 % N unit clauses dropped because they exceeded max values: 33485 % 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: 1695 % Total number of terms of all unit clauses in table: 9558 % 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() = 54221 % ConstructUnitClause() = 34989 % Profile 1: Time spent in: % ========================= % ConstructUnitClause() : 0.03 secs % -------------------------------------------------------- % | | % Inferences per sec: inf % | | % -------------------------------------------------------- % Elapsed time: 0 secs % CPU time: 0.23 secs % %------------------------------------------------------------------------------