%------------------------------------------------------------------------------ % File : CARINE---0.734 % Problem : FLD067-1 : 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 19:20:03 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/SystemOnTPTP28265/FLD/FLD067-1+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 = 1 secs [nr = 213] [nf = 0] [nu = 139] [ut = 88] % Looking for a proof at depth = 2 ... % +================================================+ % | | % | Congratulations!!! ........ A proof was found. | % | | % +================================================+ % Base Clauses and Unit Clauses used in proof: % ============================================ % Base Clauses: % ------------- % B0: less_or_equal_2(a_0(),b_0()) % B1: ~less_or_equal_2(additive_identity_0(),add_2(b_0(),additive_inverse_1(a_0()))) % B4: defined_1(a_0()) % B9: ~defined_1(x0) | defined_1(additive_inverse_1(x0)) % B12: ~defined_1(x0) | equalish_2(add_2(x0,additive_inverse_1(x0)),additive_identity_0()) % B13: ~equalish_2(x2,x0) | ~less_or_equal_2(x2,x1) | less_or_equal_2(x0,x1) % B18: ~defined_1(x1) | ~less_or_equal_2(x0,x2) | less_or_equal_2(add_2(x0,x1),add_2(x2,x1)) % Unit Clauses: % -------------- % U18: < d1 v0 dv0 f1 c1 t2 td2 > defined_1(additive_inverse_1(a_0())) % U21: < d1 v0 dv0 f2 c3 t5 td3 > equalish_2(add_2(a_0(),additive_inverse_1(a_0())),additive_identity_0()) % U96: < d2 v0 dv0 f4 c4 t8 td3 > less_or_equal_2(add_2(a_0(),additive_inverse_1(a_0())),add_2(b_0(),additive_inverse_1(a_0()))) % U110: < d2 v0 dv0 f4 c4 t8 td3 > ~less_or_equal_2(add_2(a_0(),additive_inverse_1(a_0())),add_2(b_0(),additive_inverse_1(a_0()))) % --------------- Start of Proof --------------- % Derivation of unit clause U18: % defined_1(a_0()) ....... B4 % ~defined_1(x0) | defined_1(additive_inverse_1(x0)) ....... B9 % defined_1(additive_inverse_1(a_0())) ....... R1 [B4:L0, B9:L0] % Derivation of unit clause U21: % defined_1(a_0()) ....... B4 % ~defined_1(x0) | equalish_2(add_2(x0,additive_inverse_1(x0)),additive_identity_0()) ....... B12 % equalish_2(add_2(a_0(), additive_inverse_1(a_0())), additive_identity_0()) ....... R1 [B4:L0, B12:L0] % Derivation of unit clause U96: % less_or_equal_2(a_0(),b_0()) ....... B0 % ~defined_1(x1) | ~less_or_equal_2(x0,x2) | less_or_equal_2(add_2(x0,x1),add_2(x2,x1)) ....... B18 % ~defined_1(x0) | less_or_equal_2(add_2(a_0(), x0), add_2(b_0(), x0)) ....... R1 [B0:L0, B18:L1] % defined_1(additive_inverse_1(a_0())) ....... U18 % less_or_equal_2(add_2(a_0(), additive_inverse_1(a_0())), add_2(b_0(), additive_inverse_1(a_0()))) ....... R2 [R1:L0, U18:L0] % Derivation of unit clause U110: % ~less_or_equal_2(additive_identity_0(),add_2(b_0(),additive_inverse_1(a_0()))) ....... B1 % ~equalish_2(x2,x0) | ~less_or_equal_2(x2,x1) | less_or_equal_2(x0,x1) ....... B13 % ~equalish_2(x0, additive_identity_0()) | ~less_or_equal_2(x0, add_2(b_0(), additive_inverse_1(a_0()))) ....... R1 [B1:L0, B13:L2] % equalish_2(add_2(a_0(),additive_inverse_1(a_0())),additive_identity_0()) ....... U21 % ~less_or_equal_2(add_2(a_0(), additive_inverse_1(a_0())), add_2(b_0(), additive_inverse_1(a_0()))) ....... R2 [R1:L0, U21:L0] % Derivation of the empty clause: % ~less_or_equal_2(add_2(a_0(),additive_inverse_1(a_0())),add_2(b_0(),additive_inverse_1(a_0()))) ....... U110 % less_or_equal_2(add_2(a_0(),additive_inverse_1(a_0())),add_2(b_0(),additive_inverse_1(a_0()))) ....... U96 % [] ....... R1 [U110:L0, U96:L0] % --------------- End of Proof --------------- % PROOF FOUND! % --------------------------------------------- % | Statistics | % --------------------------------------------- % Profile 3: Performance Statistics: % ================================== % Total number of generated clauses: 254 % resolvents: 254 factors: 0 % Number of unit clauses generated: 168 % % unit clauses generated to total clauses generated: 66.14 % Number of unit clauses constructed and retained at depth [x]: % ============================================================= % [0] = 7 [1] = 81 [2] = 23 % Total = 111 % Number of generated clauses having [x] literals: % ------------------------------------------------ % [1] = 168 [2] = 86 % Average size of a generated clause: 2.0 % Number of unit clauses per predicate list: % ========================================== % [0] defined_1 (+)20 (-)0 % [1] equalish_2 (+)64 (-)2 % [2] less_or_equal_2 (+)19 (-)6 % ------------------ % Total: (+)103 (-)8 % Total number of unit clauses retained: 111 % Number of clauses skipped because of their length: 196 % N base clauses skippped in resolve-with-all-base-clauses % because of the shortest resolvents table: 0 % Number of successful unifications: 260 % Number of unification failures: 125 % Number of unit to unit unification failures: 232 % N literal unification failure due to lookup root_id table: 156 % N base clause resolution failure due to lookup table: 140 % 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: 64 % 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: 303 % Total number of terms of all unit clauses in table: 645 % 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: 0.47 % Number of symbols (columns) in UCFA: 45 % Profile 2: Number of calls to: % ============================== % PTUnify() = 385 % ConstructUnitClause() = 168 % Profile 1: Time spent in: % ========================= % ConstructUnitClause() : 0.00 secs % -------------------------------------------------------- % | | % Inferences per sec: inf % | | % -------------------------------------------------------- % Elapsed time: 1 secs % CPU time: 0.18 secs % %------------------------------------------------------------------------------