%------------------------------------------------------------------------------ % File : CARINE---0.734 % Problem : GRP005-1 : TPTP v5.0.0. Released v1.0.0. % Transfm : add_equality % Format : carine % Command : carine %s t=%d xo=off uct=32000 % Computer : art07.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 20:39:36 EST 2010 % Result : Unsatisfiable 0.14s % Output : Refutation 0.14s % 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/SystemOnTPTP981/GRP/GRP005-1+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 = 0] [nf = 0] [nu = 0] [ut = 6] % Looking for a proof at depth = 2 ... % t = 0 secs [nr = 30] [nf = 42] [nu = 0] [ut = 6] % Looking for a proof at depth = 3 ... % +================================================+ % | | % | Congratulations!!! ........ A proof was found. | % | | % +================================================+ % Base Clauses and Unit Clauses used in proof: % ============================================ % Base Clauses: % ------------- % B0: ~an_element_1(identity_0()) % B8: ~an_element_1(x1) | ~an_element_1(x0) | ~product_3(x0,inverse_1(x1),x2) | an_element_1(x2) % Unit Clauses: % -------------- % U3: < d0 v2 dv1 f1 c1 t4 td2 b > product_3(x0,inverse_1(x0),identity_0()) % U5: < d0 v0 dv0 f0 c1 t1 td1 b > an_element_1(a_0()) % U6: < d3 v0 dv0 f1 c3 t4 td2 > ~product_3(a_0(),inverse_1(a_0()),identity_0()) % --------------- Start of Proof --------------- % Derivation of unit clause U3: % product_3(x0,inverse_1(x0),identity_0()) ....... U3 % Derivation of unit clause U5: % an_element_1(a_0()) ....... U5 % Derivation of unit clause U6: % ~an_element_1(identity_0()) ....... B0 % ~an_element_1(x1) | ~an_element_1(x0) | ~product_3(x0,inverse_1(x1),x2) | an_element_1(x2) ....... B8 % ~an_element_1(x0) | ~an_element_1(x1) | ~product_3(x1, inverse_1(x0), identity_0()) ....... R1 [B0:L0, B8:L3] % ~an_element_1(x0) | ~product_3(x0, inverse_1(x0), identity_0()) ....... R2 [R1:L1, R1:L0] % an_element_1(a_0()) ....... U5 % ~product_3(a_0(), inverse_1(a_0()), identity_0()) ....... R3 [R2:L0, U5:L0] % Derivation of the empty clause: % ~product_3(a_0(),inverse_1(a_0()),identity_0()) ....... U6 % product_3(x0,inverse_1(x0),identity_0()) ....... U3 % [] ....... R1 [U6:L0, U3:L0] % --------------- End of Proof --------------- % PROOF FOUND! % --------------------------------------------- % | Statistics | % --------------------------------------------- % Profile 3: Performance Statistics: % ================================== % Total number of generated clauses: 75 % resolvents: 32 factors: 43 % Number of unit clauses generated: 1 % % unit clauses generated to total clauses generated: 1.33 % Number of unit clauses constructed and retained at depth [x]: % ============================================================= % [0] = 6 [3] = 1 % Total = 7 % Number of generated clauses having [x] literals: % ------------------------------------------------ % [1] = 1 [2] = 43 [3] = 31 % Average size of a generated clause: 3.0 % Number of unit clauses per predicate list: % ========================================== % [0] an_element_1 (+)1 (-)1 % [1] product_3 (+)4 (-)1 % ------------------ % Total: (+)5 (-)2 % Total number of unit clauses retained: 7 % Number of clauses skipped because of their length: 48 % N base clauses skippped in resolve-with-all-base-clauses % because of the shortest resolvents table: 0 % Number of successful unifications: 78 % Number of unification failures: 14 % Number of unit to unit unification failures: 3 % N literal unification failure due to lookup root_id table: 25 % N base clause resolution failure due to lookup table: 7 % N UC-BCL resolution dropped due to lookup table: 0 % Max entries in substitution set: 6 % N unit clauses dropped because they exceeded max values: 0 % N unit clauses dropped because too much nesting: 0 % 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: 4 % Max term depth in a unit clause: 2 % Number of states in UCFA table: 19 % Total number of terms of all unit clauses in table: 20 % Max allowed number of states in UCFA: 80000 % Ratio n states used/total allowed states: 0.00 % Ratio n states used/total unit clauses terms: 0.95 % Number of symbols (columns) in UCFA: 39 % Profile 2: Number of calls to: % ============================== % PTUnify() = 92 % ConstructUnitClause() = 1 % Profile 1: Time spent in: % ========================= % ConstructUnitClause() : 0.00 secs % -------------------------------------------------------- % | | % Inferences per sec: inf % | | % -------------------------------------------------------- % Elapsed time: 0 secs % CPU time: 0.13 secs % %------------------------------------------------------------------------------