%------------------------------------------------------------------------------ % File : CARINE---0.734 % Problem : GRP028-3 : TPTP v5.0.0. Released v1.1.0. % Transfm : add_equality % Format : carine % Command : carine %s t=%d xo=off uct=32000 % Computer : art01.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 20:42:34 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/SystemOnTPTP18255/GRP/GRP028-3+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 = 0] [nf = 0] [nu = 0] [ut = 4] % Looking for a proof at depth = 2 ... % t = 0 secs [nr = 20] [nf = 28] [nu = 0] [ut = 4] % Looking for a proof at depth = 3 ... % +================================================+ % | | % | Congratulations!!! ........ A proof was found. | % | | % +================================================+ % Base Clauses and Unit Clauses used in proof: % ============================================ % Base Clauses: % ------------- % B0: ~product_3(not_identity_1(x0),x0,not_identity_1(x0)) % B4: ~product_3(x0,x4,x5) | ~product_3(x1,x3,x4) | ~product_3(x0,x1,x2) | product_3(x2,x3,x5) % Unit Clauses: % -------------- % U2: < d0 v4 dv2 f1 c0 t5 td2 b > product_3(x0,right_solution_2(x0,x1),x1) % U3: < d0 v4 dv2 f1 c0 t5 td2 b > product_3(left_solution_2(x0,x1),x0,x1) % U4: < d3 v3 dv2 f0 c0 t3 td1 > ~product_3(x0,x1,x0) % --------------- Start of Proof --------------- % Derivation of unit clause U2: % product_3(x0,right_solution_2(x0,x1),x1) ....... U2 % Derivation of unit clause U3: % product_3(left_solution_2(x0,x1),x0,x1) ....... U3 % Derivation of unit clause U4: % ~product_3(not_identity_1(x0),x0,not_identity_1(x0)) ....... B0 % ~product_3(x0,x4,x5) | ~product_3(x1,x3,x4) | ~product_3(x0,x1,x2) | product_3(x2,x3,x5) ....... B4 % ~product_3(x0, x1, not_identity_1(x2)) | ~product_3(x3, x2, x1) | ~product_3(x0, x3, not_identity_1(x2)) ....... R1 [B0:L0, B4:L3] % ~product_3(x0, x1, not_identity_1(x2)) | ~product_3(x1, x2, x1) ....... R2 [R1:L2, R1:L0] % product_3(left_solution_2(x0,x1),x0,x1) ....... U3 % ~product_3(x0, x1, x0) ....... R3 [R2:L0, U3:L0] % Derivation of the empty clause: % ~product_3(x0,x1,x0) ....... U4 % product_3(x0,right_solution_2(x0,x1),x1) ....... U2 % [] ....... R1 [U4:L0, U2:L0] % --------------- End of Proof --------------- % PROOF FOUND! % --------------------------------------------- % | Statistics | % --------------------------------------------- % Profile 3: Performance Statistics: % ================================== % Total number of generated clauses: 52 % resolvents: 23 factors: 29 % Number of unit clauses generated: 2 % % unit clauses generated to total clauses generated: 3.85 % Number of unit clauses constructed and retained at depth [x]: % ============================================================= % [0] = 4 [3] = 1 % Total = 5 % Number of generated clauses having [x] literals: % ------------------------------------------------ % [1] = 2 [2] = 29 [3] = 21 % Average size of a generated clause: 3.0 % Number of unit clauses per predicate list: % ========================================== % [0] product_3 (+)3 (-)2 % ------------------ % Total: (+)3 (-)2 % Total number of unit clauses retained: 5 % Number of clauses skipped because of their length: 28 % N base clauses skippped in resolve-with-all-base-clauses % because of the shortest resolvents table: 0 % Number of successful unifications: 55 % Number of unification failures: 22 % Number of unit to unit unification failures: 4 % N literal unification failure due to lookup root_id table: 15 % N base clause resolution failure due to lookup table: 0 % N UC-BCL resolution dropped due to lookup table: 0 % Max entries in substitution set: 7 % N unit clauses dropped because they exceeded max values: 1 % 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: 5 % Max term depth in a unit clause: 2 % Number of states in UCFA table: 22 % Total number of terms of all unit clauses in table: 23 % 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: 0.96 % Number of symbols (columns) in UCFA: 39 % Profile 2: Number of calls to: % ============================== % PTUnify() = 77 % ConstructUnitClause() = 2 % Profile 1: Time spent in: % ========================= % ConstructUnitClause() : 0.00 secs % -------------------------------------------------------- % | | % Inferences per sec: inf % | | % -------------------------------------------------------- % Elapsed time: 0 secs % CPU time: 0.13 secs % %------------------------------------------------------------------------------