%------------------------------------------------------------------------------ % File : CARINE---0.734 % Problem : KRS003-1 : TPTP v5.0.0. Released v2.0.0. % Transfm : add_equality % Format : carine % Command : carine %s t=%d xo=off uct=32000 % Computer : art06.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 22:42:30 EST 2010 % Result : Unsatisfiable 31.01s % Output : Refutation 31.01s % 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/SystemOnTPTP14871/KRS/KRS003-1+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 = 23] [nf = 0] [nu = 11] [ut = 9] % Looking for a proof at depth = 2 ... % t = 0 secs [nr = 85] [nf = 0] [nu = 31] [ut = 9] % Looking for a proof at depth = 3 ... % t = 0 secs [nr = 320] [nf = 4] [nu = 83] [ut = 11] % Looking for a proof at depth = 4 ... % t = 0 secs [nr = 1015] [nf = 8] [nu = 195] [ut = 11] % Looking for a proof at depth = 5 ... % t = 0 secs [nr = 2726] [nf = 12] [nu = 475] [ut = 11] % Looking for a proof at depth = 6 ... % t = 0 secs [nr = 6841] [nf = 16] [nu = 1079] [ut = 11] % Looking for a proof at depth = 7 ... % t = 0 secs [nr = 15852] [nf = 20] [nu = 2479] [ut = 11] % Looking for a proof at depth = 8 ... % t = 0 secs [nr = 36019] [nf = 24] [nu = 5491] [ut = 11] % Looking for a proof at depth = 9 ... % t = 0 secs [nr = 77282] [nf = 28] [nu = 11927] [ut = 11] % Looking for a proof at depth = 10 ... % t = 1 secs [nr = 166085] [nf = 32] [nu = 25407] [ut = 11] % Looking for a proof at depth = 11 ... % t = 1 secs [nr = 341656] [nf = 36] [nu = 52987] [ut = 11] % Looking for a proof at depth = 12 ... % t = 2 secs [nr = 712159] [nf = 40] [nu = 109715] [ut = 11] % Looking for a proof at depth = 13 ... % t = 4 secs [nr = 1433182] [nf = 44] [nu = 223459] [ut = 11] % Looking for a proof at depth = 14 ... % t = 8 secs [nr = 2941041] [nf = 48] [nu = 455239] [ut = 11] % Looking for a proof at depth = 15 ... % t = 16 secs [nr = 5855684] [nf = 52] [nu = 915959] [ut = 11] % Looking for a proof at depth = 16 ... % Entering time slice 2 % Updating parameters ... done. % Looking for a proof at depth = 1 ... % t = 32 secs [nr = 11650716] [nf = 74] [nu = 1850846] [ut = 11] % Looking for a proof at depth = 2 ... % t = 32 secs [nr = 11650778] [nf = 74] [nu = 1850866] [ut = 11] % Looking for a proof at depth = 3 ... % t = 32 secs [nr = 11651027] [nf = 94] [nu = 1850918] [ut = 11] % Looking for a proof at depth = 4 ... % +================================================+ % | | % | Congratulations!!! ........ A proof was found. | % | | % +================================================+ % Base Clauses and Unit Clauses used in proof: % ============================================ % Base Clauses: % ------------- % B0: e_1(exist_0()) % B1: f_1(exist_0()) % B2: ~c_1(x0) | s2least_1(x0) % B3: ~d_1(x0) | s1most_1(x0) % B4: ~e_1(x0) | c_1(x0) % B5: ~f_1(x0) | d_1(x0) % B10: ~s2least_1(x0) | s_2(x0,u1r2_1(x0)) % B11: ~s2least_1(x0) | s_2(x0,u1r1_1(x0)) % B12: ~s2least_1(x0) | ~equalish_2(u1r2_1(x0),u1r1_1(x0)) % B14: ~s1most_1(x2) | ~s_2(x2,x1) | ~s_2(x2,x0) | equalish_2(x0,x1) % Unit Clauses: % -------------- % U2: < d1 v0 dv0 f0 c1 t1 td1 > c_1(exist_0()) % U3: < d1 v0 dv0 f0 c1 t1 td1 > d_1(exist_0()) % U4: < d1 v0 dv0 f0 c1 t1 td1 > s2least_1(exist_0()) % U6: < d1 v0 dv0 f1 c2 t3 td2 > s_2(exist_0(),u1r2_1(exist_0())) % U7: < d1 v0 dv0 f1 c2 t3 td2 > s_2(exist_0(),u1r1_1(exist_0())) % U8: < d1 v0 dv0 f2 c2 t4 td2 > ~equalish_2(u1r2_1(exist_0()),u1r1_1(exist_0())) % U12: < d4 v0 dv0 f2 c2 t4 td2 > equalish_2(u1r2_1(exist_0()),u1r1_1(exist_0())) % --------------- Start of Proof --------------- % Derivation of unit clause U2: % e_1(exist_0()) ....... B0 % ~e_1(x0) | c_1(x0) ....... B4 % c_1(exist_0()) ....... R1 [B0:L0, B4:L0] % Derivation of unit clause U3: % f_1(exist_0()) ....... B1 % ~f_1(x0) | d_1(x0) ....... B5 % d_1(exist_0()) ....... R1 [B1:L0, B5:L0] % Derivation of unit clause U4: % ~c_1(x0) | s2least_1(x0) ....... B2 % c_1(exist_0()) ....... U2 % s2least_1(exist_0()) ....... R1 [B2:L0, U2:L0] % Derivation of unit clause U6: % ~s2least_1(x0) | s_2(x0,u1r2_1(x0)) ....... B10 % s2least_1(exist_0()) ....... U4 % s_2(exist_0(), u1r2_1(exist_0())) ....... R1 [B10:L0, U4:L0] % Derivation of unit clause U7: % ~s2least_1(x0) | s_2(x0,u1r1_1(x0)) ....... B11 % s2least_1(exist_0()) ....... U4 % s_2(exist_0(), u1r1_1(exist_0())) ....... R1 [B11:L0, U4:L0] % Derivation of unit clause U8: % ~s2least_1(x0) | ~equalish_2(u1r2_1(x0),u1r1_1(x0)) ....... B12 % s2least_1(exist_0()) ....... U4 % ~equalish_2(u1r2_1(exist_0()), u1r1_1(exist_0())) ....... R1 [B12:L0, U4:L0] % Derivation of unit clause U12: % ~d_1(x0) | s1most_1(x0) ....... B3 % ~s1most_1(x2) | ~s_2(x2,x1) | ~s_2(x2,x0) | equalish_2(x0,x1) ....... B14 % ~d_1(x0) | ~s_2(x0, x1) | ~s_2(x0, x2) | equalish_2(x2, x1) ....... R1 [B3:L1, B14:L0] % d_1(exist_0()) ....... U3 % ~s_2(exist_0(), x0) | ~s_2(exist_0(), x1) | equalish_2(x1, x0) ....... R2 [R1:L0, U3:L0] % s_2(exist_0(),u1r1_1(exist_0())) ....... U7 % ~s_2(exist_0(), x0) | equalish_2(x0, u1r1_1(exist_0())) ....... R3 [R2:L0, U7:L0] % s_2(exist_0(),u1r2_1(exist_0())) ....... U6 % equalish_2(u1r2_1(exist_0()), u1r1_1(exist_0())) ....... R4 [R3:L0, U6:L0] % Derivation of the empty clause: % equalish_2(u1r2_1(exist_0()),u1r1_1(exist_0())) ....... U12 % ~equalish_2(u1r2_1(exist_0()),u1r1_1(exist_0())) ....... U8 % [] ....... R1 [U12:L0, U8:L0] % --------------- End of Proof --------------- % PROOF FOUND! % --------------------------------------------- % | Statistics | % --------------------------------------------- % Profile 3: Performance Statistics: % ================================== % Total number of generated clauses: 11651431 % resolvents: 11651335 factors: 96 % Number of unit clauses generated: 1851002 % % unit clauses generated to total clauses generated: 15.89 % Number of unit clauses constructed and retained at depth [x]: % ============================================================= % [0] = 2 [1] = 7 [3] = 2 % [4] = 2 % Total = 13 % Number of generated clauses having [x] literals: % ------------------------------------------------ % [1] = 1851002 [2] = 6291957 [3] = 3508419 [4] = 47 [5] = 6 % Average size of a generated clause: 3.0 % Number of unit clauses per predicate list: % ========================================== % [0] c_1 (+)1 (-)0 % [1] d_1 (+)1 (-)0 % [2] e_1 (+)1 (-)0 % [3] f_1 (+)1 (-)0 % [4] s1most_1 (+)1 (-)0 % [5] s2least_1 (+)1 (-)0 % [6] equalish_2 (+)4 (-)1 % [7] s_2 (+)2 (-)0 % ------------------ % Total: (+)12 (-)1 % Total number of unit clauses retained: 13 % Number of clauses skipped because of their length: 1789763 % N base clauses skippped in resolve-with-all-base-clauses % because of the shortest resolvents table: 99 % Number of successful unifications: 11651441 % Number of unification failures: 15676420 % Number of unit to unit unification failures: 3 % N literal unification failure due to lookup root_id table: 82806684 % N base clause resolution failure due to lookup table: 103629493 % N UC-BCL resolution dropped due to lookup table: 0 % Max entries in substitution set: 17 % N unit clauses dropped because they exceeded max values: 934964 % 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: 26 % Total number of terms of all unit clauses in table: 32 % 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: 0.81 % Number of symbols (columns) in UCFA: 47 % Profile 2: Number of calls to: % ============================== % PTUnify() = 27327861 % ConstructUnitClause() = 934975 % Profile 1: Time spent in: % ========================= % ConstructUnitClause() : 1.12 secs % -------------------------------------------------------- % | | % Inferences per sec: 375853 % | | % -------------------------------------------------------- % Elapsed time: 32 secs % CPU time: 31.00 secs % %------------------------------------------------------------------------------