%------------------------------------------------------------------------------ % File : CARINE---0.734 % Problem : KRS012-1 : TPTP v5.0.0. Released v2.0.0. % 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 22:48:58 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/SystemOnTPTP8141/KRS/KRS012-1+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 = 5] [nf = 0] [nu = 4] [ut = 4] % Looking for a proof at depth = 2 ... % t = 0 secs [nr = 22] [nf = 0] [nu = 9] [ut = 5] % Looking for a proof at depth = 3 ... % +================================================+ % | | % | Congratulations!!! ........ A proof was found. | % | | % +================================================+ % Base Clauses and Unit Clauses used in proof: % ============================================ % Base Clauses: % ------------- % B0: c_1(exists_0()) % B1: ~f_1(exists_0()) % B2: ~e_1(u1r1_1(x0)) | f_1(x0) % B3: f_1(x0) | r_2(x0,u1r1_1(x0)) % B4: ~c_1(x1) | ~r_2(x1,x0) | d_1(x0) % B12: ~c_1(x1) | ~d_1(x0) | ~r_2(x1,x0) | e_1(x0) % Unit Clauses: % -------------- % U2: < d1 v0 dv0 f1 c1 t2 td2 > ~e_1(u1r1_1(exists_0())) % U3: < d1 v0 dv0 f1 c2 t3 td2 > r_2(exists_0(),u1r1_1(exists_0())) % U4: < d2 v0 dv0 f1 c1 t2 td2 > d_1(u1r1_1(exists_0())) % U5: < d3 v0 dv0 f1 c1 t2 td2 > e_1(u1r1_1(exists_0())) % --------------- Start of Proof --------------- % Derivation of unit clause U2: % ~f_1(exists_0()) ....... B1 % ~e_1(u1r1_1(x0)) | f_1(x0) ....... B2 % ~e_1(u1r1_1(exists_0())) ....... R1 [B1:L0, B2:L1] % Derivation of unit clause U3: % ~f_1(exists_0()) ....... B1 % f_1(x0) | r_2(x0,u1r1_1(x0)) ....... B3 % r_2(exists_0(), u1r1_1(exists_0())) ....... R1 [B1:L0, B3:L0] % Derivation of unit clause U4: % c_1(exists_0()) ....... B0 % ~c_1(x1) | ~r_2(x1,x0) | d_1(x0) ....... B4 % ~r_2(exists_0(), x0) | d_1(x0) ....... R1 [B0:L0, B4:L0] % r_2(exists_0(),u1r1_1(exists_0())) ....... U3 % d_1(u1r1_1(exists_0())) ....... R2 [R1:L0, U3:L0] % Derivation of unit clause U5: % c_1(exists_0()) ....... B0 % ~c_1(x1) | ~d_1(x0) | ~r_2(x1,x0) | e_1(x0) ....... B12 % ~d_1(x0) | ~r_2(exists_0(), x0) | e_1(x0) ....... R1 [B0:L0, B12:L0] % d_1(u1r1_1(exists_0())) ....... U4 % ~r_2(exists_0(), u1r1_1(exists_0())) | e_1(u1r1_1(exists_0())) ....... R2 [R1:L0, U4:L0] % r_2(exists_0(),u1r1_1(exists_0())) ....... U3 % e_1(u1r1_1(exists_0())) ....... R3 [R2:L0, U3:L0] % Derivation of the empty clause: % e_1(u1r1_1(exists_0())) ....... U5 % ~e_1(u1r1_1(exists_0())) ....... U2 % [] ....... R1 [U5:L0, U2:L0] % --------------- End of Proof --------------- % PROOF FOUND! % --------------------------------------------- % | Statistics | % --------------------------------------------- % Profile 3: Performance Statistics: % ================================== % Total number of generated clauses: 37 % resolvents: 37 factors: 0 % Number of unit clauses generated: 12 % % unit clauses generated to total clauses generated: 32.43 % Number of unit clauses constructed and retained at depth [x]: % ============================================================= % [0] = 2 [1] = 2 [2] = 1 [3] = 1 % Total = 6 % Number of generated clauses having [x] literals: % ------------------------------------------------ % [1] = 12 [2] = 10 [3] = 15 % 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 (-)1 % [3] f_1 (+)0 (-)1 % [4] r_2 (+)1 (-)0 % ------------------ % Total: (+)4 (-)2 % Total number of unit clauses retained: 6 % 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: 44 % Number of unification failures: 4 % Number of unit to unit unification failures: 0 % N literal unification failure due to lookup root_id table: 64 % N base clause resolution failure due to lookup table: 70 % N UC-BCL resolution dropped due to lookup table: 0 % Max entries in substitution set: 3 % N unit clauses dropped because they exceeded max values: 3 % 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: 3 % Max term depth in a unit clause: 2 % Number of states in UCFA table: 14 % Total number of terms of all unit clauses in table: 11 % 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: 1.27 % Number of symbols (columns) in UCFA: 43 % Profile 2: Number of calls to: % ============================== % PTUnify() = 48 % ConstructUnitClause() = 7 % Profile 1: Time spent in: % ========================= % ConstructUnitClause() : 0.00 secs % -------------------------------------------------------- % | | % Inferences per sec: inf % | | % -------------------------------------------------------- % Elapsed time: 0 secs % CPU time: 0.13 secs % %------------------------------------------------------------------------------