%------------------------------------------------------------------------------ % File : CARINE---0.734 % Problem : KRS017-1 : TPTP v5.0.0. Released v2.0.0. % 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 22:48:42 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/SystemOnTPTP21237/KRS/KRS017-1+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 = 2] [nf = 0] [nu = 2] [ut = 3] % Looking for a proof at depth = 2 ... % t = 0 secs [nr = 15] [nf = 4] [nu = 4] [ut = 3] % Looking for a proof at depth = 3 ... % +================================================+ % | | % | Congratulations!!! ........ A proof was found. | % | | % +================================================+ % Base Clauses and Unit Clauses used in proof: % ============================================ % Base Clauses: % ------------- % B0: e_1(exists_0()) % B2: ~e_1(x0) | r_2(x0,u0r3_1(x0)) % B6: ~e_1(x1) | ~r_2(x0,x2) | ~r_2(x1,x2) | a_1(x0) % Unit Clauses: % -------------- % U1: < d0 v0 dv0 f0 c1 t1 td1 b nc > ~a_1(exists_0()) % U2: < d1 v0 dv0 f1 c2 t3 td2 > r_2(exists_0(),u0r3_1(exists_0())) % U3: < d3 v0 dv0 f0 c1 t1 td1 > a_1(exists_0()) % --------------- Start of Proof --------------- % Derivation of unit clause U1: % ~a_1(exists_0()) ....... U1 % Derivation of unit clause U2: % e_1(exists_0()) ....... B0 % ~e_1(x0) | r_2(x0,u0r3_1(x0)) ....... B2 % r_2(exists_0(), u0r3_1(exists_0())) ....... R1 [B0:L0, B2:L0] % Derivation of unit clause U3: % e_1(exists_0()) ....... B0 % ~e_1(x1) | ~r_2(x0,x2) | ~r_2(x1,x2) | a_1(x0) ....... B6 % ~r_2(x0, x1) | ~r_2(exists_0(), x1) | a_1(x0) ....... R1 [B0:L0, B6:L0] % ~r_2(exists_0(), x0) | a_1(exists_0()) ....... R2 [R1:L1, R1:L0] % r_2(exists_0(),u0r3_1(exists_0())) ....... U2 % a_1(exists_0()) ....... R3 [R2:L0, U2:L0] % Derivation of the empty clause: % a_1(exists_0()) ....... U3 % ~a_1(exists_0()) ....... U1 % [] ....... R1 [U3:L0, U1:L0] % --------------- End of Proof --------------- % PROOF FOUND! % --------------------------------------------- % | Statistics | % --------------------------------------------- % Profile 3: Performance Statistics: % ================================== % Total number of generated clauses: 23 % resolvents: 18 factors: 5 % Number of unit clauses generated: 6 % % unit clauses generated to total clauses generated: 26.09 % Number of unit clauses constructed and retained at depth [x]: % ============================================================= % [0] = 2 [1] = 1 [3] = 1 % Total = 4 % Number of generated clauses having [x] literals: % ------------------------------------------------ % [1] = 6 [2] = 8 [3] = 9 % Average size of a generated clause: 3.0 % Number of unit clauses per predicate list: % ========================================== % [0] a_1 (+)1 (-)1 % [1] e_1 (+)1 (-)0 % [2] r_2 (+)1 (-)0 % ------------------ % Total: (+)3 (-)1 % Total number of unit clauses retained: 4 % Number of clauses skipped because of their length: 13 % N base clauses skippped in resolve-with-all-base-clauses % because of the shortest resolvents table: 0 % Number of successful unifications: 27 % Number of unification failures: 0 % Number of unit to unit unification failures: 0 % N literal unification failure due to lookup root_id table: 21 % N base clause resolution failure due to lookup table: 19 % N UC-BCL resolution dropped due to lookup table: 0 % Max entries in substitution set: 2 % 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: 3 % Max term depth in a unit clause: 2 % Number of states in UCFA table: 9 % Total number of terms of all unit clauses in table: 6 % 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: 1.50 % Number of symbols (columns) in UCFA: 41 % Profile 2: Number of calls to: % ============================== % PTUnify() = 27 % ConstructUnitClause() = 3 % Profile 1: Time spent in: % ========================= % ConstructUnitClause() : 0.00 secs % -------------------------------------------------------- % | | % Inferences per sec: inf % | | % -------------------------------------------------------- % Elapsed time: 0 secs % CPU time: 0.14 secs % %------------------------------------------------------------------------------