%------------------------------------------------------------------------------ % File : CARINE---0.734 % Problem : LCL044-1 : TPTP v5.0.0. Released v1.0.0. % 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 23:32:24 EST 2010 % Result : Unsatisfiable 0.36s % Output : Refutation 0.36s % 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/SystemOnTPTP9512/LCL/LCL044-1+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 = 11] [nf = 0] [nu = 0] [ut = 6] % Looking for a proof at depth = 2 ... % +================================================+ % | | % | Congratulations!!! ........ A proof was found. | % | | % +================================================+ % Base Clauses and Unit Clauses used in proof: % ============================================ % Base Clauses: % ------------- % B0: ~is_a_theorem_1(implies_2(a_0(),not_1(not_1(a_0())))) % B1: is_a_theorem_1(implies_2(implies_2(x0,x1),implies_2(implies_2(x2,x0),implies_2(x2,x1)))) % B2: is_a_theorem_1(implies_2(implies_2(x0,implies_2(x1,x2)),implies_2(x1,implies_2(x0,x2)))) % B3: is_a_theorem_1(implies_2(x0,implies_2(x1,x0))) % B6: ~is_a_theorem_1(x0) | ~is_a_theorem_1(implies_2(x0,x1)) | is_a_theorem_1(x1) % Unit Clauses: % -------------- % U4: < d0 v3 dv2 f3 c0 t6 td4 b > is_a_theorem_1(implies_2(x0,implies_2(not_1(x0),x1))) % U5: < d0 v5 dv2 f5 c0 t10 td5 b > is_a_theorem_1(implies_2(implies_2(x0,x1),implies_2(implies_2(not_1(x0),x1),x1))) % U9: < d2 v3 dv2 f7 c2 t12 td5 > ~is_a_theorem_1(implies_2(implies_2(x0,implies_2(not_1(x0),x1)),implies_2(a_0(),not_1(not_1(a_0()))))) % U43: < d2 v1 dv1 f5 c2 t8 td4 > ~is_a_theorem_1(implies_2(implies_2(not_1(a_0()),x0),not_1(not_1(a_0())))) % U58: < d2 v7 dv4 f11 c2 t20 td5 > ~is_a_theorem_1(implies_2(implies_2(implies_2(x0,implies_2(x1,x2)),implies_2(x1,implies_2(x0,x2))),implies_2(implies_2(not_1(a_0()),x3),not_1(not_1(a_0()))))) % U74: < d2 v5 dv2 f5 c0 t10 td4 > is_a_theorem_1(implies_2(implies_2(not_1(x0),x1),implies_2(implies_2(x0,x1),x1))) % U105: < d2 v7 dv4 f11 c2 t20 td6 > ~is_a_theorem_1(implies_2(implies_2(not_1(a_0()),x0),implies_2(implies_2(implies_2(x1,implies_2(x2,x3)),implies_2(x2,implies_2(x1,x3))),not_1(not_1(a_0()))))) % U123: < d2 v5 dv2 f6 c0 t11 td5 > is_a_theorem_1(implies_2(implies_2(x0,implies_2(x1,not_1(x0))),implies_2(x1,not_1(x0)))) % --------------- Start of Proof --------------- % Derivation of unit clause U4: % is_a_theorem_1(implies_2(x0,implies_2(not_1(x0),x1))) ....... U4 % Derivation of unit clause U5: % is_a_theorem_1(implies_2(implies_2(x0,x1),implies_2(implies_2(not_1(x0),x1),x1))) ....... U5 % Derivation of unit clause U9: % ~is_a_theorem_1(implies_2(a_0(),not_1(not_1(a_0())))) ....... B0 % ~is_a_theorem_1(x0) | ~is_a_theorem_1(implies_2(x0,x1)) | is_a_theorem_1(x1) ....... B6 % ~is_a_theorem_1(x0) | ~is_a_theorem_1(implies_2(x0, implies_2(a_0(), not_1(not_1(a_0()))))) ....... R1 [B0:L0, B6:L2] % is_a_theorem_1(implies_2(x0,implies_2(not_1(x0),x1))) ....... U4 % ~is_a_theorem_1(implies_2(implies_2(x0, implies_2(not_1(x0), x1)), implies_2(a_0(), not_1(not_1(a_0()))))) ....... R2 [R1:L0, U4:L0] % Derivation of unit clause U43: % is_a_theorem_1(implies_2(implies_2(x0,x1),implies_2(implies_2(x2,x0),implies_2(x2,x1)))) ....... B1 % ~is_a_theorem_1(x0) | ~is_a_theorem_1(implies_2(x0,x1)) | is_a_theorem_1(x1) ....... B6 % ~is_a_theorem_1(implies_2(x0, x1)) | is_a_theorem_1(implies_2(implies_2(x2, x0), implies_2(x2, x1))) ....... R1 [B1:L0, B6:L1] % ~is_a_theorem_1(implies_2(implies_2(x0,implies_2(not_1(x0),x1)),implies_2(a_0(),not_1(not_1(a_0()))))) ....... U9 % ~is_a_theorem_1(implies_2(implies_2(not_1(a_0()), x0), not_1(not_1(a_0())))) ....... R2 [R1:L1, U9:L0] % Derivation of unit clause U58: % is_a_theorem_1(implies_2(implies_2(x0,implies_2(x1,x2)),implies_2(x1,implies_2(x0,x2)))) ....... B2 % ~is_a_theorem_1(x0) | ~is_a_theorem_1(implies_2(x0,x1)) | is_a_theorem_1(x1) ....... B6 % ~is_a_theorem_1(implies_2(implies_2(implies_2(x0, implies_2(x1, x2)), implies_2(x1, implies_2(x0, x2))), x3)) | is_a_theorem_1(x3) ....... R1 [B2:L0, B6:L0] % ~is_a_theorem_1(implies_2(implies_2(not_1(a_0()),x0),not_1(not_1(a_0())))) ....... U43 % ~is_a_theorem_1(implies_2(implies_2(implies_2(x0, implies_2(x1, x2)), implies_2(x1, implies_2(x0, x2))), implies_2(implies_2(not_1(a_0()), x3), not_1(not_1(a_0()))))) ....... R2 [R1:L1, U43:L0] % Derivation of unit clause U74: % is_a_theorem_1(implies_2(implies_2(x0,implies_2(x1,x2)),implies_2(x1,implies_2(x0,x2)))) ....... B2 % ~is_a_theorem_1(x0) | ~is_a_theorem_1(implies_2(x0,x1)) | is_a_theorem_1(x1) ....... B6 % ~is_a_theorem_1(implies_2(x0, implies_2(x1, x2))) | is_a_theorem_1(implies_2(x1, implies_2(x0, x2))) ....... R1 [B2:L0, B6:L1] % is_a_theorem_1(implies_2(implies_2(x0,x1),implies_2(implies_2(not_1(x0),x1),x1))) ....... U5 % is_a_theorem_1(implies_2(implies_2(not_1(x0), x1), implies_2(implies_2(x0, x1), x1))) ....... R2 [R1:L0, U5:L0] % Derivation of unit clause U105: % is_a_theorem_1(implies_2(implies_2(x0,implies_2(x1,x2)),implies_2(x1,implies_2(x0,x2)))) ....... B2 % ~is_a_theorem_1(x0) | ~is_a_theorem_1(implies_2(x0,x1)) | is_a_theorem_1(x1) ....... B6 % ~is_a_theorem_1(implies_2(x0, implies_2(x1, x2))) | is_a_theorem_1(implies_2(x1, implies_2(x0, x2))) ....... R1 [B2:L0, B6:L1] % ~is_a_theorem_1(implies_2(implies_2(implies_2(x0,implies_2(x1,x2)),implies_2(x1,implies_2(x0,x2))),implies_2(implies_2(not_1(a_0()),x3),not_1(not_1(a_0()))))) ....... U58 % ~is_a_theorem_1(implies_2(implies_2(not_1(a_0()), x0), implies_2(implies_2(implies_2(x1, implies_2(x2, x3)), implies_2(x2, implies_2(x1, x3))), not_1(not_1(a_0()))))) ....... R2 [R1:L1, U58:L0] % Derivation of unit clause U123: % is_a_theorem_1(implies_2(x0,implies_2(x1,x0))) ....... B3 % ~is_a_theorem_1(x0) | ~is_a_theorem_1(implies_2(x0,x1)) | is_a_theorem_1(x1) ....... B6 % ~is_a_theorem_1(implies_2(implies_2(x0, implies_2(x1, x0)), x2)) | is_a_theorem_1(x2) ....... R1 [B3:L0, B6:L0] % is_a_theorem_1(implies_2(implies_2(not_1(x0),x1),implies_2(implies_2(x0,x1),x1))) ....... U74 % is_a_theorem_1(implies_2(implies_2(x0, implies_2(x1, not_1(x0))), implies_2(x1, not_1(x0)))) ....... R2 [R1:L0, U74:L0] % Derivation of the empty clause: % is_a_theorem_1(implies_2(implies_2(x0,implies_2(x1,not_1(x0))),implies_2(x1,not_1(x0)))) ....... U123 % ~is_a_theorem_1(implies_2(implies_2(not_1(a_0()),x0),implies_2(implies_2(implies_2(x1,implies_2(x2,x3)),implies_2(x2,implies_2(x1,x3))),not_1(not_1(a_0()))))) ....... U105 % [] ....... R1 [U123:L0, U105:L0] % --------------- End of Proof --------------- % PROOF FOUND! % --------------------------------------------- % | Statistics | % --------------------------------------------- % Profile 3: Performance Statistics: % ================================== % Total number of generated clauses: 179 % resolvents: 179 factors: 0 % Number of unit clauses generated: 162 % % unit clauses generated to total clauses generated: 90.50 % Number of unit clauses constructed and retained at depth [x]: % ============================================================= % [0] = 6 [2] = 118 % Total = 124 % Number of generated clauses having [x] literals: % ------------------------------------------------ % [1] = 162 [2] = 17 % Average size of a generated clause: 2.0 % Number of unit clauses per predicate list: % ========================================== % [0] is_a_theorem_1 (+)61 (-)63 % ------------------ % Total: (+)61 (-)63 % Total number of unit clauses retained: 124 % Number of clauses skipped because of their length: 5 % N base clauses skippped in resolve-with-all-base-clauses % because of the shortest resolvents table: 0 % Number of successful unifications: 191 % Number of unification failures: 127 % Number of unit to unit unification failures: 3840 % N literal unification failure due to lookup root_id table: 11 % 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: 44 % 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: 40 % Max term depth in a unit clause: 9 % Number of states in UCFA table: 812 % Total number of terms of all unit clauses in table: 2343 % Max allowed number of states in UCFA: 528000 % Ratio n states used/total allowed states: 0.00 % Ratio n states used/total unit clauses terms: 0.35 % Number of symbols (columns) in UCFA: 38 % Profile 2: Number of calls to: % ============================== % PTUnify() = 318 % ConstructUnitClause() = 162 % Profile 1: Time spent in: % ========================= % ConstructUnitClause() : 0.00 secs % -------------------------------------------------------- % | | % Inferences per sec: inf % | | % -------------------------------------------------------- % Elapsed time: 0 secs % CPU time: 0.35 secs % %------------------------------------------------------------------------------