%------------------------------------------------------------------------------ % File : CARINE---0.734 % Problem : LCL077-2 : TPTP v5.0.0. Released v1.0.0. % 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 23:50:05 EST 2010 % Result : Unsatisfiable 10.68s % Output : Refutation 10.68s % 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/SystemOnTPTP21680/LCL/LCL077-2+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 = 1 secs [nr = 10] [nf = 0] [nu = 0] [ut = 4] % Looking for a proof at depth = 2 ... % t = 2 secs [nr = 11332] [nf = 2] [nu = 4214] [ut = 2774] % Looking for a proof at depth = 3 ... % t = 2 secs [nr = 31879] [nf = 62] [nu = 17585] [ut = 2774] % Looking for a proof at depth = 4 ... % +================================================+ % | | % | Congratulations!!! ........ A proof was found. | % | | % +================================================+ % Base Clauses and Unit Clauses used in proof: % ============================================ % Base Clauses: % ------------- % B0: ~is_a_theorem_1(implies_2(not_1(not_1(a_0())),a_0())) % B2: is_a_theorem_1(implies_2(x0,implies_2(x1,x0))) % B3: is_a_theorem_1(implies_2(implies_2(not_1(x0),not_1(x1)),implies_2(x1,x0))) % B4: ~is_a_theorem_1(implies_2(x1,x2)) | ~is_a_theorem_1(implies_2(x0,x1)) | is_a_theorem_1(implies_2(x0,x2)) % B5: ~is_a_theorem_1(x0) | ~is_a_theorem_1(implies_2(x0,x1)) | is_a_theorem_1(x1) % Unit Clauses: % -------------- % U1: < d0 v7 dv3 f6 c0 t13 td4 b > is_a_theorem_1(implies_2(implies_2(x0,implies_2(x1,x2)),implies_2(implies_2(x0,x1),implies_2(x0,x2)))) % U3: < d0 v4 dv2 f5 c0 t9 td4 b > is_a_theorem_1(implies_2(implies_2(not_1(x0),not_1(x1)),implies_2(x1,x0))) % U32: < d2 v3 dv2 f3 c0 t6 td3 > is_a_theorem_1(implies_2(not_1(x0),implies_2(x0,x1))) % U98: < d2 v4 dv2 f3 c0 t7 td3 > is_a_theorem_1(implies_2(implies_2(x0,x1),implies_2(x0,x0))) % U1565: < d2 v6 dv2 f9 c0 t15 td5 > is_a_theorem_1(implies_2(implies_2(implies_2(not_1(x0),not_1(x1)),x1),implies_2(implies_2(not_1(x0),not_1(x1)),x0))) % U12524: < d4 v5 dv3 f7 c2 t14 td5 > ~is_a_theorem_1(implies_2(implies_2(implies_2(x0,x1),implies_2(x0,x0)),implies_2(implies_2(not_1(a_0()),x2),a_0()))) % --------------- Start of Proof --------------- % Derivation of unit clause U1: % is_a_theorem_1(implies_2(implies_2(x0,implies_2(x1,x2)),implies_2(implies_2(x0,x1),implies_2(x0,x2)))) ....... U1 % Derivation of unit clause U3: % is_a_theorem_1(implies_2(implies_2(not_1(x0),not_1(x1)),implies_2(x1,x0))) ....... U3 % Derivation of unit clause U32: % is_a_theorem_1(implies_2(x0,implies_2(x1,x0))) ....... B2 % ~is_a_theorem_1(implies_2(x1,x2)) | ~is_a_theorem_1(implies_2(x0,x1)) | is_a_theorem_1(implies_2(x0,x2)) ....... B4 % ~is_a_theorem_1(implies_2(implies_2(x0, x1), x2)) | is_a_theorem_1(implies_2(x1, x2)) ....... R1 [B2:L0, B4:L1] % is_a_theorem_1(implies_2(implies_2(not_1(x0),not_1(x1)),implies_2(x1,x0))) ....... U3 % is_a_theorem_1(implies_2(not_1(x0), implies_2(x0, x1))) ....... R2 [R1:L0, U3:L0] % Derivation of unit clause U98: % is_a_theorem_1(implies_2(x0,implies_2(x1,x0))) ....... B2 % ~is_a_theorem_1(x0) | ~is_a_theorem_1(implies_2(x0,x1)) | is_a_theorem_1(x1) ....... B5 % ~is_a_theorem_1(implies_2(implies_2(x0, implies_2(x1, x0)), x2)) | is_a_theorem_1(x2) ....... R1 [B2:L0, B5:L0] % is_a_theorem_1(implies_2(implies_2(x0,implies_2(x1,x2)),implies_2(implies_2(x0,x1),implies_2(x0,x2)))) ....... U1 % is_a_theorem_1(implies_2(implies_2(x0, x1), implies_2(x0, x0))) ....... R2 [R1:L0, U1:L0] % Derivation of unit clause U1565: % is_a_theorem_1(implies_2(implies_2(not_1(x0),not_1(x1)),implies_2(x1,x0))) ....... B3 % ~is_a_theorem_1(x0) | ~is_a_theorem_1(implies_2(x0,x1)) | is_a_theorem_1(x1) ....... B5 % ~is_a_theorem_1(implies_2(implies_2(implies_2(not_1(x0), not_1(x1)), implies_2(x1, x0)), x2)) | is_a_theorem_1(x2) ....... R1 [B3:L0, B5:L0] % is_a_theorem_1(implies_2(implies_2(x0,implies_2(x1,x2)),implies_2(implies_2(x0,x1),implies_2(x0,x2)))) ....... U1 % is_a_theorem_1(implies_2(implies_2(implies_2(not_1(x0), not_1(x1)), x1), implies_2(implies_2(not_1(x0), not_1(x1)), x0))) ....... R2 [R1:L0, U1:L0] % Derivation of unit clause U12524: % ~is_a_theorem_1(implies_2(not_1(not_1(a_0())),a_0())) ....... B0 % ~is_a_theorem_1(implies_2(x1,x2)) | ~is_a_theorem_1(implies_2(x0,x1)) | is_a_theorem_1(implies_2(x0,x2)) ....... B4 % ~is_a_theorem_1(implies_2(x0, a_0())) | ~is_a_theorem_1(implies_2(not_1(not_1(a_0())), x0)) ....... R1 [B0:L0, B4:L2] % ~is_a_theorem_1(x0) | ~is_a_theorem_1(implies_2(x0,x1)) | is_a_theorem_1(x1) ....... B5 % ~is_a_theorem_1(implies_2(not_1(not_1(a_0())), x0)) | ~is_a_theorem_1(x1) | ~is_a_theorem_1(implies_2(x1, implies_2(x0, a_0()))) ....... R2 [R1:L0, B5:L2] % is_a_theorem_1(implies_2(not_1(x0),implies_2(x0,x1))) ....... U32 % ~is_a_theorem_1(x0) | ~is_a_theorem_1(implies_2(x0, implies_2(implies_2(not_1(a_0()), x1), a_0()))) ....... R3 [R2:L0, U32:L0] % is_a_theorem_1(implies_2(implies_2(x0,x1),implies_2(x0,x0))) ....... U98 % ~is_a_theorem_1(implies_2(implies_2(implies_2(x0, x1), implies_2(x0, x0)), implies_2(implies_2(not_1(a_0()), x2), a_0()))) ....... R4 [R3:L0, U98:L0] % Derivation of the empty clause: % ~is_a_theorem_1(implies_2(implies_2(implies_2(x0,x1),implies_2(x0,x0)),implies_2(implies_2(not_1(a_0()),x2),a_0()))) ....... U12524 % is_a_theorem_1(implies_2(implies_2(implies_2(not_1(x0),not_1(x1)),x1),implies_2(implies_2(not_1(x0),not_1(x1)),x0))) ....... U1565 % [] ....... R1 [U12524:L0, U1565:L0] % --------------- End of Proof --------------- % PROOF FOUND! % --------------------------------------------- % | Statistics | % --------------------------------------------- % Profile 3: Performance Statistics: % ================================== % Total number of generated clauses: 149720 % resolvents: 149649 factors: 71 % Number of unit clauses generated: 132500 % % unit clauses generated to total clauses generated: 88.50 % Number of unit clauses constructed and retained at depth [x]: % ============================================================= % [0] = 4 [2] = 2770 [4] = 9751 % Total = 12525 % Number of generated clauses having [x] literals: % ------------------------------------------------ % [1] = 132500 [2] = 17149 [3] = 71 % Average size of a generated clause: 2.0 % Number of unit clauses per predicate list: % ========================================== % [0] is_a_theorem_1 (+)1376 (-)11149 % ------------------ % Total: (+)1376 (-)11149 % Total number of unit clauses retained: 12525 % Number of clauses skipped because of their length: 5810 % N base clauses skippped in resolve-with-all-base-clauses % because of the shortest resolvents table: 0 % Number of successful unifications: 149730 % Number of unification failures: 7676879 % Number of unit to unit unification failures: 15340860 % N literal unification failure due to lookup root_id table: 110 % N base clause resolution failure due to lookup table: 0 % N UC-BCL resolution dropped due to lookup table: 115464 % Max entries in substitution set: 15 % N unit clauses dropped because they exceeded max values: 106395 % N unit clauses dropped because too much nesting: 14686 % 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: 51 % Max term depth in a unit clause: 10 % Number of states in UCFA table: 83966 % Total number of terms of all unit clauses in table: 347780 % Max allowed number of states in UCFA: 528000 % Ratio n states used/total allowed states: 0.16 % Ratio n states used/total unit clauses terms: 0.24 % Number of symbols (columns) in UCFA: 38 % Profile 2: Number of calls to: % ============================== % PTUnify() = 7826609 % ConstructUnitClause() = 118916 % Profile 1: Time spent in: % ========================= % ConstructUnitClause() : 0.19 secs % -------------------------------------------------------- % | | % Inferences per sec: 14972 % | | % -------------------------------------------------------- % Elapsed time: 11 secs % CPU time: 10.67 secs % %------------------------------------------------------------------------------