%------------------------------------------------------------------------------ % File : CARINE---0.734 % Problem : LCL079-1 : 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 23:50:21 EST 2010 % Result : Unsatisfiable 0.81s % Output : Refutation 0.81s % 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/SystemOnTPTP21808/LCL/LCL079-1+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 = 9] [nf = 0] [nu = 0] [ut = 6] % Looking for a proof at depth = 2 ... % t = 0 secs [nr = 2858] [nf = 0] [nu = 1528] [ut = 1046] % Looking for a proof at depth = 3 ... % t = 0 secs [nr = 8912] [nf = 8] [nu = 6237] [ut = 1046] % 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(a_0(),c_0())) % B2: 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: % -------------- % 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)))) % U4: < d0 v0 dv0 f1 c2 t3 td2 b > is_a_theorem_1(implies_2(a_0(),b_0())) % U5: < d0 v0 dv0 f1 c2 t3 td2 b > is_a_theorem_1(implies_2(b_0(),c_0())) % U39: < d2 v1 dv1 f2 c2 t5 td3 > is_a_theorem_1(implies_2(x0,implies_2(b_0(),c_0()))) % U2658: < d4 v1 dv1 f6 c6 t13 td4 > ~is_a_theorem_1(implies_2(implies_2(x0,implies_2(b_0(),c_0())),implies_2(implies_2(a_0(),b_0()),implies_2(a_0(),c_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 U4: % is_a_theorem_1(implies_2(a_0(),b_0())) ....... U4 % Derivation of unit clause U5: % is_a_theorem_1(implies_2(b_0(),c_0())) ....... U5 % Derivation of unit clause U39: % 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) ....... B6 % ~is_a_theorem_1(x0) | is_a_theorem_1(implies_2(x1, x0)) ....... R1 [B2:L0, B6:L1] % is_a_theorem_1(implies_2(b_0(),c_0())) ....... U5 % is_a_theorem_1(implies_2(x0, implies_2(b_0(), c_0()))) ....... R2 [R1:L0, U5:L0] % Derivation of unit clause U2658: % ~is_a_theorem_1(implies_2(a_0(),c_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(), c_0()))) ....... R1 [B0:L0, B6:L2] % ~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(x1) | ~is_a_theorem_1(implies_2(x1, implies_2(x0, implies_2(a_0(), c_0())))) ....... R2 [R1:L1, B6:L2] % is_a_theorem_1(implies_2(a_0(),b_0())) ....... U4 % ~is_a_theorem_1(x0) | ~is_a_theorem_1(implies_2(x0, implies_2(implies_2(a_0(), b_0()), implies_2(a_0(), c_0())))) ....... R3 [R2:L0, U4:L0] % is_a_theorem_1(implies_2(x0,implies_2(b_0(),c_0()))) ....... U39 % ~is_a_theorem_1(implies_2(implies_2(x0, implies_2(b_0(), c_0())), implies_2(implies_2(a_0(), b_0()), implies_2(a_0(), c_0())))) ....... R4 [R3:L0, U39:L0] % Derivation of the empty clause: % ~is_a_theorem_1(implies_2(implies_2(x0,implies_2(b_0(),c_0())),implies_2(implies_2(a_0(),b_0()),implies_2(a_0(),c_0())))) ....... U2658 % is_a_theorem_1(implies_2(implies_2(x0,implies_2(x1,x2)),implies_2(implies_2(x0,x1),implies_2(x0,x2)))) ....... U1 % [] ....... R1 [U2658:L0, U1:L0] % --------------- End of Proof --------------- % PROOF FOUND! % --------------------------------------------- % | Statistics | % --------------------------------------------- % Profile 3: Performance Statistics: % ================================== % Total number of generated clauses: 38781 % resolvents: 38770 factors: 11 % Number of unit clauses generated: 35497 % % unit clauses generated to total clauses generated: 91.53 % Number of unit clauses constructed and retained at depth [x]: % ============================================================= % [0] = 6 [2] = 1040 [4] = 1613 % Total = 2659 % Number of generated clauses having [x] literals: % ------------------------------------------------ % [1] = 35497 [2] = 3258 [3] = 26 % Average size of a generated clause: 2.0 % Number of unit clauses per predicate list: % ========================================== % [0] is_a_theorem_1 (+)296 (-)2363 % ------------------ % Total: (+)296 (-)2363 % Total number of unit clauses retained: 2659 % Number of clauses skipped because of their length: 630 % N base clauses skippped in resolve-with-all-base-clauses % because of the shortest resolvents table: 0 % Number of successful unifications: 38787 % Number of unification failures: 331639 % Number of unit to unit unification failures: 699152 % N literal unification failure due to lookup root_id table: 52 % N base clause resolution failure due to lookup table: 0 % N UC-BCL resolution dropped due to lookup table: 20 % Max entries in substitution set: 8 % N unit clauses dropped because they exceeded max values: 27838 % N unit clauses dropped because too much nesting: 1520 % 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: 47 % Max term depth in a unit clause: 10 % Number of states in UCFA table: 17554 % Total number of terms of all unit clauses in table: 65262 % Max allowed number of states in UCFA: 528000 % Ratio n states used/total allowed states: 0.03 % Ratio n states used/total unit clauses terms: 0.27 % Number of symbols (columns) in UCFA: 40 % Profile 2: Number of calls to: % ============================== % PTUnify() = 370426 % ConstructUnitClause() = 30491 % Profile 1: Time spent in: % ========================= % ConstructUnitClause() : 0.07 secs % -------------------------------------------------------- % | | % Inferences per sec: inf % | | % -------------------------------------------------------- % Elapsed time: 1 secs % CPU time: 0.80 secs % %------------------------------------------------------------------------------