%------------------------------------------------------------------------------ % File : CARINE---0.734 % Problem : LCL176-1 : TPTP v5.0.0. Released v1.1.0. % Transfm : add_equality % Format : carine % Command : carine %s t=%d xo=off uct=32000 % Computer : art04.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 : Sun Nov 28 00:15:08 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/SystemOnTPTP30502/LCL/LCL176-1+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 = 18] [nf = 0] [nu = 10] [ut = 12] % Looking for a proof at depth = 2 ... % +================================================+ % | | % | Congratulations!!! ........ A proof was found. | % | | % +================================================+ % Base Clauses and Unit Clauses used in proof: % ============================================ % Base Clauses: % ------------- % B0: ~theorem_1(or_2(not_1(p_0()),p_0())) % B5: axiom_1(or_2(not_1(or_2(x0,x0)),x0)) % B6: ~axiom_1(x0) | theorem_1(x0) % B7: ~axiom_1(or_2(not_1(x0),x2)) | ~theorem_1(or_2(not_1(x2),x1)) | theorem_1(or_2(not_1(x0),x1)) % Unit Clauses: % -------------- % U3: < d0 v3 dv2 f3 c0 t6 td3 b > axiom_1(or_2(not_1(x0),or_2(x1,x0))) % U9: < d1 v3 dv1 f3 c0 t6 td4 > theorem_1(or_2(not_1(or_2(x0,x0)),x0)) % U12: < d2 v1 dv1 f3 c2 t6 td4 > ~theorem_1(or_2(not_1(or_2(x0,p_0())),p_0())) % --------------- Start of Proof --------------- % Derivation of unit clause U3: % axiom_1(or_2(not_1(x0),or_2(x1,x0))) ....... U3 % Derivation of unit clause U9: % axiom_1(or_2(not_1(or_2(x0,x0)),x0)) ....... B5 % ~axiom_1(x0) | theorem_1(x0) ....... B6 % theorem_1(or_2(not_1(or_2(x0, x0)), x0)) ....... R1 [B5:L0, B6:L0] % Derivation of unit clause U12: % ~theorem_1(or_2(not_1(p_0()),p_0())) ....... B0 % ~axiom_1(or_2(not_1(x0),x2)) | ~theorem_1(or_2(not_1(x2),x1)) | theorem_1(or_2(not_1(x0),x1)) ....... B7 % ~axiom_1(or_2(not_1(p_0()), x0)) | ~theorem_1(or_2(not_1(x0), p_0())) ....... R1 [B0:L0, B7:L2] % axiom_1(or_2(not_1(x0),or_2(x1,x0))) ....... U3 % ~theorem_1(or_2(not_1(or_2(x0, p_0())), p_0())) ....... R2 [R1:L0, U3:L0] % Derivation of the empty clause: % ~theorem_1(or_2(not_1(or_2(x0,p_0())),p_0())) ....... U12 % theorem_1(or_2(not_1(or_2(x0,x0)),x0)) ....... U9 % [] ....... R1 [U12:L0, U9:L0] % --------------- End of Proof --------------- % PROOF FOUND! % --------------------------------------------- % | Statistics | % --------------------------------------------- % Profile 3: Performance Statistics: % ================================== % Total number of generated clauses: 21 % resolvents: 21 factors: 0 % Number of unit clauses generated: 12 % % unit clauses generated to total clauses generated: 57.14 % Number of unit clauses constructed and retained at depth [x]: % ============================================================= % [0] = 6 [1] = 6 [2] = 1 % Total = 13 % Number of generated clauses having [x] literals: % ------------------------------------------------ % [1] = 12 [2] = 9 % Average size of a generated clause: 2.0 % Number of unit clauses per predicate list: % ========================================== % [0] axiom_1 (+)5 (-)1 % [1] theorem_1 (+)5 (-)2 % ------------------ % Total: (+)10 (-)3 % Total number of unit clauses retained: 13 % Number of clauses skipped because of their length: 2 % N base clauses skippped in resolve-with-all-base-clauses % because of the shortest resolvents table: 0 % Number of successful unifications: 24 % Number of unification failures: 2 % Number of unit to unit unification failures: 12 % N literal unification failure due to lookup root_id table: 23 % N base clause resolution failure due to lookup table: 1 % 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: 4 % 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: 14 % Max term depth in a unit clause: 5 % Number of states in UCFA table: 72 % Total number of terms of all unit clauses in table: 106 % 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: 0.68 % Number of symbols (columns) in UCFA: 39 % Profile 2: Number of calls to: % ============================== % PTUnify() = 26 % ConstructUnitClause() = 11 % Profile 1: Time spent in: % ========================= % ConstructUnitClause() : 0.00 secs % -------------------------------------------------------- % | | % Inferences per sec: inf % | | % -------------------------------------------------------- % Elapsed time: 0 secs % CPU time: 0.35 secs % %------------------------------------------------------------------------------