%------------------------------------------------------------------------------ % File : CARINE---0.734 % Problem : LCL190-1 : TPTP v5.0.0. Released v1.1.0. % Transfm : add_equality % Format : carine % Command : carine %s t=%d xo=off uct=32000 % Computer : art02.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 00:19:15 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/SystemOnTPTP3916/LCL/LCL190-1+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 = 1 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(or_2(p_0(),or_2(q_0(),r_0()))),or_2(p_0(),or_2(r_0(),q_0())))) % B4: axiom_1(or_2(not_1(or_2(x0,x1)),or_2(x1,x0))) % B6: ~axiom_1(x0) | theorem_1(x0) % B8: ~axiom_1(or_2(not_1(x1),x0)) | ~theorem_1(x1) | theorem_1(x0) % Unit Clauses: % -------------- % U2: < d0 v6 dv3 f8 c0 t14 td5 b > axiom_1(or_2(not_1(or_2(not_1(x0),x1)),or_2(not_1(or_2(x2,x0)),or_2(x2,x1)))) % U8: < d1 v4 dv2 f4 c0 t8 td4 > theorem_1(or_2(not_1(or_2(x0,x1)),or_2(x1,x0))) % U20: < d2 v0 dv0 f4 c4 t8 td4 > ~theorem_1(or_2(not_1(or_2(q_0(),r_0())),or_2(r_0(),q_0()))) % --------------- Start of Proof --------------- % Derivation of unit clause U2: % axiom_1(or_2(not_1(or_2(not_1(x0),x1)),or_2(not_1(or_2(x2,x0)),or_2(x2,x1)))) ....... U2 % Derivation of unit clause U8: % axiom_1(or_2(not_1(or_2(x0,x1)),or_2(x1,x0))) ....... B4 % ~axiom_1(x0) | theorem_1(x0) ....... B6 % theorem_1(or_2(not_1(or_2(x0, x1)), or_2(x1, x0))) ....... R1 [B4:L0, B6:L0] % Derivation of unit clause U20: % ~theorem_1(or_2(not_1(or_2(p_0(),or_2(q_0(),r_0()))),or_2(p_0(),or_2(r_0(),q_0())))) ....... B0 % ~axiom_1(or_2(not_1(x1),x0)) | ~theorem_1(x1) | theorem_1(x0) ....... B8 % ~axiom_1(or_2(not_1(x0), or_2(not_1(or_2(p_0(), or_2(q_0(), r_0()))), or_2(p_0(), or_2(r_0(), q_0()))))) | ~theorem_1(x0) ....... R1 [B0:L0, B8:L2] % axiom_1(or_2(not_1(or_2(not_1(x0),x1)),or_2(not_1(or_2(x2,x0)),or_2(x2,x1)))) ....... U2 % ~theorem_1(or_2(not_1(or_2(q_0(), r_0())), or_2(r_0(), q_0()))) ....... R2 [R1:L0, U2:L0] % Derivation of the empty clause: % ~theorem_1(or_2(not_1(or_2(q_0(),r_0())),or_2(r_0(),q_0()))) ....... U20 % theorem_1(or_2(not_1(or_2(x0,x1)),or_2(x1,x0))) ....... U8 % [] ....... R1 [U20:L0, U8:L0] % --------------- End of Proof --------------- % PROOF FOUND! % --------------------------------------------- % | Statistics | % --------------------------------------------- % Profile 3: Performance Statistics: % ================================== % Total number of generated clauses: 31 % resolvents: 31 factors: 0 % Number of unit clauses generated: 20 % % unit clauses generated to total clauses generated: 64.52 % Number of unit clauses constructed and retained at depth [x]: % ============================================================= % [0] = 6 [1] = 6 [2] = 9 % Total = 21 % Number of generated clauses having [x] literals: % ------------------------------------------------ % [1] = 20 [2] = 11 % Average size of a generated clause: 2.0 % Number of unit clauses per predicate list: % ========================================== % [0] axiom_1 (+)5 (-)5 % [1] theorem_1 (+)5 (-)6 % ------------------ % Total: (+)10 (-)11 % Total number of unit clauses retained: 21 % Number of clauses skipped because of their length: 4 % N base clauses skippped in resolve-with-all-base-clauses % because of the shortest resolvents table: 0 % Number of successful unifications: 34 % Number of unification failures: 3 % Number of unit to unit unification failures: 51 % N literal unification failure due to lookup root_id table: 28 % 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: 6 % 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: 18 % Max term depth in a unit clause: 6 % Number of states in UCFA table: 138 % Total number of terms of all unit clauses in table: 226 % 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: 0.61 % Number of symbols (columns) in UCFA: 41 % Profile 2: Number of calls to: % ============================== % PTUnify() = 37 % ConstructUnitClause() = 19 % Profile 1: Time spent in: % ========================= % ConstructUnitClause() : 0.01 secs % -------------------------------------------------------- % | | % Inferences per sec: inf % | | % -------------------------------------------------------- % Elapsed time: 1 secs % CPU time: 0.36 secs % %------------------------------------------------------------------------------