%------------------------------------------------------------------------------ % File : CARINE---0.734 % Problem : LCL200-1 : 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 00:21:44 EST 2010 % Result : Unsatisfiable 0.37s % Output : Refutation 0.37s % 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/SystemOnTPTP31304/LCL/LCL200-1+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(not_1(or_2(p_0(),q_0()))),not_1(q_0()))) % B3: axiom_1(or_2(not_1(x0),or_2(x1,x0))) % B4: axiom_1(or_2(not_1(or_2(x0,x1)),or_2(x1,x0))) % 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)) % B8: ~axiom_1(or_2(not_1(x1),x0)) | ~theorem_1(x1) | theorem_1(x0) % Unit Clauses: % -------------- % U4: < d0 v4 dv2 f4 c0 t8 td4 b > axiom_1(or_2(not_1(or_2(x0,x1)),or_2(x1,x0))) % U9: < d1 v3 dv1 f3 c0 t6 td4 > theorem_1(or_2(not_1(or_2(x0,x0)),x0)) % U15: < d2 v0 dv0 f5 c3 t8 td5 > ~theorem_1(or_2(not_1(q_0()),not_1(not_1(or_2(p_0(),q_0()))))) % U24: < d2 v2 dv1 f2 c0 t4 td3 > theorem_1(or_2(not_1(x0),x0)) % U46: < d2 v1 dv1 f6 c3 t10 td5 > ~theorem_1(or_2(not_1(or_2(x0,q_0())),not_1(not_1(or_2(p_0(),q_0()))))) % U366: < d2 v2 dv1 f2 c0 t4 td3 > theorem_1(or_2(x0,not_1(x0))) % --------------- Start of Proof --------------- % Derivation of unit clause U4: % axiom_1(or_2(not_1(or_2(x0,x1)),or_2(x1,x0))) ....... U4 % 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 U15: % ~theorem_1(or_2(not_1(not_1(or_2(p_0(),q_0()))),not_1(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(not_1(or_2(p_0(), q_0()))), not_1(q_0())))) | ~theorem_1(x0) ....... R1 [B0:L0, B8:L2] % axiom_1(or_2(not_1(or_2(x0,x1)),or_2(x1,x0))) ....... U4 % ~theorem_1(or_2(not_1(q_0()), not_1(not_1(or_2(p_0(), q_0()))))) ....... R2 [R1:L0, U4:L0] % Derivation of unit clause U24: % axiom_1(or_2(not_1(x0),or_2(x1,x0))) ....... B3 % ~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 % ~theorem_1(or_2(not_1(or_2(x0, x1)), x2)) | theorem_1(or_2(not_1(x1), x2)) ....... R1 [B3:L0, B7:L0] % theorem_1(or_2(not_1(or_2(x0,x0)),x0)) ....... U9 % theorem_1(or_2(not_1(x0), x0)) ....... R2 [R1:L0, U9:L0] % Derivation of unit clause U46: % axiom_1(or_2(not_1(x0),or_2(x1,x0))) ....... B3 % ~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 % ~theorem_1(or_2(not_1(or_2(x0, x1)), x2)) | theorem_1(or_2(not_1(x1), x2)) ....... R1 [B3:L0, B7:L0] % ~theorem_1(or_2(not_1(q_0()),not_1(not_1(or_2(p_0(),q_0()))))) ....... U15 % ~theorem_1(or_2(not_1(or_2(x0, q_0())), not_1(not_1(or_2(p_0(), q_0()))))) ....... R2 [R1:L1, U15:L0] % Derivation of unit clause U366: % axiom_1(or_2(not_1(or_2(x0,x1)),or_2(x1,x0))) ....... B4 % ~axiom_1(or_2(not_1(x1),x0)) | ~theorem_1(x1) | theorem_1(x0) ....... B8 % ~theorem_1(or_2(x0, x1)) | theorem_1(or_2(x1, x0)) ....... R1 [B4:L0, B8:L0] % theorem_1(or_2(not_1(x0),x0)) ....... U24 % theorem_1(or_2(x0, not_1(x0))) ....... R2 [R1:L0, U24:L0] % Derivation of the empty clause: % theorem_1(or_2(x0,not_1(x0))) ....... U366 % ~theorem_1(or_2(not_1(or_2(x0,q_0())),not_1(not_1(or_2(p_0(),q_0()))))) ....... U46 % [] ....... R1 [U366:L0, U46:L0] % --------------- End of Proof --------------- % PROOF FOUND! % --------------------------------------------- % | Statistics | % --------------------------------------------- % Profile 3: Performance Statistics: % ================================== % Total number of generated clauses: 572 % resolvents: 572 factors: 0 % Number of unit clauses generated: 553 % % unit clauses generated to total clauses generated: 96.68 % Number of unit clauses constructed and retained at depth [x]: % ============================================================= % [0] = 6 [1] = 6 [2] = 355 % Total = 367 % Number of generated clauses having [x] literals: % ------------------------------------------------ % [1] = 553 [2] = 19 % Average size of a generated clause: 2.0 % Number of unit clauses per predicate list: % ========================================== % [0] axiom_1 (+)5 (-)7 % [1] theorem_1 (+)322 (-)33 % ------------------ % Total: (+)327 (-)40 % Total number of unit clauses retained: 367 % Number of clauses skipped because of their length: 12 % N base clauses skippped in resolve-with-all-base-clauses % because of the shortest resolvents table: 0 % Number of successful unifications: 581 % Number of unification failures: 67 % Number of unit to unit unification failures: 10634 % N literal unification failure due to lookup root_id table: 48 % 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: 5 % N unit clauses dropped because they exceeded max values: 189 % N unit clauses dropped because too much nesting: 22 % 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: 26 % Max term depth in a unit clause: 11 % Number of states in UCFA table: 1296 % Total number of terms of all unit clauses in table: 6225 % 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: 0.21 % Number of symbols (columns) in UCFA: 40 % Profile 2: Number of calls to: % ============================== % PTUnify() = 648 % ConstructUnitClause() = 550 % Profile 1: Time spent in: % ========================= % ConstructUnitClause() : 0.00 secs % -------------------------------------------------------- % | | % Inferences per sec: inf % | | % -------------------------------------------------------- % Elapsed time: 0 secs % CPU time: 0.36 secs % %------------------------------------------------------------------------------