%------------------------------------------------------------------------------ % File : CARINE---0.734 % Problem : LCL357-1 : TPTP v5.0.0. Released v2.3.0. % Transfm : add_equality % Format : carine % Command : carine %s t=%d xo=off uct=32000 % Computer : art01.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 00:59:18 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/SystemOnTPTP18309/LCL/LCL357-1+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 = 7] [nf = 0] [nu = 0] [ut = 4] % Looking for a proof at depth = 2 ... % +================================================+ % | | % | Congratulations!!! ........ A proof was found. | % | | % +================================================+ % Base Clauses and Unit Clauses used in proof: % ============================================ % Base Clauses: % ------------- % B0: ~is_a_theorem_1(implies_2(implies_2(x_0(),y_0()),implies_2(implies_2(implies_2(x_0(),z_0()),u_0()),implies_2(implies_2(y_0(),z_0()),u_0())))) % B1: is_a_theorem_1(implies_2(implies_2(x0,x1),implies_2(implies_2(x1,x2),implies_2(x0,x2)))) % B4: ~is_a_theorem_1(x0) | ~is_a_theorem_1(implies_2(x0,x1)) | is_a_theorem_1(x1) % Unit Clauses: % -------------- % U1: < d0 v6 dv3 f5 c0 t11 td4 b > is_a_theorem_1(implies_2(implies_2(x0,x1),implies_2(implies_2(x1,x2),implies_2(x0,x2)))) % U4: < d2 v6 dv3 f13 c8 t27 td6 > ~is_a_theorem_1(implies_2(implies_2(implies_2(x0,x1),implies_2(implies_2(x1,x2),implies_2(x0,x2))),implies_2(implies_2(x_0(),y_0()),implies_2(implies_2(implies_2(x_0(),z_0()),u_0()),implies_2(implies_2(y_0(),z_0()),u_0()))))) % U8: < d2 v8 dv4 f7 c0 t15 td5 > is_a_theorem_1(implies_2(implies_2(implies_2(implies_2(x0,x1),implies_2(x2,x1)),x3),implies_2(implies_2(x2,x0),x3))) % --------------- Start of Proof --------------- % Derivation of unit clause U1: % is_a_theorem_1(implies_2(implies_2(x0,x1),implies_2(implies_2(x1,x2),implies_2(x0,x2)))) ....... U1 % Derivation of unit clause U4: % ~is_a_theorem_1(implies_2(implies_2(x_0(),y_0()),implies_2(implies_2(implies_2(x_0(),z_0()),u_0()),implies_2(implies_2(y_0(),z_0()),u_0())))) ....... B0 % ~is_a_theorem_1(x0) | ~is_a_theorem_1(implies_2(x0,x1)) | is_a_theorem_1(x1) ....... B4 % ~is_a_theorem_1(x0) | ~is_a_theorem_1(implies_2(x0, implies_2(implies_2(x_0(), y_0()), implies_2(implies_2(implies_2(x_0(), z_0()), u_0()), implies_2(implies_2(y_0(), z_0()), u_0()))))) ....... R1 [B0:L0, B4:L2] % is_a_theorem_1(implies_2(implies_2(x0,x1),implies_2(implies_2(x1,x2),implies_2(x0,x2)))) ....... U1 % ~is_a_theorem_1(implies_2(implies_2(implies_2(x0, x1), implies_2(implies_2(x1, x2), implies_2(x0, x2))), implies_2(implies_2(x_0(), y_0()), implies_2(implies_2(implies_2(x_0(), z_0()), u_0()), implies_2(implies_2(y_0(), z_0()), u_0()))))) ....... R2 [R1:L0, U1:L0] % Derivation of unit clause U8: % is_a_theorem_1(implies_2(implies_2(x0,x1),implies_2(implies_2(x1,x2),implies_2(x0,x2)))) ....... B1 % ~is_a_theorem_1(x0) | ~is_a_theorem_1(implies_2(x0,x1)) | is_a_theorem_1(x1) ....... B4 % ~is_a_theorem_1(implies_2(implies_2(implies_2(x0, x1), implies_2(implies_2(x1, x2), implies_2(x0, x2))), x3)) | is_a_theorem_1(x3) ....... R1 [B1:L0, B4:L0] % is_a_theorem_1(implies_2(implies_2(x0,x1),implies_2(implies_2(x1,x2),implies_2(x0,x2)))) ....... U1 % is_a_theorem_1(implies_2(implies_2(implies_2(implies_2(x0, x1), implies_2(x2, x1)), x3), implies_2(implies_2(x2, x0), x3))) ....... R2 [R1:L0, U1:L0] % Derivation of the empty clause: % is_a_theorem_1(implies_2(implies_2(implies_2(implies_2(x0,x1),implies_2(x2,x1)),x3),implies_2(implies_2(x2,x0),x3))) ....... U8 % ~is_a_theorem_1(implies_2(implies_2(implies_2(x0,x1),implies_2(implies_2(x1,x2),implies_2(x0,x2))),implies_2(implies_2(x_0(),y_0()),implies_2(implies_2(implies_2(x_0(),z_0()),u_0()),implies_2(implies_2(y_0(),z_0()),u_0()))))) ....... U4 % [] ....... R1 [U8:L0, U4:L0] % --------------- End of Proof --------------- % PROOF FOUND! % --------------------------------------------- % | Statistics | % --------------------------------------------- % Profile 3: Performance Statistics: % ================================== % Total number of generated clauses: 14 % resolvents: 14 factors: 0 % Number of unit clauses generated: 5 % % unit clauses generated to total clauses generated: 35.71 % Number of unit clauses constructed and retained at depth [x]: % ============================================================= % [0] = 4 [2] = 5 % Total = 9 % Number of generated clauses having [x] literals: % ------------------------------------------------ % [1] = 5 [2] = 9 % Average size of a generated clause: 2.0 % Number of unit clauses per predicate list: % ========================================== % [0] is_a_theorem_1 (+)4 (-)5 % ------------------ % Total: (+)4 (-)5 % Total number of unit clauses retained: 9 % Number of clauses skipped because of their length: 1 % N base clauses skippped in resolve-with-all-base-clauses % because of the shortest resolvents table: 0 % Number of successful unifications: 18 % Number of unification failures: 4 % Number of unit to unit unification failures: 16 % N literal unification failure due to lookup root_id table: 7 % N base clause resolution failure due to lookup table: 0 % 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: 0 % 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: 32 % Max term depth in a unit clause: 7 % Number of states in UCFA table: 139 % Total number of terms of all unit clauses in table: 156 % 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: 0.89 % Number of symbols (columns) in UCFA: 41 % Profile 2: Number of calls to: % ============================== % PTUnify() = 22 % ConstructUnitClause() = 5 % Profile 1: Time spent in: % ========================= % ConstructUnitClause() : 0.00 secs % -------------------------------------------------------- % | | % Inferences per sec: inf % | | % -------------------------------------------------------- % Elapsed time: 0 secs % CPU time: 0.36 secs % %------------------------------------------------------------------------------