%------------------------------------------------------------------------------ % File : CARINE---0.734 % Problem : MGT041-2 : TPTP v5.0.0. Released v2.4.0. % 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 01:58:15 EST 2010 % Result : Unsatisfiable 0.14s % Output : Refutation 0.14s % 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/SystemOnTPTP24203/MGT/MGT041-2+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 = 2] [nf = 0] [nu = 2] [ut = 5] % Looking for a proof at depth = 2 ... % t = 0 secs [nr = 10] [nf = 0] [nu = 4] [ut = 5] % Looking for a proof at depth = 3 ... % t = 0 secs [nr = 48] [nf = 0] [nu = 16] [ut = 7] % Looking for a proof at depth = 4 ... % t = 0 secs [nr = 108] [nf = 3] [nu = 34] [ut = 7] % Looking for a proof at depth = 5 ... % +================================================+ % | | % | Congratulations!!! ........ A proof was found. | % | | % +================================================+ % Base Clauses and Unit Clauses used in proof: % ============================================ % Base Clauses: % ------------- % B0: ~organisation_at_time_2(x0,x1) | efficient_producer_1(x0) | first_mover_1(x0) % B1: founding_time_2(sk1_0(),sk2_0()) % B4: number_of_routines_3(sk1_0(),sk2_0(),high_0()) % B5: ~number_of_routines_3(x0,x1,high_0()) | ~number_of_routines_3(x0,x1,low_0()) % B6: ~efficient_producer_1(x0) | ~founding_time_2(x0,x1) | ~organisation_at_time_2(x0,x1) | has_elaborated_routines_2(x0,x1) % B7: ~first_mover_1(x0) | ~founding_time_2(x0,x1) | ~organisation_at_time_2(x0,x1) | number_of_routines_3(x0,x1,low_0()) % Unit Clauses: % -------------- % U1: < d0 v0 dv0 f0 c2 t2 td1 b > ~has_elaborated_routines_2(sk1_0(),sk2_0()) % U2: < d0 v0 dv0 f0 c2 t2 td1 b > organisation_at_time_2(sk1_0(),sk2_0()) % U4: < d1 v0 dv0 f0 c3 t3 td1 > ~number_of_routines_3(sk1_0(),sk2_0(),low_0()) % U6: < d3 v0 dv0 f0 c1 t1 td1 > ~first_mover_1(sk1_0()) % U7: < d5 v0 dv0 f0 c1 t1 td1 > first_mover_1(sk1_0()) % --------------- Start of Proof --------------- % Derivation of unit clause U1: % ~has_elaborated_routines_2(sk1_0(),sk2_0()) ....... U1 % Derivation of unit clause U2: % organisation_at_time_2(sk1_0(),sk2_0()) ....... U2 % Derivation of unit clause U4: % number_of_routines_3(sk1_0(),sk2_0(),high_0()) ....... B4 % ~number_of_routines_3(x0,x1,high_0()) | ~number_of_routines_3(x0,x1,low_0()) ....... B5 % ~number_of_routines_3(sk1_0(), sk2_0(), low_0()) ....... R1 [B4:L0, B5:L0] % Derivation of unit clause U6: % founding_time_2(sk1_0(),sk2_0()) ....... B1 % ~first_mover_1(x0) | ~founding_time_2(x0,x1) | ~organisation_at_time_2(x0,x1) | number_of_routines_3(x0,x1,low_0()) ....... B7 % ~first_mover_1(sk1_0()) | ~organisation_at_time_2(sk1_0(), sk2_0()) | number_of_routines_3(sk1_0(), sk2_0(), low_0()) ....... R1 [B1:L0, B7:L1] % organisation_at_time_2(sk1_0(),sk2_0()) ....... U2 % ~first_mover_1(sk1_0()) | number_of_routines_3(sk1_0(), sk2_0(), low_0()) ....... R2 [R1:L1, U2:L0] % ~number_of_routines_3(sk1_0(),sk2_0(),low_0()) ....... U4 % ~first_mover_1(sk1_0()) ....... R3 [R2:L1, U4:L0] % Derivation of unit clause U7: % founding_time_2(sk1_0(),sk2_0()) ....... B1 % ~efficient_producer_1(x0) | ~founding_time_2(x0,x1) | ~organisation_at_time_2(x0,x1) | has_elaborated_routines_2(x0,x1) ....... B6 % ~efficient_producer_1(sk1_0()) | ~organisation_at_time_2(sk1_0(), sk2_0()) | has_elaborated_routines_2(sk1_0(), sk2_0()) ....... R1 [B1:L0, B6:L1] % organisation_at_time_2(sk1_0(),sk2_0()) ....... U2 % ~efficient_producer_1(sk1_0()) | has_elaborated_routines_2(sk1_0(), sk2_0()) ....... R2 [R1:L1, U2:L0] % ~organisation_at_time_2(x0,x1) | efficient_producer_1(x0) | first_mover_1(x0) ....... B0 % has_elaborated_routines_2(sk1_0(), sk2_0()) | ~organisation_at_time_2(sk1_0(), x0) | first_mover_1(sk1_0()) ....... R3 [R2:L0, B0:L1] % ~has_elaborated_routines_2(sk1_0(),sk2_0()) ....... U1 % ~organisation_at_time_2(sk1_0(), x0) | first_mover_1(sk1_0()) ....... R4 [R3:L0, U1:L0] % organisation_at_time_2(sk1_0(),sk2_0()) ....... U2 % first_mover_1(sk1_0()) ....... R5 [R4:L0, U2:L0] % Derivation of the empty clause: % first_mover_1(sk1_0()) ....... U7 % ~first_mover_1(sk1_0()) ....... U6 % [] ....... R1 [U7:L0, U6:L0] % --------------- End of Proof --------------- % PROOF FOUND! % --------------------------------------------- % | Statistics | % --------------------------------------------- % Profile 3: Performance Statistics: % ================================== % Total number of generated clauses: 120 % resolvents: 117 factors: 3 % Number of unit clauses generated: 36 % % unit clauses generated to total clauses generated: 30.00 % Number of unit clauses constructed and retained at depth [x]: % ============================================================= % [0] = 4 [1] = 1 [3] = 2 % [5] = 1 % Total = 8 % Number of generated clauses having [x] literals: % ------------------------------------------------ % [1] = 36 [2] = 41 [3] = 43 % Average size of a generated clause: 3.0 % Number of unit clauses per predicate list: % ========================================== % [0] efficient_producer_1 (+)0 (-)1 % [1] first_mover_1 (+)1 (-)1 % [2] founding_time_2 (+)1 (-)0 % [3] has_elaborated_routines_2 (+)0 (-)1 % [4] organisation_at_time_2 (+)1 (-)0 % [5] number_of_routines_3 (+)1 (-)1 % ------------------ % Total: (+)4 (-)4 % Total number of unit clauses retained: 8 % Number of clauses skipped because of their length: 41 % N base clauses skippped in resolve-with-all-base-clauses % because of the shortest resolvents table: 0 % Number of successful unifications: 129 % Number of unification failures: 0 % Number of unit to unit unification failures: 1 % N literal unification failure due to lookup root_id table: 186 % N base clause resolution failure due to lookup table: 54 % N UC-BCL resolution dropped due to lookup table: 0 % Max entries in substitution set: 4 % N unit clauses dropped because they exceeded max values: 15 % 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: 3 % Max term depth in a unit clause: 1 % Number of states in UCFA table: 18 % Total number of terms of all unit clauses in table: 15 % Max allowed number of states in UCFA: 80000 % Ratio n states used/total allowed states: 0.00 % Ratio n states used/total unit clauses terms: 1.20 % Number of symbols (columns) in UCFA: 44 % Profile 2: Number of calls to: % ============================== % PTUnify() = 129 % ConstructUnitClause() = 19 % Profile 1: Time spent in: % ========================= % ConstructUnitClause() : 0.00 secs % -------------------------------------------------------- % | | % Inferences per sec: inf % | | % -------------------------------------------------------- % Elapsed time: 0 secs % CPU time: 0.14 secs % %------------------------------------------------------------------------------