%------------------------------------------------------------------------------ % File : CARINE---0.734 % Problem : MSC003-1 : TPTP v5.0.0. Released v1.0.0. % Transfm : add_equality % Format : carine % Command : carine %s t=%d xo=off uct=32000 % Computer : art03.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 02:00:28 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/SystemOnTPTP7896/MSC/MSC003-1+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 = 6] [nf = 0] [nu = 3] [ut = 4] % Looking for a proof at depth = 2 ... % t = 0 secs [nr = 41] [nf = 0] [nu = 11] [ut = 6] % Looking for a proof at depth = 3 ... % +================================================+ % | | % | Congratulations!!! ........ A proof was found. | % | | % +================================================+ % Base Clauses and Unit Clauses used in proof: % ============================================ % Base Clauses: % ------------- % B0: ~has_parts_3(john_0(),times_2(n2_0(),n1_0()),hand_0()) % B1: in_2(john_0(),boy_0()) % B2: ~in_2(x0,boy_0()) | in_2(x0,human_0()) % B3: ~in_2(x0,human_0()) | has_parts_3(x0,n2_0(),arm_0()) % B6: ~has_parts_3(x0,x3,x1) | in_2(object_in_5(x0,x1,x2,x3,x4),x1) | has_parts_3(x0,times_2(x3,x4),x2) % B7: ~has_parts_3(object_in_5(x0,x4,x3,x1,x2),x2,x3) | ~has_parts_3(x0,x1,x4) | has_parts_3(x0,times_2(x1,x2),x3) % Unit Clauses: % -------------- % U2: < d1 v0 dv0 f0 c2 t2 td1 > in_2(john_0(),human_0()) % U3: < d1 v0 dv0 f0 c3 t3 td1 > has_parts_3(john_0(),n2_0(),arm_0()) % U5: < d2 v0 dv0 f1 c7 t8 td2 > ~has_parts_3(object_in_5(john_0(),arm_0(),hand_0(),n2_0(),n1_0()),n1_0(),hand_0()) % U6: < d3 v0 dv0 f1 c7 t8 td2 > has_parts_3(object_in_5(john_0(),arm_0(),hand_0(),n2_0(),n1_0()),n1_0(),hand_0()) % --------------- Start of Proof --------------- % Derivation of unit clause U2: % in_2(john_0(),boy_0()) ....... B1 % ~in_2(x0,boy_0()) | in_2(x0,human_0()) ....... B2 % in_2(john_0(), human_0()) ....... R1 [B1:L0, B2:L0] % Derivation of unit clause U3: % ~in_2(x0,human_0()) | has_parts_3(x0,n2_0(),arm_0()) ....... B3 % in_2(john_0(),human_0()) ....... U2 % has_parts_3(john_0(), n2_0(), arm_0()) ....... R1 [B3:L0, U2:L0] % Derivation of unit clause U5: % ~has_parts_3(john_0(),times_2(n2_0(),n1_0()),hand_0()) ....... B0 % ~has_parts_3(object_in_5(x0,x4,x3,x1,x2),x2,x3) | ~has_parts_3(x0,x1,x4) | has_parts_3(x0,times_2(x1,x2),x3) ....... B7 % ~has_parts_3(object_in_5(john_0(), x0, hand_0(), n2_0(), n1_0()), n1_0(), hand_0()) | ~has_parts_3(john_0(), n2_0(), x0) ....... R1 [B0:L0, B7:L2] % has_parts_3(john_0(),n2_0(),arm_0()) ....... U3 % ~has_parts_3(object_in_5(john_0(), arm_0(), hand_0(), n2_0(), n1_0()), n1_0(), hand_0()) ....... R2 [R1:L1, U3:L0] % Derivation of unit clause U6: % ~has_parts_3(john_0(),times_2(n2_0(),n1_0()),hand_0()) ....... B0 % ~has_parts_3(x0,x3,x1) | in_2(object_in_5(x0,x1,x2,x3,x4),x1) | has_parts_3(x0,times_2(x3,x4),x2) ....... B6 % ~has_parts_3(john_0(), n2_0(), x0) | in_2(object_in_5(john_0(), x0, hand_0(), n2_0(), n1_0()), x0) ....... R1 [B0:L0, B6:L2] % ~in_2(x0,arm_0()) | has_parts_3(x0,n1_0(),hand_0()) ....... B5 % ~has_parts_3(john_0(), n2_0(), arm_0()) | has_parts_3(object_in_5(john_0(), arm_0(), hand_0(), n2_0(), n1_0()), n1_0(), hand_0()) ....... R2 [R1:L1, B5:L0] % has_parts_3(john_0(),n2_0(),arm_0()) ....... U3 % has_parts_3(object_in_5(john_0(), arm_0(), hand_0(), n2_0(), n1_0()), n1_0(), hand_0()) ....... R3 [R2:L0, U3:L0] % Derivation of the empty clause: % has_parts_3(object_in_5(john_0(),arm_0(),hand_0(),n2_0(),n1_0()),n1_0(),hand_0()) ....... U6 % ~has_parts_3(object_in_5(john_0(),arm_0(),hand_0(),n2_0(),n1_0()),n1_0(),hand_0()) ....... U5 % [] ....... R1 [U6:L0, U5:L0] % --------------- End of Proof --------------- % PROOF FOUND! % --------------------------------------------- % | Statistics | % --------------------------------------------- % Profile 3: Performance Statistics: % ================================== % Total number of generated clauses: 53 % resolvents: 53 factors: 0 % Number of unit clauses generated: 14 % % unit clauses generated to total clauses generated: 26.42 % Number of unit clauses constructed and retained at depth [x]: % ============================================================= % [0] = 2 [1] = 2 [2] = 2 [3] = 1 % Total = 7 % Number of generated clauses having [x] literals: % ------------------------------------------------ % [1] = 14 [2] = 26 [3] = 13 % Average size of a generated clause: 2.0 % Number of unit clauses per predicate list: % ========================================== % [0] in_2 (+)3 (-)0 % [1] has_parts_3 (+)2 (-)2 % ------------------ % Total: (+)5 (-)2 % Total number of unit clauses retained: 7 % Number of clauses skipped because of their length: 35 % N base clauses skippped in resolve-with-all-base-clauses % because of the shortest resolvents table: 0 % Number of successful unifications: 60 % Number of unification failures: 40 % Number of unit to unit unification failures: 3 % N literal unification failure due to lookup root_id table: 120 % N base clause resolution failure due to lookup table: 61 % N UC-BCL resolution dropped due to lookup table: 0 % Max entries in substitution set: 7 % N unit clauses dropped because they exceeded max values: 3 % 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: 8 % Max term depth in a unit clause: 2 % Number of states in UCFA table: 33 % Total number of terms of all unit clauses in table: 35 % 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: 0.94 % Number of symbols (columns) in UCFA: 47 % Profile 2: Number of calls to: % ============================== % PTUnify() = 100 % ConstructUnitClause() = 8 % Profile 1: Time spent in: % ========================= % ConstructUnitClause() : 0.00 secs % -------------------------------------------------------- % | | % Inferences per sec: inf % | | % -------------------------------------------------------- % Elapsed time: 0 secs % CPU time: 0.15 secs % %------------------------------------------------------------------------------