%------------------------------------------------------------------------------ % File : CARINE---0.734 % Problem : MSC005-1 : TPTP v5.0.0. Released v1.0.0. % 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 02:00:36 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/SystemOnTPTP25163/MSC/MSC005-1+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 = 12] [nf = 0] [nu = 0] [ut = 3] % Looking for a proof at depth = 2 ... % +================================================+ % | | % | Congratulations!!! ........ A proof was found. | % | | % +================================================+ % Base Clauses and Unit Clauses used in proof: % ============================================ % Base Clauses: % ------------- % B0: ~value_2(xor_2(xor_2(xor_2(xor_2(truth_0(),falsity_0()),falsity_0()),truth_0()),falsity_0()),x0) % B1: value_2(truth_0(),truth_0()) % B2: value_2(falsity_0(),falsity_0()) % B3: ~value_2(x1,truth_0()) | ~value_2(x0,truth_0()) | value_2(xor_2(x0,x1),falsity_0()) % B5: ~value_2(x1,falsity_0()) | ~value_2(x0,truth_0()) | value_2(xor_2(x0,x1),truth_0()) % B6: ~value_2(x1,falsity_0()) | ~value_2(x0,falsity_0()) | value_2(xor_2(x0,x1),falsity_0()) % Unit Clauses: % -------------- % U2: < d0 v0 dv0 f0 c2 t2 td1 b > value_2(falsity_0(),falsity_0()) % U4: < d2 v0 dv0 f3 c5 t8 td4 > ~value_2(xor_2(xor_2(xor_2(truth_0(),falsity_0()),falsity_0()),truth_0()),falsity_0()) % U6: < d2 v0 dv0 f2 c4 t6 td3 > ~value_2(xor_2(xor_2(truth_0(),falsity_0()),falsity_0()),truth_0()) % U10: < d2 v0 dv0 f1 c3 t4 td2 > value_2(xor_2(truth_0(),falsity_0()),truth_0()) % U48: < d2 v0 dv0 f2 c4 t6 td3 > value_2(xor_2(xor_2(truth_0(),falsity_0()),falsity_0()),truth_0()) % --------------- Start of Proof --------------- % Derivation of unit clause U2: % value_2(falsity_0(),falsity_0()) ....... U2 % Derivation of unit clause U4: % ~value_2(xor_2(xor_2(xor_2(xor_2(truth_0(),falsity_0()),falsity_0()),truth_0()),falsity_0()),x0) ....... B0 % ~value_2(x1,falsity_0()) | ~value_2(x0,falsity_0()) | value_2(xor_2(x0,x1),falsity_0()) ....... B6 % ~value_2(falsity_0(), falsity_0()) | ~value_2(xor_2(xor_2(xor_2(truth_0(), falsity_0()), falsity_0()), truth_0()), falsity_0()) ....... R1 [B0:L0, B6:L2] % value_2(falsity_0(),falsity_0()) ....... U2 % ~value_2(xor_2(xor_2(xor_2(truth_0(), falsity_0()), falsity_0()), truth_0()), falsity_0()) ....... R2 [R1:L0, U2:L0] % Derivation of unit clause U6: % value_2(truth_0(),truth_0()) ....... B1 % ~value_2(x1,truth_0()) | ~value_2(x0,truth_0()) | value_2(xor_2(x0,x1),falsity_0()) ....... B3 % ~value_2(x0, truth_0()) | value_2(xor_2(x0, truth_0()), falsity_0()) ....... R1 [B1:L0, B3:L0] % ~value_2(xor_2(xor_2(xor_2(truth_0(),falsity_0()),falsity_0()),truth_0()),falsity_0()) ....... U4 % ~value_2(xor_2(xor_2(truth_0(), falsity_0()), falsity_0()), truth_0()) ....... R2 [R1:L1, U4:L0] % Derivation of unit clause U10: % value_2(truth_0(),truth_0()) ....... B1 % ~value_2(x1,falsity_0()) | ~value_2(x0,truth_0()) | value_2(xor_2(x0,x1),truth_0()) ....... B5 % ~value_2(x0, falsity_0()) | value_2(xor_2(truth_0(), x0), truth_0()) ....... R1 [B1:L0, B5:L1] % value_2(falsity_0(),falsity_0()) ....... U2 % value_2(xor_2(truth_0(), falsity_0()), truth_0()) ....... R2 [R1:L0, U2:L0] % Derivation of unit clause U48: % value_2(falsity_0(),falsity_0()) ....... B2 % ~value_2(x1,falsity_0()) | ~value_2(x0,truth_0()) | value_2(xor_2(x0,x1),truth_0()) ....... B5 % ~value_2(x0, truth_0()) | value_2(xor_2(x0, falsity_0()), truth_0()) ....... R1 [B2:L0, B5:L0] % value_2(xor_2(truth_0(),falsity_0()),truth_0()) ....... U10 % value_2(xor_2(xor_2(truth_0(), falsity_0()), falsity_0()), truth_0()) ....... R2 [R1:L0, U10:L0] % Derivation of the empty clause: % value_2(xor_2(xor_2(truth_0(),falsity_0()),falsity_0()),truth_0()) ....... U48 % ~value_2(xor_2(xor_2(truth_0(),falsity_0()),falsity_0()),truth_0()) ....... U6 % [] ....... R1 [U48:L0, U6:L0] % --------------- End of Proof --------------- % PROOF FOUND! % --------------------------------------------- % | Statistics | % --------------------------------------------- % Profile 3: Performance Statistics: % ================================== % Total number of generated clauses: 75 % resolvents: 75 factors: 0 % Number of unit clauses generated: 53 % % unit clauses generated to total clauses generated: 70.67 % Number of unit clauses constructed and retained at depth [x]: % ============================================================= % [0] = 3 [2] = 46 % Total = 49 % Number of generated clauses having [x] literals: % ------------------------------------------------ % [1] = 53 [2] = 22 % Average size of a generated clause: 2.0 % Number of unit clauses per predicate list: % ========================================== % [0] value_2 (+)44 (-)5 % ------------------ % Total: (+)44 (-)5 % Total number of unit clauses retained: 49 % Number of clauses skipped because of their length: 36 % N base clauses skippped in resolve-with-all-base-clauses % because of the shortest resolvents table: 0 % Number of successful unifications: 83 % Number of unification failures: 21 % Number of unit to unit unification failures: 218 % N literal unification failure due to lookup root_id table: 71 % N base clause resolution failure due to lookup table: 4 % N UC-BCL resolution dropped due to lookup table: 0 % Max entries in substitution set: 3 % N unit clauses dropped because they exceeded max values: 7 % N unit clauses dropped because too much nesting: 4 % 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: 22 % Max term depth in a unit clause: 11 % Number of states in UCFA table: 147 % Total number of terms of all unit clauses in table: 578 % 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: 0.25 % Number of symbols (columns) in UCFA: 38 % Profile 2: Number of calls to: % ============================== % PTUnify() = 104 % ConstructUnitClause() = 53 % Profile 1: Time spent in: % ========================= % ConstructUnitClause() : 0.00 secs % -------------------------------------------------------- % | | % Inferences per sec: inf % | | % -------------------------------------------------------- % Elapsed time: 1 secs % CPU time: 0.34 secs % %------------------------------------------------------------------------------