%------------------------------------------------------------------------------ % File : CARINE---0.734 % Problem : NUM003-1 : TPTP v5.0.0. Released v1.0.0. % Transfm : add_equality % Format : carine % Command : carine %s t=%d xo=off uct=32000 % Computer : art09.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 03:04:52 EST 2010 % Result : Unsatisfiable 0.17s % Output : Refutation 0.17s % 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/SystemOnTPTP16376/NUM/NUM003-1+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 = 63] [nf = 0] [nu = 0] [ut = 8] % Looking for a proof at depth = 2 ... % +================================================+ % | | % | Congratulations!!! ........ A proof was found. | % | | % +================================================+ % Base Clauses and Unit Clauses used in proof: % ============================================ % Base Clauses: % ------------- % B0: ~equalish_2(add_2(a_0(),subtract_2(b_0(),c_0())),add_2(subtract_2(a_0(),c_0()),b_0())) % B2: equalish_2(subtract_2(add_2(x0,x1),x2),add_2(subtract_2(x0,x2),x1)) % B3: equalish_2(add_2(subtract_2(x0,x1),x2),subtract_2(add_2(x0,x2),x1)) % B10: ~equalish_2(x2,subtract_2(x0,x3)) | ~equalish_2(x0,x1) | equalish_2(x2,subtract_2(x1,x3)) % B12: ~equalish_2(x1,x2) | ~equalish_2(x0,x1) | equalish_2(x0,x2) % Unit Clauses: % -------------- % U7: < d0 v4 dv2 f2 c0 t6 td2 b > equalish_2(add_2(x0,x1),add_2(x1,x0)) % U14: < d2 v0 dv0 f4 c6 t10 td3 > ~equalish_2(add_2(subtract_2(b_0(),c_0()),a_0()),add_2(subtract_2(a_0(),c_0()),b_0())) % U148: < d2 v0 dv0 f4 c6 t10 td3 > ~equalish_2(add_2(subtract_2(b_0(),c_0()),a_0()),subtract_2(add_2(a_0(),b_0()),c_0())) % U174: < d2 v6 dv3 f4 c0 t10 td3 > equalish_2(add_2(subtract_2(x0,x1),x2),subtract_2(add_2(x2,x0),x1)) % --------------- Start of Proof --------------- % Derivation of unit clause U7: % equalish_2(add_2(x0,x1),add_2(x1,x0)) ....... U7 % Derivation of unit clause U14: % ~equalish_2(add_2(a_0(),subtract_2(b_0(),c_0())),add_2(subtract_2(a_0(),c_0()),b_0())) ....... B0 % ~equalish_2(x1,x2) | ~equalish_2(x0,x1) | equalish_2(x0,x2) ....... B12 % ~equalish_2(x0, add_2(subtract_2(a_0(), c_0()), b_0())) | ~equalish_2(add_2(a_0(), subtract_2(b_0(), c_0())), x0) ....... R1 [B0:L0, B12:L2] % equalish_2(add_2(x0,x1),add_2(x1,x0)) ....... U7 % ~equalish_2(add_2(subtract_2(b_0(), c_0()), a_0()), add_2(subtract_2(a_0(), c_0()), b_0())) ....... R2 [R1:L1, U7:L0] % Derivation of unit clause U148: % equalish_2(subtract_2(add_2(x0,x1),x2),add_2(subtract_2(x0,x2),x1)) ....... B2 % ~equalish_2(x1,x2) | ~equalish_2(x0,x1) | equalish_2(x0,x2) ....... B12 % ~equalish_2(x0, subtract_2(add_2(x1, x2), x3)) | equalish_2(x0, add_2(subtract_2(x1, x3), x2)) ....... R1 [B2:L0, B12:L0] % ~equalish_2(add_2(subtract_2(b_0(),c_0()),a_0()),add_2(subtract_2(a_0(),c_0()),b_0())) ....... U14 % ~equalish_2(add_2(subtract_2(b_0(), c_0()), a_0()), subtract_2(add_2(a_0(), b_0()), c_0())) ....... R2 [R1:L1, U14:L0] % Derivation of unit clause U174: % equalish_2(add_2(subtract_2(x0,x1),x2),subtract_2(add_2(x0,x2),x1)) ....... B3 % ~equalish_2(x2,subtract_2(x0,x3)) | ~equalish_2(x0,x1) | equalish_2(x2,subtract_2(x1,x3)) ....... B10 % ~equalish_2(add_2(x0, x1), x2) | equalish_2(add_2(subtract_2(x0, x3), x1), subtract_2(x2, x3)) ....... R1 [B3:L0, B10:L0] % equalish_2(add_2(x0,x1),add_2(x1,x0)) ....... U7 % equalish_2(add_2(subtract_2(x0, x1), x2), subtract_2(add_2(x2, x0), x1)) ....... R2 [R1:L0, U7:L0] % Derivation of the empty clause: % equalish_2(add_2(subtract_2(x0,x1),x2),subtract_2(add_2(x2,x0),x1)) ....... U174 % ~equalish_2(add_2(subtract_2(b_0(),c_0()),a_0()),subtract_2(add_2(a_0(),b_0()),c_0())) ....... U148 % [] ....... R1 [U174:L0, U148:L0] % --------------- End of Proof --------------- % PROOF FOUND! % --------------------------------------------- % | Statistics | % --------------------------------------------- % Profile 3: Performance Statistics: % ================================== % Total number of generated clauses: 1218 % resolvents: 1218 factors: 0 % Number of unit clauses generated: 1131 % % unit clauses generated to total clauses generated: 92.86 % Number of unit clauses constructed and retained at depth [x]: % ============================================================= % [0] = 8 [2] = 167 % Total = 175 % Number of generated clauses having [x] literals: % ------------------------------------------------ % [1] = 1131 [2] = 87 % Average size of a generated clause: 2.0 % Number of unit clauses per predicate list: % ========================================== % [0] equalish_2 (+)157 (-)18 % ------------------ % Total: (+)157 (-)18 % Total number of unit clauses retained: 175 % Number of clauses skipped because of their length: 115 % N base clauses skippped in resolve-with-all-base-clauses % because of the shortest resolvents table: 0 % Number of successful unifications: 1224 % Number of unification failures: 528 % Number of unit to unit unification failures: 2820 % N literal unification failure due to lookup root_id table: 517 % 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: 8 % N unit clauses dropped because they exceeded max values: 964 % N unit clauses dropped because too much nesting: 182 % 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: 14 % Max term depth in a unit clause: 5 % Number of states in UCFA table: 1025 % Total number of terms of all unit clauses in table: 2230 % Max allowed number of states in UCFA: 128000 % Ratio n states used/total allowed states: 0.01 % Ratio n states used/total unit clauses terms: 0.46 % Number of symbols (columns) in UCFA: 40 % Profile 2: Number of calls to: % ============================== % PTUnify() = 1752 % ConstructUnitClause() = 1131 % Profile 1: Time spent in: % ========================= % ConstructUnitClause() : 0.01 secs % -------------------------------------------------------- % | | % Inferences per sec: inf % | | % -------------------------------------------------------- % Elapsed time: 0 secs % CPU time: 0.17 secs % %------------------------------------------------------------------------------