%------------------------------------------------------------------------------ % File : CARINE---0.734 % Problem : NUM016-1 : TPTP v5.0.0. Released v1.0.0. % Transfm : add_equality % Format : carine % Command : carine %s t=%d xo=off uct=32000 % Computer : art05.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 03:06:13 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/SystemOnTPTP16871/NUM/NUM016-1+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 = 23] [nf = 2] [nu = 15] [ut = 8] % Looking for a proof at depth = 2 ... % t = 1 secs [nr = 107] [nf = 10] [nu = 46] [ut = 8] % Looking for a proof at depth = 3 ... % t = 1 secs [nr = 688] [nf = 50] [nu = 255] [ut = 26] % Looking for a proof at depth = 4 ... % +================================================+ % | | % | Congratulations!!! ........ A proof was found. | % | | % +================================================+ % Base Clauses and Unit Clauses used in proof: % ============================================ % Base Clauses: % ------------- % B0: ~prime_1(x0) | ~less_2(a_0(),x0) | less_2(factorial_plus_one_1(a_0()),x0) % B5: ~divides_2(x0,x1) | ~less_2(x1,x0) % B8: prime_1(x0) | prime_1(prime_divisor_1(x0)) % B9: prime_1(x0) | divides_2(prime_divisor_1(x0),x0) % Unit Clauses: % -------------- % U0: < d0 v2 dv1 f0 c0 t2 td1 b > ~less_2(x0,x0) % U1: < d0 v2 dv1 f1 c0 t3 td2 b > less_2(x0,factorial_plus_one_1(x0)) % U11: < d3 v0 dv0 f2 c1 t3 td3 > prime_1(prime_divisor_1(factorial_plus_one_1(a_0()))) % U12: < d3 v0 dv0 f3 c2 t5 td3 > divides_2(prime_divisor_1(factorial_plus_one_1(a_0())),factorial_plus_one_1(a_0())) % U26: < d4 v0 dv0 f3 c2 t5 td3 > ~divides_2(prime_divisor_1(factorial_plus_one_1(a_0())),factorial_plus_one_1(a_0())) % --------------- Start of Proof --------------- % Derivation of unit clause U0: % ~less_2(x0,x0) ....... U0 % Derivation of unit clause U1: % less_2(x0,factorial_plus_one_1(x0)) ....... U1 % Derivation of unit clause U11: % ~prime_1(x0) | ~less_2(a_0(),x0) | less_2(factorial_plus_one_1(a_0()),x0) ....... B0 % prime_1(x0) | prime_1(prime_divisor_1(x0)) ....... B8 % ~less_2(a_0(), x0) | less_2(factorial_plus_one_1(a_0()), x0) | prime_1(prime_divisor_1(x0)) ....... R1 [B0:L0, B8:L0] % less_2(x0,factorial_plus_one_1(x0)) ....... U1 % less_2(factorial_plus_one_1(a_0()), factorial_plus_one_1(a_0())) | prime_1(prime_divisor_1(factorial_plus_one_1(a_0()))) ....... R2 [R1:L0, U1:L0] % ~less_2(x0,x0) ....... U0 % prime_1(prime_divisor_1(factorial_plus_one_1(a_0()))) ....... R3 [R2:L0, U0:L0] % Derivation of unit clause U12: % ~prime_1(x0) | ~less_2(a_0(),x0) | less_2(factorial_plus_one_1(a_0()),x0) ....... B0 % prime_1(x0) | divides_2(prime_divisor_1(x0),x0) ....... B9 % ~less_2(a_0(), x0) | less_2(factorial_plus_one_1(a_0()), x0) | divides_2(prime_divisor_1(x0), x0) ....... R1 [B0:L0, B9:L0] % less_2(x0,factorial_plus_one_1(x0)) ....... U1 % less_2(factorial_plus_one_1(a_0()), factorial_plus_one_1(a_0())) | divides_2(prime_divisor_1(factorial_plus_one_1(a_0())), factorial_plus_one_1(a_0())) ....... R2 [R1:L0, U1:L0] % ~less_2(x0,x0) ....... U0 % divides_2(prime_divisor_1(factorial_plus_one_1(a_0())), factorial_plus_one_1(a_0())) ....... R3 [R2:L0, U0:L0] % Derivation of unit clause U26: % ~prime_1(x0) | ~less_2(a_0(),x0) | less_2(factorial_plus_one_1(a_0()),x0) ....... B0 % ~divides_2(x0,x1) | ~less_2(x1,x0) ....... B5 % ~prime_1(x0) | ~less_2(a_0(), x0) | ~divides_2(x0, factorial_plus_one_1(a_0())) ....... R1 [B0:L2, B5:L1] % prime_1(prime_divisor_1(factorial_plus_one_1(a_0()))) ....... U11 % ~less_2(a_0(), prime_divisor_1(factorial_plus_one_1(a_0()))) | ~divides_2(prime_divisor_1(factorial_plus_one_1(a_0())), factorial_plus_one_1(a_0())) ....... R2 [R1:L0, U11:L0] % ~divides_2(x0,factorial_plus_one_1(x1)) | less_2(x1,x0) ....... B7 % ~divides_2(prime_divisor_1(factorial_plus_one_1(a_0())), factorial_plus_one_1(a_0())) | ~divides_2(prime_divisor_1(factorial_plus_one_1(a_0())), factorial_plus_one_1(a_0())) ....... R3 [R2:L0, B7:L1] % ~divides_2(prime_divisor_1(factorial_plus_one_1(a_0())), factorial_plus_one_1(a_0())) ....... R4 [R3:L0, R3:L1] % Derivation of the empty clause: % ~divides_2(prime_divisor_1(factorial_plus_one_1(a_0())),factorial_plus_one_1(a_0())) ....... U26 % divides_2(prime_divisor_1(factorial_plus_one_1(a_0())),factorial_plus_one_1(a_0())) ....... U12 % [] ....... R1 [U26:L0, U12:L0] % --------------- End of Proof --------------- % PROOF FOUND! % --------------------------------------------- % | Statistics | % --------------------------------------------- % Profile 3: Performance Statistics: % ================================== % Total number of generated clauses: 755 % resolvents: 703 factors: 52 % Number of unit clauses generated: 259 % % unit clauses generated to total clauses generated: 34.30 % Number of unit clauses constructed and retained at depth [x]: % ============================================================= % [0] = 4 [1] = 4 [3] = 18 % [4] = 1 % Total = 27 % Number of generated clauses having [x] literals: % ------------------------------------------------ % [1] = 259 [2] = 388 [3] = 108 % Average size of a generated clause: 2.0 % Number of unit clauses per predicate list: % ========================================== % [0] prime_1 (+)2 (-)1 % [1] divides_2 (+)2 (-)14 % [2] less_2 (+)3 (-)5 % ------------------ % Total: (+)7 (-)20 % Total number of unit clauses retained: 27 % Number of clauses skipped because of their length: 305 % N base clauses skippped in resolve-with-all-base-clauses % because of the shortest resolvents table: 10 % Number of successful unifications: 765 % Number of unification failures: 484 % Number of unit to unit unification failures: 44 % N literal unification failure due to lookup root_id table: 1558 % N base clause resolution failure due to lookup table: 811 % N UC-BCL resolution dropped due to lookup table: 0 % Max entries in substitution set: 6 % N unit clauses dropped because they exceeded max values: 155 % 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: 6 % Max term depth in a unit clause: 4 % Number of states in UCFA table: 63 % Total number of terms of all unit clauses in table: 103 % 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: 0.61 % Number of symbols (columns) in UCFA: 40 % Profile 2: Number of calls to: % ============================== % PTUnify() = 1249 % ConstructUnitClause() = 178 % Profile 1: Time spent in: % ========================= % ConstructUnitClause() : 0.00 secs % -------------------------------------------------------- % | | % Inferences per sec: inf % | | % -------------------------------------------------------- % Elapsed time: 1 secs % CPU time: 0.14 secs % %------------------------------------------------------------------------------