%------------------------------------------------------------------------------ % File : CARINE---0.734 % Problem : NUM019-1 : TPTP v5.0.0. Bugfixed v4.0.0. % 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 03:06:34 EST 2010 % Result : Unsatisfiable 0.16s % Output : Refutation 0.16s % 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/SystemOnTPTP16746/NUM/NUM019-1+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 = 83] [nf = 0] [nu = 63] [ut = 33] % 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(aa_0(),a_0()) % B10: ~equalish_2(x0,x2) | ~equalish_2(x0,x1) | equalish_2(x1,x2) % Unit Clauses: % -------------- % U2: < d0 v0 dv0 f0 c2 t2 td1 b > equalish_2(a_0(),aa_0()) % U4: < d0 v2 dv1 f0 c0 t2 td1 b > equalish_2(x0,x0) % U34: < d2 v0 dv0 f0 c2 t2 td1 > ~equalish_2(a_0(),aa_0()) % --------------- Start of Proof --------------- % Derivation of unit clause U2: % equalish_2(a_0(),aa_0()) ....... U2 % Derivation of unit clause U4: % equalish_2(x0,x0) ....... U4 % Derivation of unit clause U34: % ~equalish_2(aa_0(),a_0()) ....... B0 % ~equalish_2(x0,x2) | ~equalish_2(x0,x1) | equalish_2(x1,x2) ....... B10 % ~equalish_2(x0, a_0()) | ~equalish_2(x0, aa_0()) ....... R1 [B0:L0, B10:L2] % equalish_2(x0,x0) ....... U4 % ~equalish_2(a_0(), aa_0()) ....... R2 [R1:L0, U4:L0] % Derivation of the empty clause: % ~equalish_2(a_0(),aa_0()) ....... U34 % equalish_2(a_0(),aa_0()) ....... U2 % [] ....... R1 [U34:L0, U2:L0] % --------------- End of Proof --------------- % PROOF FOUND! % --------------------------------------------- % | Statistics | % --------------------------------------------- % Profile 3: Performance Statistics: % ================================== % Total number of generated clauses: 87 % resolvents: 87 factors: 0 % Number of unit clauses generated: 66 % % unit clauses generated to total clauses generated: 75.86 % Number of unit clauses constructed and retained at depth [x]: % ============================================================= % [0] = 8 [1] = 25 [2] = 2 % Total = 35 % Number of generated clauses having [x] literals: % ------------------------------------------------ % [1] = 66 [2] = 21 % Average size of a generated clause: 2.0 % Number of unit clauses per predicate list: % ========================================== % [0] equalish_2 (+)24 (-)11 % ------------------ % Total: (+)24 (-)11 % Total number of unit clauses retained: 35 % Number of clauses skipped because of their length: 2 % N base clauses skippped in resolve-with-all-base-clauses % because of the shortest resolvents table: 0 % Number of successful unifications: 89 % Number of unification failures: 3 % Number of unit to unit unification failures: 241 % N literal unification failure due to lookup root_id table: 35 % N base clause resolution failure due to lookup table: 8 % 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: 38 % N unit clauses dropped because too much nesting: 8 % 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: 13 % Max term depth in a unit clause: 5 % Number of states in UCFA table: 147 % Total number of terms of all unit clauses in table: 239 % Max allowed number of states in UCFA: 120000 % Ratio n states used/total allowed states: 0.00 % Ratio n states used/total unit clauses terms: 0.62 % Number of symbols (columns) in UCFA: 41 % Profile 2: Number of calls to: % ============================== % PTUnify() = 92 % ConstructUnitClause() = 65 % Profile 1: Time spent in: % ========================= % ConstructUnitClause() : 0.00 secs % -------------------------------------------------------- % | | % Inferences per sec: inf % | | % -------------------------------------------------------- % Elapsed time: 0 secs % CPU time: 0.15 secs % %------------------------------------------------------------------------------