%------------------------------------------------------------------------------ % File : CARINE---0.734 % Problem : NUM020-1 : TPTP v5.0.0. Bugfixed v4.0.0. % 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 03:06:38 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/SystemOnTPTP31821/NUM/NUM020-1+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 = 162] [nf = 0] [nu = 136] [ut = 55] % 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(),successor_1(n0_0())),successor_1(a_0())) % B3: equalish_2(add_2(x0,n0_0()),x0) % B9: ~equalish_2(x0,x1) | equalish_2(successor_1(x0),successor_1(x1)) % B11: ~equalish_2(x1,x2) | ~equalish_2(x0,x1) | equalish_2(x0,x2) % Unit Clauses: % -------------- % U2: < d0 v4 dv2 f4 c0 t8 td3 b > equalish_2(add_2(x0,successor_1(x1)),successor_1(add_2(x0,x1))) % U15: < d1 v2 dv1 f3 c1 t6 td3 > equalish_2(successor_1(add_2(x0,n0_0())),successor_1(x0)) % U56: < d2 v0 dv0 f4 c4 t8 td3 > ~equalish_2(add_2(a_0(),successor_1(n0_0())),successor_1(add_2(a_0(),n0_0()))) % --------------- Start of Proof --------------- % Derivation of unit clause U2: % equalish_2(add_2(x0,successor_1(x1)),successor_1(add_2(x0,x1))) ....... U2 % Derivation of unit clause U15: % equalish_2(add_2(x0,n0_0()),x0) ....... B3 % ~equalish_2(x0,x1) | equalish_2(successor_1(x0),successor_1(x1)) ....... B9 % equalish_2(successor_1(add_2(x0, n0_0())), successor_1(x0)) ....... R1 [B3:L0, B9:L0] % Derivation of unit clause U56: % ~equalish_2(add_2(a_0(),successor_1(n0_0())),successor_1(a_0())) ....... B0 % ~equalish_2(x1,x2) | ~equalish_2(x0,x1) | equalish_2(x0,x2) ....... B11 % ~equalish_2(x0, successor_1(a_0())) | ~equalish_2(add_2(a_0(), successor_1(n0_0())), x0) ....... R1 [B0:L0, B11:L2] % equalish_2(successor_1(add_2(x0,n0_0())),successor_1(x0)) ....... U15 % ~equalish_2(add_2(a_0(), successor_1(n0_0())), successor_1(add_2(a_0(), n0_0()))) ....... R2 [R1:L0, U15:L0] % Derivation of the empty clause: % ~equalish_2(add_2(a_0(),successor_1(n0_0())),successor_1(add_2(a_0(),n0_0()))) ....... U56 % equalish_2(add_2(x0,successor_1(x1)),successor_1(add_2(x0,x1))) ....... U2 % [] ....... R1 [U56:L0, U2:L0] % --------------- End of Proof --------------- % PROOF FOUND! % --------------------------------------------- % | Statistics | % --------------------------------------------- % Profile 3: Performance Statistics: % ================================== % Total number of generated clauses: 168 % resolvents: 168 factors: 0 % Number of unit clauses generated: 141 % % unit clauses generated to total clauses generated: 83.93 % Number of unit clauses constructed and retained at depth [x]: % ============================================================= % [0] = 8 [1] = 47 [2] = 2 % Total = 57 % Number of generated clauses having [x] literals: % ------------------------------------------------ % [1] = 141 [2] = 27 % Average size of a generated clause: 2.0 % Number of unit clauses per predicate list: % ========================================== % [0] equalish_2 (+)41 (-)16 % ------------------ % Total: (+)41 (-)16 % Total number of unit clauses retained: 57 % Number of clauses skipped because of their length: 3 % N base clauses skippped in resolve-with-all-base-clauses % because of the shortest resolvents table: 0 % Number of successful unifications: 171 % Number of unification failures: 16 % Number of unit to unit unification failures: 615 % N literal unification failure due to lookup root_id table: 50 % N base clause resolution failure due to lookup table: 8 % N UC-BCL resolution dropped due to lookup table: 1 % Max entries in substitution set: 4 % N unit clauses dropped because they exceeded max values: 90 % N unit clauses dropped because too much nesting: 15 % 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: 248 % Total number of terms of all unit clauses in table: 428 % 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: 0.58 % Number of symbols (columns) in UCFA: 41 % Profile 2: Number of calls to: % ============================== % PTUnify() = 187 % ConstructUnitClause() = 139 % Profile 1: Time spent in: % ========================= % ConstructUnitClause() : 0.00 secs % -------------------------------------------------------- % | | % Inferences per sec: inf % | | % -------------------------------------------------------- % Elapsed time: 1 secs % CPU time: 0.16 secs % %------------------------------------------------------------------------------