%------------------------------------------------------------------------------ % File : CARINE---0.734 % Problem : NUM022-1 : TPTP v5.0.0. Released v1.0.0. % Transfm : add_equality % Format : carine % Command : carine %s t=%d xo=off uct=32000 % Computer : art07.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 03:06:49 EST 2010 % Result : Unsatisfiable 0.38s % Output : Refutation 0.38s % 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/SystemOnTPTP13108/NUM/NUM022-1+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 = 18] [nf = 0] [nu = 9] [ut = 7] % Looking for a proof at depth = 2 ... % t = 0 secs [nr = 109] [nf = 12] [nu = 30] [ut = 9] % Looking for a proof at depth = 3 ... % +================================================+ % | | % | Congratulations!!! ........ A proof was found. | % | | % +================================================+ % Base Clauses and Unit Clauses used in proof: % ============================================ % Base Clauses: % ------------- % B0: ~less_2(a_0(),d_0()) % B1: divides_2(b_0(),d_0()) % B2: less_2(a_0(),b_0()) % B3: ~equalish_2(add_2(successor_1(x0),x1),x2) | less_2(x1,x2) % B6: ~less_2(x0,x1) | equalish_2(add_2(successor_1(predecessor_of_1st_minus_2nd_2(x1,x0)),x0),x1) % B7: ~equalish_2(x2,x0) | ~equalish_2(x0,x1) | equalish_2(x2,x1) % B8: ~less_2(x2,x0) | ~less_2(x0,x1) | less_2(x2,x1) % B9: ~divides_2(x0,x1) | equalish_2(x0,x1) | less_2(x0,x1) % Unit Clauses: % -------------- % U0: < d0 v0 dv0 f0 c2 t2 td1 b nc > ~less_2(a_0(),d_0()) % U2: < d0 v0 dv0 f0 c2 t2 td1 b > less_2(a_0(),b_0()) % U5: < d1 v0 dv0 f3 c4 t7 td4 > equalish_2(add_2(successor_1(predecessor_of_1st_minus_2nd_2(b_0(),a_0())),a_0()),b_0()) % U7: < d2 v0 dv0 f0 c2 t2 td1 > ~less_2(b_0(),d_0()) % U8: < d2 v0 dv0 f0 c2 t2 td1 > equalish_2(b_0(),d_0()) % U10: < d3 v0 dv0 f0 c2 t2 td1 > ~equalish_2(b_0(),d_0()) % --------------- Start of Proof --------------- % Derivation of unit clause U0: % ~less_2(a_0(),d_0()) ....... U0 % Derivation of unit clause U2: % less_2(a_0(),b_0()) ....... U2 % Derivation of unit clause U5: % less_2(a_0(),b_0()) ....... B2 % ~less_2(x0,x1) | equalish_2(add_2(successor_1(predecessor_of_1st_minus_2nd_2(x1,x0)),x0),x1) ....... B6 % equalish_2(add_2(successor_1(predecessor_of_1st_minus_2nd_2(b_0(), a_0())), a_0()), b_0()) ....... R1 [B2:L0, B6:L0] % Derivation of unit clause U7: % ~less_2(a_0(),d_0()) ....... B0 % ~less_2(x2,x0) | ~less_2(x0,x1) | less_2(x2,x1) ....... B8 % ~less_2(a_0(), x0) | ~less_2(x0, d_0()) ....... R1 [B0:L0, B8:L2] % less_2(a_0(),b_0()) ....... U2 % ~less_2(b_0(), d_0()) ....... R2 [R1:L0, U2:L0] % Derivation of unit clause U8: % divides_2(b_0(),d_0()) ....... B1 % ~divides_2(x0,x1) | equalish_2(x0,x1) | less_2(x0,x1) ....... B9 % equalish_2(b_0(), d_0()) | less_2(b_0(), d_0()) ....... R1 [B1:L0, B9:L0] % ~less_2(b_0(),d_0()) ....... U7 % equalish_2(b_0(), d_0()) ....... R2 [R1:L1, U7:L0] % Derivation of unit clause U10: % ~equalish_2(add_2(successor_1(x0),x1),x2) | less_2(x1,x2) ....... B3 % ~equalish_2(x2,x0) | ~equalish_2(x0,x1) | equalish_2(x2,x1) ....... B7 % less_2(x0, x1) | ~equalish_2(add_2(successor_1(x2), x0), x3) | ~equalish_2(x3, x1) ....... R1 [B3:L0, B7:L2] % ~less_2(a_0(),d_0()) ....... U0 % ~equalish_2(add_2(successor_1(x0), a_0()), x1) | ~equalish_2(x1, d_0()) ....... R2 [R1:L0, U0:L0] % equalish_2(add_2(successor_1(predecessor_of_1st_minus_2nd_2(b_0(),a_0())),a_0()),b_0()) ....... U5 % ~equalish_2(b_0(), d_0()) ....... R3 [R2:L0, U5:L0] % Derivation of the empty clause: % ~equalish_2(b_0(),d_0()) ....... U10 % equalish_2(b_0(),d_0()) ....... U8 % [] ....... R1 [U10:L0, U8:L0] % --------------- End of Proof --------------- % PROOF FOUND! % --------------------------------------------- % | Statistics | % --------------------------------------------- % Profile 3: Performance Statistics: % ================================== % Total number of generated clauses: 294 % resolvents: 255 factors: 39 % Number of unit clauses generated: 68 % % unit clauses generated to total clauses generated: 23.13 % Number of unit clauses constructed and retained at depth [x]: % ============================================================= % [0] = 3 [1] = 4 [2] = 2 [3] = 2 % Total = 11 % Number of generated clauses having [x] literals: % ------------------------------------------------ % [1] = 68 [2] = 182 [3] = 44 % Average size of a generated clause: 2.0 % Number of unit clauses per predicate list: % ========================================== % [0] divides_2 (+)3 (-)0 % [1] equalish_2 (+)2 (-)3 % [2] less_2 (+)1 (-)2 % ------------------ % Total: (+)6 (-)5 % Total number of unit clauses retained: 11 % Number of clauses skipped because of their length: 163 % N base clauses skippped in resolve-with-all-base-clauses % because of the shortest resolvents table: 0 % Number of successful unifications: 302 % Number of unification failures: 110 % Number of unit to unit unification failures: 7 % N literal unification failure due to lookup root_id table: 511 % N base clause resolution failure due to lookup table: 187 % 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: 33 % N unit clauses dropped because too much nesting: 0 % 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: 7 % Max term depth in a unit clause: 4 % Number of states in UCFA table: 32 % Total number of terms of all unit clauses in table: 38 % 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: 0.84 % Number of symbols (columns) in UCFA: 43 % Profile 2: Number of calls to: % ============================== % PTUnify() = 412 % ConstructUnitClause() = 41 % Profile 1: Time spent in: % ========================= % ConstructUnitClause() : 0.00 secs % -------------------------------------------------------- % | | % Inferences per sec: inf % | | % -------------------------------------------------------- % Elapsed time: 0 secs % CPU time: 0.37 secs % %------------------------------------------------------------------------------