%------------------------------------------------------------------------------ % File : CARINE---0.734 % Problem : NUM024-1 : 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 03:06:59 EST 2010 % Result : Unsatisfiable 0.80s % Output : Refutation 0.80s % 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/SystemOnTPTP31949/NUM/NUM024-1+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 = 468] [nf = 0] [nu = 426] [ut = 244] % 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(successor_1(x0),n0_0()) % B1: less_2(a_0(),a_0()) % B2: equalish_2(add_2(x0,n0_0()),x0) % B3: equalish_2(add_2(x0,x1),add_2(x1,x0)) % B8: ~equalish_2(add_2(x0,x1),add_2(x2,x1)) | equalish_2(x0,x2) % B10: ~equalish_2(x0,x1) | equalish_2(x1,x0) % B13: ~less_2(x0,x1) | equalish_2(add_2(successor_1(predecessor_of_1st_minus_2nd_2(x1,x0)),x0),x1) % B14: ~equalish_2(x1,x2) | ~equalish_2(x0,x1) | equalish_2(x0,x2) % Unit Clauses: % -------------- % U9: < d1 v1 dv1 f1 c1 t3 td2 > ~equalish_2(n0_0(),successor_1(x0)) % U11: < d1 v0 dv0 f3 c4 t7 td4 > equalish_2(add_2(successor_1(predecessor_of_1st_minus_2nd_2(a_0(),a_0())),a_0()),a_0()) % U27: < d1 v3 dv2 f3 c1 t7 td3 > ~equalish_2(add_2(n0_0(),x0),add_2(successor_1(x1),x0)) % U44: < d1 v0 dv0 f3 c4 t7 td4 > equalish_2(a_0(),add_2(successor_1(predecessor_of_1st_minus_2nd_2(a_0(),a_0())),a_0())) % U1449: < d2 v0 dv0 f4 c5 t9 td4 > equalish_2(add_2(a_0(),n0_0()),add_2(successor_1(predecessor_of_1st_minus_2nd_2(a_0(),a_0())),a_0())) % U3100: < d2 v0 dv0 f4 c5 t9 td4 > equalish_2(add_2(n0_0(),a_0()),add_2(successor_1(predecessor_of_1st_minus_2nd_2(a_0(),a_0())),a_0())) % --------------- Start of Proof --------------- % Derivation of unit clause U9: % ~equalish_2(successor_1(x0),n0_0()) ....... B0 % ~equalish_2(x0,x1) | equalish_2(x1,x0) ....... B10 % ~equalish_2(n0_0(), successor_1(x0)) ....... R1 [B0:L0, B10:L1] % Derivation of unit clause U11: % less_2(a_0(),a_0()) ....... B1 % ~less_2(x0,x1) | equalish_2(add_2(successor_1(predecessor_of_1st_minus_2nd_2(x1,x0)),x0),x1) ....... B13 % equalish_2(add_2(successor_1(predecessor_of_1st_minus_2nd_2(a_0(), a_0())), a_0()), a_0()) ....... R1 [B1:L0, B13:L0] % Derivation of unit clause U27: % ~equalish_2(add_2(x0,x1),add_2(x2,x1)) | equalish_2(x0,x2) ....... B8 % ~equalish_2(n0_0(),successor_1(x0)) ....... U9 % ~equalish_2(add_2(n0_0(), x0), add_2(successor_1(x1), x0)) ....... R1 [B8:L1, U9:L0] % Derivation of unit clause U44: % ~equalish_2(x0,x1) | equalish_2(x1,x0) ....... B10 % equalish_2(add_2(successor_1(predecessor_of_1st_minus_2nd_2(a_0(),a_0())),a_0()),a_0()) ....... U11 % equalish_2(a_0(), add_2(successor_1(predecessor_of_1st_minus_2nd_2(a_0(), a_0())), a_0())) ....... R1 [B10:L0, U11:L0] % Derivation of unit clause U1449: % equalish_2(add_2(x0,n0_0()),x0) ....... B2 % ~equalish_2(x1,x2) | ~equalish_2(x0,x1) | equalish_2(x0,x2) ....... B14 % ~equalish_2(x0, x1) | equalish_2(add_2(x0, n0_0()), x1) ....... R1 [B2:L0, B14:L1] % equalish_2(a_0(),add_2(successor_1(predecessor_of_1st_minus_2nd_2(a_0(),a_0())),a_0())) ....... U44 % equalish_2(add_2(a_0(), n0_0()), add_2(successor_1(predecessor_of_1st_minus_2nd_2(a_0(), a_0())), a_0())) ....... R2 [R1:L0, U44:L0] % Derivation of unit clause U3100: % equalish_2(add_2(x0,x1),add_2(x1,x0)) ....... B3 % ~equalish_2(x1,x2) | ~equalish_2(x0,x1) | equalish_2(x0,x2) ....... B14 % ~equalish_2(add_2(x0, x1), x2) | equalish_2(add_2(x1, x0), x2) ....... R1 [B3:L0, B14:L1] % equalish_2(add_2(a_0(),n0_0()),add_2(successor_1(predecessor_of_1st_minus_2nd_2(a_0(),a_0())),a_0())) ....... U1449 % equalish_2(add_2(n0_0(), a_0()), add_2(successor_1(predecessor_of_1st_minus_2nd_2(a_0(), a_0())), a_0())) ....... R2 [R1:L0, U1449:L0] % Derivation of the empty clause: % equalish_2(add_2(n0_0(),a_0()),add_2(successor_1(predecessor_of_1st_minus_2nd_2(a_0(),a_0())),a_0())) ....... U3100 % ~equalish_2(add_2(n0_0(),x0),add_2(successor_1(x1),x0)) ....... U27 % [] ....... R1 [U3100:L0, U27:L0] % --------------- End of Proof --------------- % PROOF FOUND! % --------------------------------------------- % | Statistics | % --------------------------------------------- % Profile 3: Performance Statistics: % ================================== % Total number of generated clauses: 5124 % resolvents: 5124 factors: 0 % Number of unit clauses generated: 5037 % % unit clauses generated to total clauses generated: 98.30 % Number of unit clauses constructed and retained at depth [x]: % ============================================================= % [0] = 8 [1] = 236 [2] = 2857 % Total = 3101 % Number of generated clauses having [x] literals: % ------------------------------------------------ % [1] = 5037 [2] = 87 % Average size of a generated clause: 2.0 % Number of unit clauses per predicate list: % ========================================== % [0] equalish_2 (+)761 (-)2329 % [1] less_2 (+)9 (-)2 % ------------------ % Total: (+)770 (-)2331 % Total number of unit clauses retained: 3101 % Number of clauses skipped because of their length: 24 % N base clauses skippped in resolve-with-all-base-clauses % because of the shortest resolvents table: 0 % Number of successful unifications: 5132 % Number of unification failures: 2219 % Number of unit to unit unification failures: 1770063 % N literal unification failure due to lookup root_id table: 306 % N base clause resolution failure due to lookup table: 59 % N UC-BCL resolution dropped due to lookup table: 1 % Max entries in substitution set: 5 % N unit clauses dropped because they exceeded max values: 1932 % N unit clauses dropped because too much nesting: 368 % 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: 31 % Max term depth in a unit clause: 10 % Number of states in UCFA table: 21997 % Total number of terms of all unit clauses in table: 56194 % Max allowed number of states in UCFA: 528000 % Ratio n states used/total allowed states: 0.04 % Ratio n states used/total unit clauses terms: 0.39 % Number of symbols (columns) in UCFA: 42 % Profile 2: Number of calls to: % ============================== % PTUnify() = 7351 % ConstructUnitClause() = 5025 % Profile 1: Time spent in: % ========================= % ConstructUnitClause() : 0.01 secs % -------------------------------------------------------- % | | % Inferences per sec: inf % | | % -------------------------------------------------------- % Elapsed time: 1 secs % CPU time: 0.79 secs % %------------------------------------------------------------------------------