%------------------------------------------------------------------------------ % File : CARINE---0.734 % Problem : NUM025-2 : TPTP v5.0.0. Bugfixed v4.0.0. % 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 03:07:10 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/SystemOnTPTP16999/NUM/NUM025-2+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 = 330] [nf = 0] [nu = 296] [ut = 151] % Looking for a proof at depth = 2 ... % +================================================+ % | | % | Congratulations!!! ........ A proof was found. | % | | % +================================================+ % Base Clauses and Unit Clauses used in proof: % ============================================ % Base Clauses: % ------------- % B0: ~greater_or_equalish_2(b_0(),a_0()) % B15: ~greater_or_equalish_2(x2,x1) | greater_or_equalish_2(x0,x1) | greater_or_equalish_2(x2,x0) % Unit Clauses: % -------------- % U1: < d0 v2 dv1 f0 c0 t2 td1 b > greater_or_equalish_2(x0,x0) % U2: < d0 v0 dv0 f0 c2 t2 td1 b > ~greater_or_equalish_2(a_0(),b_0()) % U151: < d2 v0 dv0 f0 c2 t2 td1 > greater_or_equalish_2(a_0(),b_0()) % --------------- Start of Proof --------------- % Derivation of unit clause U1: % greater_or_equalish_2(x0,x0) ....... U1 % Derivation of unit clause U2: % ~greater_or_equalish_2(a_0(),b_0()) ....... U2 % Derivation of unit clause U151: % ~greater_or_equalish_2(b_0(),a_0()) ....... B0 % ~greater_or_equalish_2(x2,x1) | greater_or_equalish_2(x0,x1) | greater_or_equalish_2(x2,x0) ....... B15 % ~greater_or_equalish_2(x0, a_0()) | greater_or_equalish_2(x0, b_0()) ....... R1 [B0:L0, B15:L1] % greater_or_equalish_2(x0,x0) ....... U1 % greater_or_equalish_2(a_0(), b_0()) ....... R2 [R1:L0, U1:L0] % Derivation of the empty clause: % greater_or_equalish_2(a_0(),b_0()) ....... U151 % ~greater_or_equalish_2(a_0(),b_0()) ....... U2 % [] ....... R1 [U151:L0, U2:L0] % --------------- End of Proof --------------- % PROOF FOUND! % --------------------------------------------- % | Statistics | % --------------------------------------------- % Profile 3: Performance Statistics: % ================================== % Total number of generated clauses: 333 % resolvents: 333 factors: 0 % Number of unit clauses generated: 298 % % unit clauses generated to total clauses generated: 89.49 % Number of unit clauses constructed and retained at depth [x]: % ============================================================= % [0] = 9 [1] = 142 [2] = 1 % Total = 152 % Number of generated clauses having [x] literals: % ------------------------------------------------ % [1] = 298 [2] = 35 % Average size of a generated clause: 2.0 % Number of unit clauses per predicate list: % ========================================== % [0] equalish_2 (+)110 (-)34 % [1] greater_or_equalish_2 (+)2 (-)6 % ------------------ % Total: (+)112 (-)40 % Total number of unit clauses retained: 152 % Number of clauses skipped because of their length: 10 % N base clauses skippped in resolve-with-all-base-clauses % because of the shortest resolvents table: 0 % Number of successful unifications: 335 % Number of unification failures: 14 % Number of unit to unit unification failures: 3747 % N literal unification failure due to lookup root_id table: 103 % N base clause resolution failure due to lookup table: 44 % N UC-BCL resolution dropped due to lookup table: 1 % Max entries in substitution set: 3 % N unit clauses dropped because they exceeded max values: 154 % N unit clauses dropped because too much nesting: 17 % 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: 23 % Max term depth in a unit clause: 10 % Number of states in UCFA table: 1048 % Total number of terms of all unit clauses in table: 1878 % 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: 0.56 % Number of symbols (columns) in UCFA: 43 % Profile 2: Number of calls to: % ============================== % PTUnify() = 349 % ConstructUnitClause() = 297 % Profile 1: Time spent in: % ========================= % ConstructUnitClause() : 0.01 secs % -------------------------------------------------------- % | | % Inferences per sec: inf % | | % -------------------------------------------------------- % Elapsed time: 1 secs % CPU time: 0.38 secs % %------------------------------------------------------------------------------