%------------------------------------------------------------------------------ % File : CARINE---0.734 % Problem : PLA002-1 : TPTP v5.0.0. Released v1.0.0. % Transfm : add_equality % Format : carine % Command : carine %s t=%d xo=off uct=32000 % Computer : art04.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 03:33:12 EST 2010 % Result : Unsatisfiable 0.15s % Output : Refutation 0.15s % 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/SystemOnTPTP20726/PLA/PLA002-1+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 = 29] [nf = 0] [nu = 11] [ut = 7] % Looking for a proof at depth = 2 ... % t = 0 secs [nr = 180] [nf = 0] [nu = 54] [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: ~at_2(a_0(),x0) % B1: at_2(f_0(),s0_0()) % B2: cold_1(x1) | warm_1(x0) % B5: ~at_2(b_0(),x0) | at_2(a_0(),walk_2(a_0(),x0)) % B9: ~at_2(d_0(),x0) | at_2(c_0(),go_2(c_0(),x0)) % B12: ~at_2(f_0(),x0) | at_2(d_0(),go_2(d_0(),x0)) % B14: ~cold_1(x0) | ~at_2(c_0(),x0) | at_2(b_0(),skate_2(b_0(),x0)) % B16: ~warm_1(x0) | ~at_2(d_0(),x0) | at_2(b_0(),climb_2(b_0(),x0)) % Unit Clauses: % -------------- % U0: < d0 v1 dv1 f0 c1 t2 td1 b nc > ~at_2(a_0(),x0) % U2: < d1 v1 dv1 f0 c1 t2 td1 > ~at_2(b_0(),x0) % U3: < d1 v0 dv0 f1 c3 t4 td2 > at_2(d_0(),go_2(d_0(),s0_0())) % U4: < d1 v0 dv0 f2 c4 t6 td3 > at_2(c_0(),go_2(c_0(),go_2(d_0(),s0_0()))) % U10: < d3 v1 dv1 f0 c0 t1 td1 > cold_1(x0) % U11: < d3 v1 dv1 f0 c1 t2 td1 > ~at_2(c_0(),x0) % --------------- Start of Proof --------------- % Derivation of unit clause U0: % ~at_2(a_0(),x0) ....... U0 % Derivation of unit clause U2: % ~at_2(a_0(),x0) ....... B0 % ~at_2(b_0(),x0) | at_2(a_0(),walk_2(a_0(),x0)) ....... B5 % ~at_2(b_0(), x0) ....... R1 [B0:L0, B5:L1] % Derivation of unit clause U3: % at_2(f_0(),s0_0()) ....... B1 % ~at_2(f_0(),x0) | at_2(d_0(),go_2(d_0(),x0)) ....... B12 % at_2(d_0(), go_2(d_0(), s0_0())) ....... R1 [B1:L0, B12:L0] % Derivation of unit clause U4: % ~at_2(d_0(),x0) | at_2(c_0(),go_2(c_0(),x0)) ....... B9 % at_2(d_0(),go_2(d_0(),s0_0())) ....... U3 % at_2(c_0(), go_2(c_0(), go_2(d_0(), s0_0()))) ....... R1 [B9:L0, U3:L0] % Derivation of unit clause U10: % cold_1(x1) | warm_1(x0) ....... B2 % ~warm_1(x0) | ~at_2(d_0(),x0) | at_2(b_0(),climb_2(b_0(),x0)) ....... B16 % cold_1(x0) | ~at_2(d_0(), x1) | at_2(b_0(), climb_2(b_0(), x1)) ....... R1 [B2:L1, B16:L0] % at_2(d_0(),go_2(d_0(),s0_0())) ....... U3 % cold_1(x0) | at_2(b_0(), climb_2(b_0(), go_2(d_0(), s0_0()))) ....... R2 [R1:L1, U3:L0] % ~at_2(b_0(),x0) ....... U2 % cold_1(x0) ....... R3 [R2:L1, U2:L0] % Derivation of unit clause U11: % ~at_2(b_0(),x0) | at_2(a_0(),walk_2(a_0(),x0)) ....... B5 % ~cold_1(x0) | ~at_2(c_0(),x0) | at_2(b_0(),skate_2(b_0(),x0)) ....... B14 % at_2(a_0(), walk_2(a_0(), skate_2(b_0(), x0))) | ~cold_1(x0) | ~at_2(c_0(), x0) ....... R1 [B5:L0, B14:L2] % ~at_2(a_0(),x0) ....... U0 % ~cold_1(x0) | ~at_2(c_0(), x0) ....... R2 [R1:L0, U0:L0] % cold_1(x0) ....... U10 % ~at_2(c_0(), x0) ....... R3 [R2:L0, U10:L0] % Derivation of the empty clause: % ~at_2(c_0(),x0) ....... U11 % at_2(c_0(),go_2(c_0(),go_2(d_0(),s0_0()))) ....... U4 % [] ....... R1 [U11:L0, U4:L0] % --------------- End of Proof --------------- % PROOF FOUND! % --------------------------------------------- % | Statistics | % --------------------------------------------- % Profile 3: Performance Statistics: % ================================== % Total number of generated clauses: 499 % resolvents: 499 factors: 0 % Number of unit clauses generated: 109 % % unit clauses generated to total clauses generated: 21.84 % Number of unit clauses constructed and retained at depth [x]: % ============================================================= % [0] = 2 [1] = 5 [2] = 2 [3] = 3 % Total = 12 % Number of generated clauses having [x] literals: % ------------------------------------------------ % [1] = 109 [2] = 313 [3] = 77 % Average size of a generated clause: 2.0 % Number of unit clauses per predicate list: % ========================================== % [0] cold_1 (+)1 (-)0 % [1] warm_1 (+)1 (-)0 % [2] at_2 (+)7 (-)3 % ------------------ % Total: (+)9 (-)3 % Total number of unit clauses retained: 12 % Number of clauses skipped because of their length: 352 % N base clauses skippped in resolve-with-all-base-clauses % because of the shortest resolvents table: 8 % Number of successful unifications: 508 % Number of unification failures: 0 % Number of unit to unit unification failures: 16 % N literal unification failure due to lookup root_id table: 1459 % N base clause resolution failure due to lookup table: 1604 % N UC-BCL resolution dropped due to lookup table: 0 % Max entries in substitution set: 3 % N unit clauses dropped because they exceeded max values: 67 % N unit clauses dropped because too much nesting: 12 % 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: 8 % Max term depth in a unit clause: 4 % Number of states in UCFA table: 37 % Total number of terms of all unit clauses in table: 50 % Max allowed number of states in UCFA: 80000 % Ratio n states used/total allowed states: 0.00 % Ratio n states used/total unit clauses terms: 0.74 % Number of symbols (columns) in UCFA: 49 % Profile 2: Number of calls to: % ============================== % PTUnify() = 508 % ConstructUnitClause() = 77 % Profile 1: Time spent in: % ========================= % ConstructUnitClause() : 0.00 secs % -------------------------------------------------------- % | | % Inferences per sec: inf % | | % -------------------------------------------------------- % Elapsed time: 0 secs % CPU time: 0.14 secs % %------------------------------------------------------------------------------