%------------------------------------------------------------------------------ % File : CARINE---0.734 % Problem : PUZ001-1 : TPTP v5.0.0. Released v1.0.0. % Transfm : add_equality % Format : carine % Command : carine %s t=%d xo=off uct=32000 % Computer : art09.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 03:49:51 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/SystemOnTPTP22402/PUZ/PUZ001-1+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 = 22] [nf = 0] [nu = 10] [ut = 11] % Looking for a proof at depth = 2 ... % t = 1 secs [nr = 91] [nf = 0] [nu = 32] [ut = 15] % Looking for a proof at depth = 3 ... % +================================================+ % | | % | Congratulations!!! ........ A proof was found. | % | | % +================================================+ % Base Clauses and Unit Clauses used in proof: % ============================================ % Base Clauses: % ------------- % B0: killed_2(butler_0(),agatha_0()) | killed_2(charles_0(),agatha_0()) % B2: lives_1(butler_0()) % B4: hates_2(agatha_0(),agatha_0()) % B5: hates_2(agatha_0(),charles_0()) % B6: ~killed_2(x0,x1) | hates_2(x0,x1) % B7: ~killed_2(x0,x1) | ~richer_2(x0,x1) % B8: ~hates_2(agatha_0(),x0) | hates_2(butler_0(),x0) % B9: ~hates_2(charles_0(),x0) | ~hates_2(agatha_0(),x0) % B10: ~lives_1(x0) | hates_2(butler_0(),x0) | richer_2(x0,agatha_0()) % B11: ~hates_2(x0,charles_0()) | ~hates_2(x0,butler_0()) | ~hates_2(x0,agatha_0()) % Unit Clauses: % -------------- % U6: < d1 v0 dv0 f0 c2 t2 td1 > ~hates_2(charles_0(),agatha_0()) % U7: < d1 v0 dv0 f0 c2 t2 td1 > hates_2(butler_0(),charles_0()) % U9: < d1 v0 dv0 f0 c2 t2 td1 > ~killed_2(charles_0(),agatha_0()) % U11: < d2 v0 dv0 f0 c2 t2 td1 > killed_2(butler_0(),agatha_0()) % U12: < d2 v0 dv0 f0 c2 t2 td1 > ~richer_2(butler_0(),agatha_0()) % U13: < d2 v0 dv0 f0 c2 t2 td1 > hates_2(butler_0(),butler_0()) % U18: < d3 v0 dv0 f0 c2 t2 td1 > ~hates_2(butler_0(),butler_0()) % --------------- Start of Proof --------------- % Derivation of unit clause U6: % hates_2(agatha_0(),agatha_0()) ....... B4 % ~hates_2(charles_0(),x0) | ~hates_2(agatha_0(),x0) ....... B9 % ~hates_2(charles_0(), agatha_0()) ....... R1 [B4:L0, B9:L1] % Derivation of unit clause U7: % hates_2(agatha_0(),charles_0()) ....... B5 % ~hates_2(agatha_0(),x0) | hates_2(butler_0(),x0) ....... B8 % hates_2(butler_0(), charles_0()) ....... R1 [B5:L0, B8:L0] % Derivation of unit clause U9: % ~killed_2(x0,x1) | hates_2(x0,x1) ....... B6 % ~hates_2(charles_0(),agatha_0()) ....... U6 % ~killed_2(charles_0(), agatha_0()) ....... R1 [B6:L1, U6:L0] % Derivation of unit clause U11: % killed_2(butler_0(),agatha_0()) | killed_2(charles_0(),agatha_0()) ....... B0 % ~killed_2(x0,x1) | hates_2(x0,x1) ....... B6 % killed_2(butler_0(), agatha_0()) | hates_2(charles_0(), agatha_0()) ....... R1 [B0:L1, B6:L0] % ~hates_2(charles_0(),agatha_0()) ....... U6 % killed_2(butler_0(), agatha_0()) ....... R2 [R1:L1, U6:L0] % Derivation of unit clause U12: % killed_2(butler_0(),agatha_0()) | killed_2(charles_0(),agatha_0()) ....... B0 % ~killed_2(x0,x1) | ~richer_2(x0,x1) ....... B7 % killed_2(charles_0(), agatha_0()) | ~richer_2(butler_0(), agatha_0()) ....... R1 [B0:L0, B7:L0] % ~killed_2(charles_0(),agatha_0()) ....... U9 % ~richer_2(butler_0(), agatha_0()) ....... R2 [R1:L0, U9:L0] % Derivation of unit clause U13: % lives_1(butler_0()) ....... B2 % ~lives_1(x0) | hates_2(butler_0(),x0) | richer_2(x0,agatha_0()) ....... B10 % hates_2(butler_0(), butler_0()) | richer_2(butler_0(), agatha_0()) ....... R1 [B2:L0, B10:L0] % ~richer_2(butler_0(),agatha_0()) ....... U12 % hates_2(butler_0(), butler_0()) ....... R2 [R1:L1, U12:L0] % Derivation of unit clause U18: % ~killed_2(x0,x1) | hates_2(x0,x1) ....... B6 % ~hates_2(x0,charles_0()) | ~hates_2(x0,butler_0()) | ~hates_2(x0,agatha_0()) ....... B11 % ~killed_2(x0, agatha_0()) | ~hates_2(x0, charles_0()) | ~hates_2(x0, butler_0()) ....... R1 [B6:L1, B11:L2] % killed_2(butler_0(),agatha_0()) ....... U11 % ~hates_2(butler_0(), charles_0()) | ~hates_2(butler_0(), butler_0()) ....... R2 [R1:L0, U11:L0] % hates_2(butler_0(),charles_0()) ....... U7 % ~hates_2(butler_0(), butler_0()) ....... R3 [R2:L0, U7:L0] % Derivation of the empty clause: % ~hates_2(butler_0(),butler_0()) ....... U18 % hates_2(butler_0(),butler_0()) ....... U13 % [] ....... R1 [U18:L0, U13:L0] % --------------- End of Proof --------------- % PROOF FOUND! % --------------------------------------------- % | Statistics | % --------------------------------------------- % Profile 3: Performance Statistics: % ================================== % Total number of generated clauses: 213 % resolvents: 213 factors: 0 % Number of unit clauses generated: 65 % % unit clauses generated to total clauses generated: 30.52 % Number of unit clauses constructed and retained at depth [x]: % ============================================================= % [0] = 5 [1] = 6 [2] = 4 [3] = 4 % Total = 19 % Number of generated clauses having [x] literals: % ------------------------------------------------ % [1] = 65 [2] = 120 [3] = 28 % Average size of a generated clause: 2.0 % Number of unit clauses per predicate list: % ========================================== % [0] lives_1 (+)3 (-)0 % [1] hates_2 (+)5 (-)4 % [2] killed_2 (+)1 (-)5 % [3] richer_2 (+)0 (-)1 % ------------------ % Total: (+)9 (-)10 % Total number of unit clauses retained: 19 % Number of clauses skipped because of their length: 111 % N base clauses skippped in resolve-with-all-base-clauses % because of the shortest resolvents table: 0 % Number of successful unifications: 225 % Number of unification failures: 289 % Number of unit to unit unification failures: 24 % N literal unification failure due to lookup root_id table: 529 % N base clause resolution failure due to lookup table: 404 % N UC-BCL resolution dropped due to lookup table: 0 % Max entries in substitution set: 5 % N unit clauses dropped because they exceeded max values: 20 % 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: 2 % Max term depth in a unit clause: 1 % Number of states in UCFA table: 19 % Total number of terms of all unit clauses in table: 35 % 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: 0.54 % Number of symbols (columns) in UCFA: 41 % Profile 2: Number of calls to: % ============================== % PTUnify() = 514 % ConstructUnitClause() = 34 % Profile 1: Time spent in: % ========================= % ConstructUnitClause() : 0.00 secs % -------------------------------------------------------- % | | % Inferences per sec: inf % | | % -------------------------------------------------------- % Elapsed time: 1 secs % CPU time: 0.14 secs % %------------------------------------------------------------------------------