%------------------------------------------------------------------------------ % File : CARINE---0.734 % Problem : PUZ003-1 : 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 03:50:40 EST 2010 % Result : Unsatisfiable 0.14s % Output : Refutation 0.14s % 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/SystemOnTPTP22394/PUZ/PUZ003-1+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 = 5] [nf = 0] [nu = 0] [ut = 6] % Looking for a proof at depth = 2 ... % t = 0 secs [nr = 27] [nf = 0] [nu = 2] [ut = 7] % Looking for a proof at depth = 3 ... % t = 0 secs [nr = 151] [nf = 2] [nu = 34] [ut = 12] % Looking for a proof at depth = 4 ... % t = 0 secs [nr = 384] [nf = 16] [nu = 72] [ut = 13] % Looking for a proof at depth = 5 ... % +================================================+ % | | % | Congratulations!!! ........ A proof was found. | % | | % +================================================+ % Base Clauses and Unit Clauses used in proof: % ============================================ % Base Clauses: % ------------- % B0: ~shaved_2(petruchio_0(),lorenzo_0()) % B1: member_1(guido_0()) % B6: ~member_1(x1) | ~shaved_2(members_0(),x0) | shaved_2(x1,x0) % B7: ~member_1(x1) | ~member_1(x0) | ~shaved_2(x0,x1) | shaved_2(members_0(),x0) % Unit Clauses: % -------------- % U2: < d0 v0 dv0 f0 c1 t1 td1 b > member_1(lorenzo_0()) % U3: < d0 v0 dv0 f0 c1 t1 td1 b > member_1(petruchio_0()) % U4: < d0 v0 dv0 f0 c1 t1 td1 b > member_1(cesare_0()) % U5: < d0 v0 dv0 f0 c2 t2 td1 b > shaved_2(guido_0(),cesare_0()) % U6: < d2 v0 dv0 f0 c2 t2 td1 > ~shaved_2(members_0(),lorenzo_0()) % U8: < d3 v0 dv0 f0 c2 t2 td1 > shaved_2(members_0(),guido_0()) % U14: < d5 v0 dv0 f0 c2 t2 td1 > ~shaved_2(members_0(),guido_0()) % --------------- Start of Proof --------------- % Derivation of unit clause U2: % member_1(lorenzo_0()) ....... U2 % Derivation of unit clause U3: % member_1(petruchio_0()) ....... U3 % Derivation of unit clause U4: % member_1(cesare_0()) ....... U4 % Derivation of unit clause U5: % shaved_2(guido_0(),cesare_0()) ....... U5 % Derivation of unit clause U6: % ~shaved_2(petruchio_0(),lorenzo_0()) ....... B0 % ~member_1(x1) | ~shaved_2(members_0(),x0) | shaved_2(x1,x0) ....... B6 % ~member_1(petruchio_0()) | ~shaved_2(members_0(), lorenzo_0()) ....... R1 [B0:L0, B6:L2] % member_1(petruchio_0()) ....... U3 % ~shaved_2(members_0(), lorenzo_0()) ....... R2 [R1:L0, U3:L0] % Derivation of unit clause U8: % member_1(guido_0()) ....... B1 % ~member_1(x1) | ~member_1(x0) | ~shaved_2(x0,x1) | shaved_2(members_0(),x0) ....... B7 % ~member_1(x0) | ~shaved_2(guido_0(), x0) | shaved_2(members_0(), guido_0()) ....... R1 [B1:L0, B7:L1] % member_1(cesare_0()) ....... U4 % ~shaved_2(guido_0(), cesare_0()) | shaved_2(members_0(), guido_0()) ....... R2 [R1:L0, U4:L0] % shaved_2(guido_0(),cesare_0()) ....... U5 % shaved_2(members_0(), guido_0()) ....... R3 [R2:L0, U5:L0] % Derivation of unit clause U14: % member_1(guido_0()) ....... B1 % ~member_1(x1) | ~member_1(x0) | ~shaved_2(x0,x1) | shaved_2(members_0(),x0) ....... B7 % ~member_1(x0) | ~shaved_2(x0, guido_0()) | shaved_2(members_0(), x0) ....... R1 [B1:L0, B7:L0] % member_1(lorenzo_0()) ....... U2 % ~shaved_2(lorenzo_0(), guido_0()) | shaved_2(members_0(), lorenzo_0()) ....... R2 [R1:L0, U2:L0] % ~member_1(x1) | ~shaved_2(members_0(),x0) | shaved_2(x1,x0) ....... B6 % shaved_2(members_0(), lorenzo_0()) | ~member_1(lorenzo_0()) | ~shaved_2(members_0(), guido_0()) ....... R3 [R2:L0, B6:L2] % ~shaved_2(members_0(),lorenzo_0()) ....... U6 % ~member_1(lorenzo_0()) | ~shaved_2(members_0(), guido_0()) ....... R4 [R3:L0, U6:L0] % member_1(lorenzo_0()) ....... U2 % ~shaved_2(members_0(), guido_0()) ....... R5 [R4:L0, U2:L0] % Derivation of the empty clause: % ~shaved_2(members_0(),guido_0()) ....... U14 % shaved_2(members_0(),guido_0()) ....... U8 % [] ....... R1 [U14:L0, U8:L0] % --------------- End of Proof --------------- % PROOF FOUND! % --------------------------------------------- % | Statistics | % --------------------------------------------- % Profile 3: Performance Statistics: % ================================== % Total number of generated clauses: 444 % resolvents: 427 factors: 17 % Number of unit clauses generated: 85 % % unit clauses generated to total clauses generated: 19.14 % Number of unit clauses constructed and retained at depth [x]: % ============================================================= % [0] = 6 [2] = 1 [3] = 5 % [4] = 1 [5] = 2 % Total = 15 % Number of generated clauses having [x] literals: % ------------------------------------------------ % [1] = 85 [2] = 196 [3] = 163 % Average size of a generated clause: 3.0 % Number of unit clauses per predicate list: % ========================================== % [0] member_1 (+)4 (-)1 % [1] shaved_2 (+)2 (-)8 % ------------------ % Total: (+)6 (-)9 % Total number of unit clauses retained: 15 % Number of clauses skipped because of their length: 194 % N base clauses skippped in resolve-with-all-base-clauses % because of the shortest resolvents table: 0 % Number of successful unifications: 454 % Number of unification failures: 1135 % Number of unit to unit unification failures: 19 % N literal unification failure due to lookup root_id table: 520 % N base clause resolution failure due to lookup table: 8 % N UC-BCL resolution dropped due to lookup table: 0 % Max entries in substitution set: 6 % N unit clauses dropped because they exceeded max values: 31 % 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: 13 % Total number of terms of all unit clauses in table: 25 % 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: 0.52 % Number of symbols (columns) in UCFA: 41 % Profile 2: Number of calls to: % ============================== % PTUnify() = 1589 % ConstructUnitClause() = 40 % Profile 1: Time spent in: % ========================= % ConstructUnitClause() : 0.00 secs % -------------------------------------------------------- % | | % Inferences per sec: inf % | | % -------------------------------------------------------- % Elapsed time: 0 secs % CPU time: 0.14 secs % %------------------------------------------------------------------------------