%------------------------------------------------------------------------------ % File : CARINE---0.734 % Problem : PUZ008-1 : TPTP v5.0.0. Released v1.0.0. % Transfm : add_equality % Format : carine % Command : carine %s t=%d xo=off uct=32000 % Computer : art03.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 03:51:37 EST 2010 % Result : Unsatisfiable 0.37s % Output : Refutation 0.37s % 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/SystemOnTPTP21545/PUZ/PUZ008-1+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 ... % +================================================+ % | | % | Congratulations!!! ........ A proof was found. | % | | % +================================================+ % Base Clauses and Unit Clauses used in proof: % ============================================ % Base Clauses: % ------------- % B0: ~achievable_3(west_2(m_1(n0_0()),c_1(n0_0())),x0,east_2(m_1(s_1(s_1(s_1(n0_0())))),c_1(s_1(s_1(s_1(n0_0())))))) % B9: ~achievable_3(west_2(m_1(s_1(x0)),c_1(x1)),boatonwest_0(),east_2(m_1(x2),c_1(x3))) | achievable_3(west_2(m_1(x0),c_1(x1)),boatoneast_0(),east_2(m_1(s_1(x2)),c_1(x3))) % Unit Clauses: % -------------- % U1: < d0 v5 dv4 f7 c0 t12 td5 b > achievable_3(west_2(x0,x1),x2,east_2(m_1(s_1(x3)),c_1(s_1(s_1(x3))))) % U7: < d1 v0 dv0 f12 c5 t17 td6 > ~achievable_3(west_2(m_1(s_1(n0_0())),c_1(n0_0())),boatonwest_0(),east_2(m_1(s_1(s_1(n0_0()))),c_1(s_1(s_1(s_1(n0_0())))))) % --------------- Start of Proof --------------- % Derivation of unit clause U1: % achievable_3(west_2(x0,x1),x2,east_2(m_1(s_1(x3)),c_1(s_1(s_1(x3))))) ....... U1 % Derivation of unit clause U7: % ~achievable_3(west_2(m_1(n0_0()),c_1(n0_0())),x0,east_2(m_1(s_1(s_1(s_1(n0_0())))),c_1(s_1(s_1(s_1(n0_0())))))) ....... B0 % ~achievable_3(west_2(m_1(s_1(x0)),c_1(x1)),boatonwest_0(),east_2(m_1(x2),c_1(x3))) | achievable_3(west_2(m_1(x0),c_1(x1)),boatoneast_0(),east_2(m_1(s_1(x2)),c_1(x3))) ....... B9 % ~achievable_3(west_2(m_1(s_1(n0_0())), c_1(n0_0())), boatonwest_0(), east_2(m_1(s_1(s_1(n0_0()))), c_1(s_1(s_1(s_1(n0_0())))))) ....... R1 [B0:L0, B9:L1] % Derivation of the empty clause: % ~achievable_3(west_2(m_1(s_1(n0_0())),c_1(n0_0())),boatonwest_0(),east_2(m_1(s_1(s_1(n0_0()))),c_1(s_1(s_1(s_1(n0_0())))))) ....... U7 % achievable_3(west_2(x0,x1),x2,east_2(m_1(s_1(x3)),c_1(s_1(s_1(x3))))) ....... U1 % [] ....... R1 [U7:L0, U1:L0] % --------------- End of Proof --------------- % PROOF FOUND! % --------------------------------------------- % | Statistics | % --------------------------------------------- % Profile 3: Performance Statistics: % ================================== % Total number of generated clauses: 2 % resolvents: 2 factors: 0 % Number of unit clauses generated: 2 % % unit clauses generated to total clauses generated: 100.00 % Number of unit clauses constructed and retained at depth [x]: % ============================================================= % [0] = 6 [1] = 2 % Total = 8 % Number of generated clauses having [x] literals: % ------------------------------------------------ % [1] = 2 % Average size of a generated clause: 1.0 % Number of unit clauses per predicate list: % ========================================== % [0] achievable_3 (+)5 (-)3 % ------------------ % Total: (+)5 (-)3 % Total number of unit clauses retained: 8 % Number of clauses skipped because of their length: 0 % N base clauses skippped in resolve-with-all-base-clauses % because of the shortest resolvents table: 0 % Number of successful unifications: 3 % Number of unification failures: 0 % Number of unit to unit unification failures: 10 % N literal unification failure due to lookup root_id table: 2 % N base clause resolution failure due to lookup table: 2 % 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: 0 % 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: 17 % Max term depth in a unit clause: 6 % Number of states in UCFA table: 87 % Total number of terms of all unit clauses in table: 118 % 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: 0.74 % Number of symbols (columns) in UCFA: 43 % Profile 2: Number of calls to: % ============================== % PTUnify() = 3 % ConstructUnitClause() = 2 % Profile 1: Time spent in: % ========================= % ConstructUnitClause() : 0.00 secs % -------------------------------------------------------- % | | % Inferences per sec: inf % | | % -------------------------------------------------------- % Elapsed time: 1 secs % CPU time: 0.36 secs % %------------------------------------------------------------------------------