%------------------------------------------------------------------------------ % File : CARINE---0.734 % Problem : PUZ012-1 : TPTP v5.0.0. Bugfixed v1.2.1. % 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 03:53:28 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/SystemOnTPTP22886/PUZ/PUZ012-1+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 = 18] [nf = 0] [nu = 8] [ut = 16] % Looking for a proof at depth = 2 ... % t = 0 secs [nr = 82] [nf = 4] [nu = 32] [ut = 20] % Looking for a proof at depth = 3 ... % +================================================+ % | | % | Congratulations!!! ........ A proof was found. | % | | % +================================================+ % Base Clauses and Unit Clauses used in proof: % ============================================ % Base Clauses: % ------------- % B0: ~contains_2(boxc_0(),oranges_0()) | ~contains_2(boxa_0(),bananas_0()) % B3: contains_2(boxb_0(),apples_0()) % B12: label_2(boxc_0(),bananas_0()) % B13: ~contains_2(x0,x1) | ~label_2(x0,x1) % B14: ~contains_2(x0,x2) | ~contains_2(x0,x1) | equal_fruits_2(x1,x2) % B15: ~contains_2(x2,x1) | ~contains_2(x0,x1) | equal_boxes_2(x0,x2) % B16: contains_2(x0,apples_0()) | contains_2(x0,bananas_0()) | contains_2(x0,oranges_0()) % B17: contains_2(boxa_0(),x0) | contains_2(boxb_0(),x0) | contains_2(boxc_0(),x0) % Unit Clauses: % -------------- % U5: < d0 v0 dv0 f0 c2 t2 td1 b > ~equal_boxes_2(boxb_0(),boxc_0()) % U6: < d0 v0 dv0 f0 c2 t2 td1 b > ~equal_fruits_2(apples_0(),bananas_0()) % U11: < d0 v0 dv0 f0 c2 t2 td1 b > label_2(boxc_0(),bananas_0()) % U15: < d1 v0 dv0 f0 c2 t2 td1 > ~contains_2(boxc_0(),bananas_0()) % U17: < d2 v0 dv0 f0 c2 t2 td1 > ~contains_2(boxb_0(),bananas_0()) % U19: < d2 v0 dv0 f0 c2 t2 td1 > ~contains_2(boxc_0(),apples_0()) % U21: < d3 v0 dv0 f0 c2 t2 td1 > ~contains_2(boxc_0(),oranges_0()) % U24: < d3 v0 dv0 f0 c2 t2 td1 > contains_2(boxc_0(),oranges_0()) % --------------- Start of Proof --------------- % Derivation of unit clause U5: % ~equal_boxes_2(boxb_0(),boxc_0()) ....... U5 % Derivation of unit clause U6: % ~equal_fruits_2(apples_0(),bananas_0()) ....... U6 % Derivation of unit clause U11: % label_2(boxc_0(),bananas_0()) ....... U11 % Derivation of unit clause U15: % label_2(boxc_0(),bananas_0()) ....... B12 % ~contains_2(x0,x1) | ~label_2(x0,x1) ....... B13 % ~contains_2(boxc_0(), bananas_0()) ....... R1 [B12:L0, B13:L1] % Derivation of unit clause U17: % contains_2(boxb_0(),apples_0()) ....... B3 % ~contains_2(x0,x2) | ~contains_2(x0,x1) | equal_fruits_2(x1,x2) ....... B14 % ~contains_2(boxb_0(), x0) | equal_fruits_2(apples_0(), x0) ....... R1 [B3:L0, B14:L1] % ~equal_fruits_2(apples_0(),bananas_0()) ....... U6 % ~contains_2(boxb_0(), bananas_0()) ....... R2 [R1:L1, U6:L0] % Derivation of unit clause U19: % contains_2(boxb_0(),apples_0()) ....... B3 % ~contains_2(x2,x1) | ~contains_2(x0,x1) | equal_boxes_2(x0,x2) ....... B15 % ~contains_2(x0, apples_0()) | equal_boxes_2(boxb_0(), x0) ....... R1 [B3:L0, B15:L1] % ~equal_boxes_2(boxb_0(),boxc_0()) ....... U5 % ~contains_2(boxc_0(), apples_0()) ....... R2 [R1:L1, U5:L0] % Derivation of unit clause U21: % ~contains_2(boxc_0(),oranges_0()) | ~contains_2(boxa_0(),bananas_0()) ....... B0 % contains_2(boxa_0(),x0) | contains_2(boxb_0(),x0) | contains_2(boxc_0(),x0) ....... B17 % ~contains_2(boxc_0(), oranges_0()) | contains_2(boxb_0(), bananas_0()) | contains_2(boxc_0(), bananas_0()) ....... R1 [B0:L1, B17:L0] % ~contains_2(boxb_0(),bananas_0()) ....... U17 % ~contains_2(boxc_0(), oranges_0()) | contains_2(boxc_0(), bananas_0()) ....... R2 [R1:L1, U17:L0] % ~contains_2(boxc_0(),bananas_0()) ....... U15 % ~contains_2(boxc_0(), oranges_0()) ....... R3 [R2:L1, U15:L0] % Derivation of unit clause U24: % ~contains_2(x0,x1) | ~label_2(x0,x1) ....... B13 % contains_2(x0,apples_0()) | contains_2(x0,bananas_0()) | contains_2(x0,oranges_0()) ....... B16 % ~label_2(x0, bananas_0()) | contains_2(x0, apples_0()) | contains_2(x0, oranges_0()) ....... R1 [B13:L0, B16:L1] % label_2(boxc_0(),bananas_0()) ....... U11 % contains_2(boxc_0(), apples_0()) | contains_2(boxc_0(), oranges_0()) ....... R2 [R1:L0, U11:L0] % ~contains_2(boxc_0(),apples_0()) ....... U19 % contains_2(boxc_0(), oranges_0()) ....... R3 [R2:L0, U19:L0] % Derivation of the empty clause: % contains_2(boxc_0(),oranges_0()) ....... U24 % ~contains_2(boxc_0(),oranges_0()) ....... U21 % [] ....... R1 [U24:L0, U21:L0] % --------------- End of Proof --------------- % PROOF FOUND! % --------------------------------------------- % | Statistics | % --------------------------------------------- % Profile 3: Performance Statistics: % ================================== % Total number of generated clauses: 235 % resolvents: 231 factors: 4 % Number of unit clauses generated: 63 % % unit clauses generated to total clauses generated: 26.81 % Number of unit clauses constructed and retained at depth [x]: % ============================================================= % [0] = 12 [1] = 4 [2] = 4 [3] = 5 % Total = 25 % Number of generated clauses having [x] literals: % ------------------------------------------------ % [1] = 63 [2] = 82 [3] = 90 % Average size of a generated clause: 3.0 % Number of unit clauses per predicate list: % ========================================== % [0] contains_2 (+)3 (-)7 % [1] equal_boxes_2 (+)2 (-)3 % [2] equal_fruits_2 (+)2 (-)3 % [3] label_2 (+)3 (-)2 % ------------------ % Total: (+)10 (-)15 % Total number of unit clauses retained: 25 % Number of clauses skipped because of their length: 196 % N base clauses skippped in resolve-with-all-base-clauses % because of the shortest resolvents table: 5 % Number of successful unifications: 246 % Number of unification failures: 263 % Number of unit to unit unification failures: 38 % N literal unification failure due to lookup root_id table: 354 % N base clause resolution failure due to lookup table: 256 % 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: 22 % 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: 30 % 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: 0.60 % Number of symbols (columns) in UCFA: 44 % Profile 2: Number of calls to: % ============================== % PTUnify() = 509 % ConstructUnitClause() = 35 % Profile 1: Time spent in: % ========================= % ConstructUnitClause() : 0.00 secs % -------------------------------------------------------- % | | % Inferences per sec: inf % | | % -------------------------------------------------------- % Elapsed time: 0 secs % CPU time: 0.14 secs % %------------------------------------------------------------------------------