%------------------------------------------------------------------------------ % File : CARINE---0.734 % Problem : PUZ022-1 : TPTP v5.0.0. Released v1.1.0. % Transfm : add_equality % Format : carine % Command : carine %s t=%d xo=off uct=32000 % Computer : art02.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 03:55:18 EST 2010 % Result : Unsatisfiable 121.04s % Output : Refutation 121.04s % 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/SystemOnTPTP26725/PUZ/PUZ022-1+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 = 62] [nf = 0] [nu = 60] [ut = 51] % Looking for a proof at depth = 2 ... % t = 0 secs [nr = 208] [nf = 0] [nu = 200] [ut = 51] % Looking for a proof at depth = 3 ... % t = 0 secs [nr = 522] [nf = 0] [nu = 500] [ut = 51] % Looking for a proof at depth = 4 ... % t = 0 secs [nr = 1172] [nf = 0] [nu = 1120] [ut = 51] % Looking for a proof at depth = 5 ... % t = 0 secs [nr = 13631] [nf = 176] [nu = 3653] [ut = 58] % Looking for a proof at depth = 6 ... % t = 1 secs [nr = 48342] [nf = 1136] [nu = 10990] [ut = 58] % Looking for a proof at depth = 7 ... % t = 1 secs [nr = 136057] [nf = 3664] [nu = 30091] [ut = 58] % Looking for a proof at depth = 8 ... % t = 2 secs [nr = 350824] [nf = 10672] [nu = 77516] [ut = 58] % Looking for a proof at depth = 9 ... % t = 5 secs [nr = 877491] [nf = 29328] [nu = 194129] [ut = 58] % Looking for a proof at depth = 10 ... % t = 13 secs [nr = 2185514] [nf = 80688] [nu = 482778] [ut = 58] % Looking for a proof at depth = 11 ... % t = 34 secs [nr = 5496221] [nf = 224336] [nu = 1208647] [ut = 58] % Looking for a proof at depth = 12 ... % t = 86 secs [nr = 14057052] [nf = 634544] [nu = 3071064] [ut = 58] % Looking for a proof at depth = 13 ... % Entering time slice 2 % Updating parameters ... done. % Looking for a proof at depth = 1 ... % t = 122 secs [nr = 19954352] [nf = 1060650] [nu = 4314288] [ut = 58] % Looking for a proof at depth = 2 ... % t = 122 secs [nr = 19954519] [nf = 1060650] [nu = 4314449] [ut = 58] % Looking for a proof at depth = 3 ... % t = 122 secs [nr = 19954882] [nf = 1060650] [nu = 4314798] [ut = 58] % Looking for a proof at depth = 4 ... % t = 122 secs [nr = 19955715] [nf = 1060846] [nu = 4315523] [ut = 58] % Looking for a proof at depth = 5 ... % +================================================+ % | | % | Congratulations!!! ........ A proof was found. | % | | % +================================================+ % Base Clauses and Unit Clauses used in proof: % ============================================ % Base Clauses: % ------------- % B0: ocean_1(atlantic_0()) % B1: ocean_1(indian_0()) % B11: borders_2(indian_0(),western_australia_0()) % B12: borders_2(indian_0(),northern_territory_0()) % B22: borders_2(western_australia_0(),northern_territory_0()) % B31: ~ocean_1(x2) | ~state_1(x1) | ~state_1(x0) | ~borders_2(x1,x2) | ~borders_2(x0,x2) | ~borders_2(x0,x1) % B32: ~borders_2(x0,x1) | borders_2(x1,x0) % Unit Clauses: % -------------- % U4: < d0 v0 dv0 f0 c1 t1 td1 b nc > state_1(western_australia_0()) % U5: < d0 v0 dv0 f0 c1 t1 td1 b nc > state_1(northern_territory_0()) % U31: < d1 v0 dv0 f0 c2 t2 td1 > borders_2(western_australia_0(),indian_0()) % U32: < d1 v0 dv0 f0 c2 t2 td1 > borders_2(northern_territory_0(),indian_0()) % U42: < d1 v0 dv0 f0 c2 t2 td1 > borders_2(northern_territory_0(),western_australia_0()) % U58: < d5 v0 dv0 f0 c2 t2 td1 > ~borders_2(northern_territory_0(),western_australia_0()) % --------------- Start of Proof --------------- % Derivation of unit clause U4: % state_1(western_australia_0()) ....... U4 % Derivation of unit clause U5: % state_1(northern_territory_0()) ....... U5 % Derivation of unit clause U31: % borders_2(indian_0(),western_australia_0()) ....... B11 % ~borders_2(x0,x1) | borders_2(x1,x0) ....... B32 % borders_2(western_australia_0(), indian_0()) ....... R1 [B11:L0, B32:L0] % Derivation of unit clause U32: % borders_2(indian_0(),northern_territory_0()) ....... B12 % ~borders_2(x0,x1) | borders_2(x1,x0) ....... B32 % borders_2(northern_territory_0(), indian_0()) ....... R1 [B12:L0, B32:L0] % Derivation of unit clause U42: % borders_2(western_australia_0(),northern_territory_0()) ....... B22 % ~borders_2(x0,x1) | borders_2(x1,x0) ....... B32 % borders_2(northern_territory_0(), western_australia_0()) ....... R1 [B22:L0, B32:L0] % Derivation of unit clause U58: % ocean_1(indian_0()) ....... B1 % ~ocean_1(x2) | ~state_1(x1) | ~state_1(x0) | ~borders_2(x1,x2) | ~borders_2(x0,x2) | ~borders_2(x0,x1) ....... B31 % ~state_1(x0) | ~state_1(x1) | ~borders_2(x0, indian_0()) | ~borders_2(x1, indian_0()) | ~borders_2(x1, x0) ....... R1 [B1:L0, B31:L0] % state_1(western_australia_0()) ....... U4 % ~state_1(x0) | ~borders_2(western_australia_0(), indian_0()) | ~borders_2(x0, indian_0()) | ~borders_2(x0, western_australia_0()) ....... R2 [R1:L0, U4:L0] % state_1(northern_territory_0()) ....... U5 % ~borders_2(western_australia_0(), indian_0()) | ~borders_2(northern_territory_0(), indian_0()) | ~borders_2(northern_territory_0(), western_australia_0()) ....... R3 [R2:L0, U5:L0] % borders_2(western_australia_0(),indian_0()) ....... U31 % ~borders_2(northern_territory_0(), indian_0()) | ~borders_2(northern_territory_0(), western_australia_0()) ....... R4 [R3:L0, U31:L0] % borders_2(northern_territory_0(),indian_0()) ....... U32 % ~borders_2(northern_territory_0(), western_australia_0()) ....... R5 [R4:L0, U32:L0] % Derivation of the empty clause: % ~borders_2(northern_territory_0(),western_australia_0()) ....... U58 % borders_2(northern_territory_0(),western_australia_0()) ....... U42 % [] ....... R1 [U58:L0, U42:L0] % --------------- End of Proof --------------- % PROOF FOUND! % --------------------------------------------- % | Statistics | % --------------------------------------------- % Profile 3: Performance Statistics: % ================================== % Total number of generated clauses: 21018774 % resolvents: 19957844 factors: 1060930 % Number of unit clauses generated: 4315598 % % unit clauses generated to total clauses generated: 20.53 % Number of unit clauses constructed and retained at depth [x]: % ============================================================= % [0] = 31 [1] = 20 [5] = 8 % Total = 59 % Number of generated clauses having [x] literals: % ------------------------------------------------ % [1] = 4315598 [2] = 12766103 [3] = 3931680 [4] = 4131 [5] = 1262 % Average size of a generated clause: 2.0 % Number of unit clauses per predicate list: % ========================================== % [0] ocean_1 (+)4 (-)0 % [1] state_1 (+)7 (-)0 % [2] borders_2 (+)40 (-)8 % ------------------ % Total: (+)51 (-)8 % Total number of unit clauses retained: 59 % Number of clauses skipped because of their length: 2449136 % N base clauses skippped in resolve-with-all-base-clauses % because of the shortest resolvents table: 0 % Number of successful unifications: 21018782 % Number of unification failures: 579353838 % Number of unit to unit unification failures: 311 % N literal unification failure due to lookup root_id table: 16970684 % N base clause resolution failure due to lookup table: 188 % N UC-BCL resolution dropped due to lookup table: 0 % Max entries in substitution set: 24 % N unit clauses dropped because they exceeded max values: 2680128 % 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: 24 % Total number of terms of all unit clauses in table: 107 % 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: 0.22 % Number of symbols (columns) in UCFA: 48 % Profile 2: Number of calls to: % ============================== % PTUnify() = 600372620 % ConstructUnitClause() = 2680156 % Profile 1: Time spent in: % ========================= % ConstructUnitClause() : 2.41 secs % -------------------------------------------------------- % | | % Inferences per sec: 173709 % | | % -------------------------------------------------------- % Elapsed time: 122 secs % CPU time: 121.01 secs % %------------------------------------------------------------------------------