%------------------------------------------------------------------------------ % File : CARINE---0.734 % Problem : RNG038-2 : TPTP v5.0.0. Released v1.0.0. % Transfm : add_equality % Format : carine % Command : carine %s t=%d xo=off uct=32000 % Computer : art05.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 04:32:23 EST 2010 % Result : Unsatisfiable 0.16s % Output : Refutation 0.16s % 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/SystemOnTPTP31335/RNG/RNG038-2+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 = 9] [ut = 12] % Looking for a proof at depth = 2 ... % t = 0 secs [nr = 5174] [nf = 86] [nu = 2915] [ut = 421] % Looking for a proof at depth = 3 ... % +================================================+ % | | % | Congratulations!!! ........ A proof was found. | % | | % +================================================+ % Base Clauses and Unit Clauses used in proof: % ============================================ % Base Clauses: % ------------- % B0: ~equalish_2(a_0(),additive_identity_0()) % B4: product_3(x0,additive_identity_0(),additive_identity_0()) % B20: ~product_3(x0,x1,x3) | ~product_3(x0,x1,x2) | equalish_2(x2,x3) % Unit Clauses: % -------------- % U4: < d0 v1 dv1 f0 c2 t3 td1 b > product_3(x0,additive_identity_0(),additive_identity_0()) % U5: < d0 v1 dv1 f0 c2 t3 td1 b > product_3(additive_identity_0(),x0,additive_identity_0()) % U115: < d2 v0 dv0 f0 c2 t2 td1 > equalish_2(additive_identity_0(),additive_identity_0()) % U423: < d3 v0 dv0 f0 c2 t2 td1 > ~equalish_2(additive_identity_0(),additive_identity_0()) % --------------- Start of Proof --------------- % Derivation of unit clause U4: % product_3(x0,additive_identity_0(),additive_identity_0()) ....... U4 % Derivation of unit clause U5: % product_3(additive_identity_0(),x0,additive_identity_0()) ....... U5 % Derivation of unit clause U115: % product_3(x0,additive_identity_0(),additive_identity_0()) ....... B4 % ~product_3(x0,x1,x3) | ~product_3(x0,x1,x2) | equalish_2(x2,x3) ....... B20 % ~product_3(x0, additive_identity_0(), x1) | equalish_2(x1, additive_identity_0()) ....... R1 [B4:L0, B20:L0] % product_3(x0,additive_identity_0(),additive_identity_0()) ....... U4 % equalish_2(additive_identity_0(), additive_identity_0()) ....... R2 [R1:L0, U4:L0] % Derivation of unit clause U423: % ~equalish_2(a_0(),additive_identity_0()) ....... B0 % ~product_3(x0,x1,x3) | ~product_3(x0,x1,x2) | equalish_2(x2,x3) ....... B20 % ~product_3(x0, x1, additive_identity_0()) | ~product_3(x0, x1, a_0()) ....... R1 [B0:L0, B20:L2] % ~equalish_2(x0,additive_identity_0()) | product_3(x0,h_2(x0,x1),x1) ....... B13 % ~product_3(x0, h_2(x0, a_0()), additive_identity_0()) | ~equalish_2(x0, additive_identity_0()) ....... R2 [R1:L1, B13:L1] % product_3(additive_identity_0(),x0,additive_identity_0()) ....... U5 % ~equalish_2(additive_identity_0(), additive_identity_0()) ....... R3 [R2:L0, U5:L0] % Derivation of the empty clause: % ~equalish_2(additive_identity_0(),additive_identity_0()) ....... U423 % equalish_2(additive_identity_0(),additive_identity_0()) ....... U115 % [] ....... R1 [U423:L0, U115:L0] % --------------- End of Proof --------------- % PROOF FOUND! % --------------------------------------------- % | Statistics | % --------------------------------------------- % Profile 3: Performance Statistics: % ================================== % Total number of generated clauses: 5346 % resolvents: 5260 factors: 86 % Number of unit clauses generated: 2998 % % unit clauses generated to total clauses generated: 56.08 % Number of unit clauses constructed and retained at depth [x]: % ============================================================= % [0] = 9 [1] = 3 [2] = 409 [3] = 3 % Total = 424 % Number of generated clauses having [x] literals: % ------------------------------------------------ % [1] = 2998 [2] = 2267 [3] = 81 % Average size of a generated clause: 2.0 % Number of unit clauses per predicate list: % ========================================== % [0] equalish_2 (+)104 (-)39 % [1] product_3 (+)89 (-)28 % [2] sum_3 (+)102 (-)62 % ------------------ % Total: (+)295 (-)129 % Total number of unit clauses retained: 424 % Number of clauses skipped because of their length: 621 % N base clauses skippped in resolve-with-all-base-clauses % because of the shortest resolvents table: 0 % Number of successful unifications: 5351 % Number of unification failures: 2314 % Number of unit to unit unification failures: 12797 % N literal unification failure due to lookup root_id table: 1062 % N base clause resolution failure due to lookup table: 324 % N UC-BCL resolution dropped due to lookup table: 19 % Max entries in substitution set: 7 % N unit clauses dropped because they exceeded max values: 2103 % N unit clauses dropped because too much nesting: 414 % 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: 8 % Max term depth in a unit clause: 4 % Number of states in UCFA table: 877 % Total number of terms of all unit clauses in table: 2421 % Max allowed number of states in UCFA: 80000 % Ratio n states used/total allowed states: 0.01 % Ratio n states used/total unit clauses terms: 0.36 % Number of symbols (columns) in UCFA: 44 % Profile 2: Number of calls to: % ============================== % PTUnify() = 7665 % ConstructUnitClause() = 2518 % Profile 1: Time spent in: % ========================= % ConstructUnitClause() : 0.00 secs % -------------------------------------------------------- % | | % Inferences per sec: inf % | | % -------------------------------------------------------- % Elapsed time: 1 secs % CPU time: 0.15 secs % %------------------------------------------------------------------------------