%------------------------------------------------------------------------------ % File : CARINE---0.734 % Problem : SET003-1 : TPTP v5.0.0. Released v1.0.0. % Transfm : add_equality % Format : carine % Command : carine %s t=%d xo=off uct=32000 % Computer : art01.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 04:46:32 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/SystemOnTPTP14707/SET/SET003-1+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 = 1 secs [nr = 11] [nf = 0] [nu = 8] [ut = 6] % Looking for a proof at depth = 2 ... % +================================================+ % | | % | Congratulations!!! ........ A proof was found. | % | | % +================================================+ % Base Clauses and Unit Clauses used in proof: % ============================================ % Base Clauses: % ------------- % B0: ~subset_2(a_0(),aUa_0()) % B1: union_3(a_0(),a_0(),aUa_0()) % B4: member_2(member_of_1_not_of_2_2(x0,x1),x0) | subset_2(x0,x1) % B5: ~member_2(member_of_1_not_of_2_2(x0,x1),x1) | subset_2(x0,x1) % B6: ~member_2(x3,x0) | ~union_3(x0,x1,x2) | member_2(x3,x2) % Unit Clauses: % -------------- % U4: < d1 v0 dv0 f1 c3 t4 td2 > member_2(member_of_1_not_of_2_2(a_0(),aUa_0()),a_0()) % U5: < d1 v0 dv0 f1 c3 t4 td2 > ~member_2(member_of_1_not_of_2_2(a_0(),aUa_0()),aUa_0()) % U6: < d2 v0 dv0 f1 c3 t4 td2 > member_2(member_of_1_not_of_2_2(a_0(),aUa_0()),aUa_0()) % --------------- Start of Proof --------------- % Derivation of unit clause U4: % ~subset_2(a_0(),aUa_0()) ....... B0 % member_2(member_of_1_not_of_2_2(x0,x1),x0) | subset_2(x0,x1) ....... B4 % member_2(member_of_1_not_of_2_2(a_0(), aUa_0()), a_0()) ....... R1 [B0:L0, B4:L1] % Derivation of unit clause U5: % ~subset_2(a_0(),aUa_0()) ....... B0 % ~member_2(member_of_1_not_of_2_2(x0,x1),x1) | subset_2(x0,x1) ....... B5 % ~member_2(member_of_1_not_of_2_2(a_0(), aUa_0()), aUa_0()) ....... R1 [B0:L0, B5:L1] % Derivation of unit clause U6: % union_3(a_0(),a_0(),aUa_0()) ....... B1 % ~member_2(x3,x0) | ~union_3(x0,x1,x2) | member_2(x3,x2) ....... B6 % ~member_2(x0, a_0()) | member_2(x0, aUa_0()) ....... R1 [B1:L0, B6:L1] % member_2(member_of_1_not_of_2_2(a_0(),aUa_0()),a_0()) ....... U4 % member_2(member_of_1_not_of_2_2(a_0(), aUa_0()), aUa_0()) ....... R2 [R1:L0, U4:L0] % Derivation of the empty clause: % member_2(member_of_1_not_of_2_2(a_0(),aUa_0()),aUa_0()) ....... U6 % ~member_2(member_of_1_not_of_2_2(a_0(),aUa_0()),aUa_0()) ....... U5 % [] ....... R1 [U6:L0, U5:L0] % --------------- End of Proof --------------- % PROOF FOUND! % --------------------------------------------- % | Statistics | % --------------------------------------------- % Profile 3: Performance Statistics: % ================================== % Total number of generated clauses: 17 % resolvents: 17 factors: 0 % Number of unit clauses generated: 13 % % unit clauses generated to total clauses generated: 76.47 % Number of unit clauses constructed and retained at depth [x]: % ============================================================= % [0] = 2 [1] = 4 [2] = 1 % Total = 7 % Number of generated clauses having [x] literals: % ------------------------------------------------ % [1] = 13 [2] = 4 % Average size of a generated clause: 2.0 % Number of unit clauses per predicate list: % ========================================== % [0] equal_sets_2 (+)0 (-)2 % [1] member_2 (+)2 (-)1 % [2] subset_2 (+)0 (-)1 % [3] union_3 (+)1 (-)0 % ------------------ % Total: (+)3 (-)4 % Total number of unit clauses retained: 7 % Number of clauses skipped because of their length: 28 % N base clauses skippped in resolve-with-all-base-clauses % because of the shortest resolvents table: 0 % Number of successful unifications: 21 % Number of unification failures: 2 % Number of unit to unit unification failures: 1 % N literal unification failure due to lookup root_id table: 16 % N base clause resolution failure due to lookup table: 35 % N UC-BCL resolution dropped due to lookup table: 0 % Max entries in substitution set: 3 % N unit clauses dropped because they exceeded max values: 4 % 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: 4 % Max term depth in a unit clause: 2 % Number of states in UCFA table: 19 % Total number of terms of all unit clauses in table: 21 % 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: 0.90 % Number of symbols (columns) in UCFA: 42 % Profile 2: Number of calls to: % ============================== % PTUnify() = 23 % ConstructUnitClause() = 9 % Profile 1: Time spent in: % ========================= % ConstructUnitClause() : 0.00 secs % -------------------------------------------------------- % | | % Inferences per sec: inf % | | % -------------------------------------------------------- % Elapsed time: 1 secs % CPU time: 0.14 secs % %------------------------------------------------------------------------------