%------------------------------------------------------------------------------ % File : CARINE---0.734 % Problem : SET045-5 : TPTP v5.0.0. Released v1.0.0. % Transfm : add_equality % Format : carine % Command : carine %s t=%d xo=off uct=32000 % Computer : art07.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 04:57:52 EST 2010 % Result : Unsatisfiable 0.13s % Output : Refutation 0.13s % 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/SystemOnTPTP11904/SET/SET045-5+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 = 13] [nf = 2] [nu = 10] [ut = 7] % Looking for a proof at depth = 2 ... % +================================================+ % | | % | Congratulations!!! ........ A proof was found. | % | | % +================================================+ % Base Clauses and Unit Clauses used in proof: % ============================================ % Base Clauses: % ------------- % B0: element_2(x0,a_0()) % B1: ~element_2(x0,x0) | ~element_2(x0,f_1(x1)) % B3: ~element_2(x0,x1) | element_2(x0,x0) | element_2(x0,f_1(x1)) % Unit Clauses: % -------------- % U2: < d1 v2 dv1 f2 c0 t4 td2 > ~element_2(f_1(x0),f_1(x0)) % U7: < d2 v1 dv1 f2 c1 t4 td2 > element_2(f_1(x0),f_1(a_0())) % --------------- Start of Proof --------------- % Derivation of unit clause U2: % ~element_2(x0,x0) | ~element_2(x0,f_1(x1)) ....... B1 % ~element_2(f_1(x0), f_1(x0)) ....... R1 [B1:L0, B1:L1] % Derivation of unit clause U7: % element_2(x0,a_0()) ....... B0 % ~element_2(x0,x1) | element_2(x0,x0) | element_2(x0,f_1(x1)) ....... B3 % element_2(x0, x0) | element_2(x0, f_1(a_0())) ....... R1 [B0:L0, B3:L0] % ~element_2(f_1(x0),f_1(x0)) ....... U2 % element_2(f_1(x0), f_1(a_0())) ....... R2 [R1:L0, U2:L0] % Derivation of the empty clause: % element_2(f_1(x0),f_1(a_0())) ....... U7 % ~element_2(f_1(x0),f_1(x0)) ....... U2 % [] ....... R1 [U7:L0, U2:L0] % --------------- End of Proof --------------- % PROOF FOUND! % --------------------------------------------- % | Statistics | % --------------------------------------------- % Profile 3: Performance Statistics: % ================================== % Total number of generated clauses: 18 % resolvents: 16 factors: 2 % Number of unit clauses generated: 12 % % unit clauses generated to total clauses generated: 66.67 % Number of unit clauses constructed and retained at depth [x]: % ============================================================= % [0] = 1 [1] = 6 [2] = 1 % Total = 8 % Number of generated clauses having [x] literals: % ------------------------------------------------ % [1] = 12 [2] = 6 % Average size of a generated clause: 2.0 % Number of unit clauses per predicate list: % ========================================== % [0] element_2 (+)2 (-)6 % ------------------ % Total: (+)2 (-)6 % Total number of unit clauses retained: 8 % Number of clauses skipped because of their length: 2 % 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: 1 % Number of unit to unit unification failures: 7 % N literal unification failure due to lookup root_id table: 10 % N base clause resolution failure due to lookup table: 3 % 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: 2 % 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: 6 % Max term depth in a unit clause: 4 % Number of states in UCFA table: 18 % Total number of terms of all unit clauses in table: 33 % 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: 0.55 % Number of symbols (columns) in UCFA: 37 % Profile 2: Number of calls to: % ============================== % PTUnify() = 22 % ConstructUnitClause() = 11 % Profile 1: Time spent in: % ========================= % ConstructUnitClause() : 0.00 secs % -------------------------------------------------------- % | | % Inferences per sec: inf % | | % -------------------------------------------------------- % Elapsed time: 0 secs % CPU time: 0.13 secs % %------------------------------------------------------------------------------