%------------------------------------------------------------------------------ % File : CARINE---0.734 % Problem : SET786-1 : TPTP v5.0.0. Released v2.5.0. % Transfm : add_equality % Format : carine % Command : carine %s t=%d xo=off uct=32000 % Computer : art09.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 05:42:55 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/SystemOnTPTP9208/SET/SET786-1+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 = 0] [nf = 0] [nu = 0] [ut = 0] % Looking for a proof at depth = 2 ... % t = 0 secs [nr = 41] [nf = 14] [nu = 0] [ut = 0] % Looking for a proof at depth = 3 ... % t = 0 secs [nr = 193] [nf = 39] [nu = 0] [ut = 0] % Looking for a proof at depth = 4 ... % t = 0 secs [nr = 925] [nf = 425] [nu = 142] [ut = 5] % Looking for a proof at depth = 5 ... % +================================================+ % | | % | Congratulations!!! ........ A proof was found. | % | | % +================================================+ % Base Clauses and Unit Clauses used in proof: % ============================================ % Base Clauses: % ------------- % B0: element_2(x0,sk1_0()) | element_2(x0,sk2_1(x0)) % B1: ~element_2(x1,sk1_0()) | ~element_2(x1,x0) | ~element_2(x0,x1) % Unit Clauses: % -------------- % U2: < d4 v0 dv0 f0 c2 t2 td1 > element_2(sk1_0(),sk1_0()) % U3: < d4 v0 dv0 f1 c2 t3 td2 > element_2(sk2_1(sk1_0()),sk1_0()) % U5: < d5 v0 dv0 f1 c2 t3 td2 > ~element_2(sk2_1(sk1_0()),sk1_0()) % --------------- Start of Proof --------------- % Derivation of unit clause U2: % element_2(x0,sk1_0()) | element_2(x0,sk2_1(x0)) ....... B0 % ~element_2(x1,sk1_0()) | ~element_2(x1,x0) | ~element_2(x0,x1) ....... B1 % element_2(x0, sk1_0()) | ~element_2(sk2_1(x0), sk1_0()) | ~element_2(sk2_1(x0), x0) ....... R1 [B0:L1, B1:L2] % element_2(sk1_0(), sk1_0()) | ~element_2(sk2_1(sk1_0()), sk1_0()) ....... R2 [R1:L2, R1:L1] % element_2(x0,sk1_0()) | element_2(sk2_1(x0),x0) ....... B2 % element_2(sk1_0(), sk1_0()) | element_2(sk1_0(), sk1_0()) ....... R3 [R2:L1, B2:L1] % element_2(sk1_0(), sk1_0()) ....... R4 [R3:L0, R3:L1] % Derivation of unit clause U3: % ~element_2(x1,sk1_0()) | ~element_2(x1,x0) | ~element_2(x0,x1) ....... B1 % ~element_2(x0, sk1_0()) | ~element_2(sk1_0(), x0) ....... R1 [B1:L0, B1:L1] % element_2(x0,sk1_0()) | element_2(sk2_1(x0),x0) ....... B2 % ~element_2(sk1_0(), x0) | element_2(sk2_1(x0), x0) ....... R2 [R1:L0, B2:L0] % element_2(x0,sk1_0()) | element_2(sk2_1(x0),x0) ....... B2 % element_2(sk2_1(sk1_0()), sk1_0()) | element_2(sk2_1(sk1_0()), sk1_0()) ....... R3 [R2:L0, B2:L0] % element_2(sk2_1(sk1_0()), sk1_0()) ....... R4 [R3:L0, R3:L1] % Derivation of unit clause U5: % element_2(x0,sk1_0()) | element_2(x0,sk2_1(x0)) ....... B0 % ~element_2(x1,sk1_0()) | ~element_2(x1,x0) | ~element_2(x0,x1) ....... B1 % element_2(x0, sk2_1(x0)) | ~element_2(x0, x1) | ~element_2(x1, x0) ....... R1 [B0:L0, B1:L0] % element_2(x0, sk2_1(x0)) | ~element_2(x0, x0) ....... R2 [R1:L2, R1:L1] % ~element_2(x1,sk1_0()) | ~element_2(x1,x0) | ~element_2(x0,x1) ....... B1 % ~element_2(x0, x0) | ~element_2(x0, sk1_0()) | ~element_2(sk2_1(x0), x0) ....... R3 [R2:L0, B1:L1] % ~element_2(sk1_0(), sk1_0()) | ~element_2(sk2_1(sk1_0()), sk1_0()) ....... R4 [R3:L0, R3:L1] % element_2(sk1_0(),sk1_0()) ....... U2 % ~element_2(sk2_1(sk1_0()), sk1_0()) ....... R5 [R4:L0, U2:L0] % Derivation of the empty clause: % ~element_2(sk2_1(sk1_0()),sk1_0()) ....... U5 % element_2(sk2_1(sk1_0()),sk1_0()) ....... U3 % [] ....... R1 [U5:L0, U3:L0] % --------------- End of Proof --------------- % PROOF FOUND! % --------------------------------------------- % | Statistics | % --------------------------------------------- % Profile 3: Performance Statistics: % ================================== % Total number of generated clauses: 1366 % resolvents: 934 factors: 432 % Number of unit clauses generated: 145 % % unit clauses generated to total clauses generated: 10.61 % Number of unit clauses constructed and retained at depth [x]: % ============================================================= % [4] = 5 [5] = 1 % Total = 6 % Number of generated clauses having [x] literals: % ------------------------------------------------ % [1] = 145 [2] = 840 [3] = 381 % Average size of a generated clause: 3.0 % Number of unit clauses per predicate list: % ========================================== % [0] element_2 (+)5 (-)1 % ------------------ % Total: (+)5 (-)1 % Total number of unit clauses retained: 6 % Number of clauses skipped because of their length: 560 % N base clauses skippped in resolve-with-all-base-clauses % because of the shortest resolvents table: 75 % Number of successful unifications: 1379 % Number of unification failures: 1329 % Number of unit to unit unification failures: 3 % N literal unification failure due to lookup root_id table: 361 % N base clause resolution failure due to lookup table: 1325 % N UC-BCL resolution dropped due to lookup table: 0 % Max entries in substitution set: 6 % N unit clauses dropped because they exceeded max values: 63 % 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: 5 % Max term depth in a unit clause: 3 % Number of states in UCFA table: 16 % 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: 0.76 % Number of symbols (columns) in UCFA: 37 % Profile 2: Number of calls to: % ============================== % PTUnify() = 2708 % ConstructUnitClause() = 69 % Profile 1: Time spent in: % ========================= % ConstructUnitClause() : 0.00 secs % -------------------------------------------------------- % | | % Inferences per sec: inf % | | % -------------------------------------------------------- % Elapsed time: 0 secs % CPU time: 0.13 secs % %------------------------------------------------------------------------------