%------------------------------------------------------------------------------ % File : CARINE---0.734 % Problem : SET846-2 : TPTP v5.0.0. Released v3.2.0. % 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 05:49:12 EST 2010 % Result : Unsatisfiable 0.37s % Output : Refutation 0.37s % 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/SystemOnTPTP12887/SET/SET846-2+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 ... % +================================================+ % | | % | Congratulations!!! ........ A proof was found. | % | | % +================================================+ % Base Clauses and Unit Clauses used in proof: % ============================================ % Base Clauses: % ------------- % B0: ~c_lessequals_3(c_Zorn_Osucc_3(v_S_0(),c_Union_2(c_Zorn_OTFin_2(v_S_0(),t_a_0()),tc_set_1(t_a_0())),t_a_0()),c_Union_2(c_Zorn_OTFin_2(v_S_0(),t_a_0()),tc_set_1(t_a_0())),tc_set_1(tc_set_1(t_a_0()))) % B1: c_lessequals_3(x0,x0,tc_set_1(x1)) % B2: ~c_in_3(x0,x1,tc_set_1(x2)) | c_lessequals_3(x0,c_Union_2(x1,x2),tc_set_1(x2)) % B3: ~c_in_3(x0,c_Zorn_OTFin_2(x1,x2),tc_set_1(tc_set_1(x2))) | c_in_3(c_Zorn_Osucc_3(x1,x0,x2),c_Zorn_OTFin_2(x1,x2),tc_set_1(tc_set_1(x2))) % B4: ~c_lessequals_3(x0,c_Zorn_OTFin_2(x1,x2),tc_set_1(tc_set_1(tc_set_1(x2)))) | c_in_3(c_Union_2(x0,tc_set_1(x2)),c_Zorn_OTFin_2(x1,x2),tc_set_1(tc_set_1(x2))) % Unit Clauses: % -------------- % U2: < d1 v0 dv0 f7 c8 t15 td4 > ~c_in_3(c_Zorn_Osucc_3(v_S_0(),c_Union_2(c_Zorn_OTFin_2(v_S_0(),t_a_0()),tc_set_1(t_a_0())),t_a_0()),c_Zorn_OTFin_2(v_S_0(),t_a_0()),tc_set_1(tc_set_1(t_a_0()))) % U3: < d1 v6 dv2 f6 c0 t12 td3 > c_in_3(c_Union_2(c_Zorn_OTFin_2(x0,x1),tc_set_1(x1)),c_Zorn_OTFin_2(x0,x1),tc_set_1(tc_set_1(x1))) % U5: < d1 v8 dv2 f7 c0 t15 td4 > c_in_3(c_Zorn_Osucc_3(x0,c_Union_2(c_Zorn_OTFin_2(x0,x1),tc_set_1(x1)),x1),c_Zorn_OTFin_2(x0,x1),tc_set_1(tc_set_1(x1))) % --------------- Start of Proof --------------- % Derivation of unit clause U2: % ~c_lessequals_3(c_Zorn_Osucc_3(v_S_0(),c_Union_2(c_Zorn_OTFin_2(v_S_0(),t_a_0()),tc_set_1(t_a_0())),t_a_0()),c_Union_2(c_Zorn_OTFin_2(v_S_0(),t_a_0()),tc_set_1(t_a_0())),tc_set_1(tc_set_1(t_a_0()))) ....... B0 % ~c_in_3(x0,x1,tc_set_1(x2)) | c_lessequals_3(x0,c_Union_2(x1,x2),tc_set_1(x2)) ....... B2 % ~c_in_3(c_Zorn_Osucc_3(v_S_0(), c_Union_2(c_Zorn_OTFin_2(v_S_0(), t_a_0()), tc_set_1(t_a_0())), t_a_0()), c_Zorn_OTFin_2(v_S_0(), t_a_0()), tc_set_1(tc_set_1(t_a_0()))) ....... R1 [B0:L0, B2:L1] % Derivation of unit clause U3: % c_lessequals_3(x0,x0,tc_set_1(x1)) ....... B1 % ~c_lessequals_3(x0,c_Zorn_OTFin_2(x1,x2),tc_set_1(tc_set_1(tc_set_1(x2)))) | c_in_3(c_Union_2(x0,tc_set_1(x2)),c_Zorn_OTFin_2(x1,x2),tc_set_1(tc_set_1(x2))) ....... B4 % c_in_3(c_Union_2(c_Zorn_OTFin_2(x0, x1), tc_set_1(x1)), c_Zorn_OTFin_2(x0, x1), tc_set_1(tc_set_1(x1))) ....... R1 [B1:L0, B4:L0] % Derivation of unit clause U5: % ~c_in_3(x0,c_Zorn_OTFin_2(x1,x2),tc_set_1(tc_set_1(x2))) | c_in_3(c_Zorn_Osucc_3(x1,x0,x2),c_Zorn_OTFin_2(x1,x2),tc_set_1(tc_set_1(x2))) ....... B3 % c_in_3(c_Union_2(c_Zorn_OTFin_2(x0,x1),tc_set_1(x1)),c_Zorn_OTFin_2(x0,x1),tc_set_1(tc_set_1(x1))) ....... U3 % c_in_3(c_Zorn_Osucc_3(x0, c_Union_2(c_Zorn_OTFin_2(x0, x1), tc_set_1(x1)), x1), c_Zorn_OTFin_2(x0, x1), tc_set_1(tc_set_1(x1))) ....... R1 [B3:L0, U3:L0] % Derivation of the empty clause: % c_in_3(c_Zorn_Osucc_3(x0,c_Union_2(c_Zorn_OTFin_2(x0,x1),tc_set_1(x1)),x1),c_Zorn_OTFin_2(x0,x1),tc_set_1(tc_set_1(x1))) ....... U5 % ~c_in_3(c_Zorn_Osucc_3(v_S_0(),c_Union_2(c_Zorn_OTFin_2(v_S_0(),t_a_0()),tc_set_1(t_a_0())),t_a_0()),c_Zorn_OTFin_2(v_S_0(),t_a_0()),tc_set_1(tc_set_1(t_a_0()))) ....... U2 % [] ....... R1 [U5:L0, U2:L0] % --------------- End of Proof --------------- % PROOF FOUND! % --------------------------------------------- % | Statistics | % --------------------------------------------- % Profile 3: Performance Statistics: % ================================== % Total number of generated clauses: 7 % resolvents: 7 factors: 0 % Number of unit clauses generated: 5 % % unit clauses generated to total clauses generated: 71.43 % Number of unit clauses constructed and retained at depth [x]: % ============================================================= % [0] = 2 [1] = 4 % Total = 6 % Number of generated clauses having [x] literals: % ------------------------------------------------ % [1] = 5 [2] = 2 % Average size of a generated clause: 2.0 % Number of unit clauses per predicate list: % ========================================== % [0] c_in_3 (+)2 (-)1 % [1] c_lessequals_3 (+)2 (-)1 % ------------------ % Total: (+)4 (-)2 % Total number of unit clauses retained: 6 % Number of clauses skipped because of their length: 0 % N base clauses skippped in resolve-with-all-base-clauses % because of the shortest resolvents table: 0 % Number of successful unifications: 10 % Number of unification failures: 0 % Number of unit to unit unification failures: 3 % N literal unification failure due to lookup root_id table: 8 % N base clause resolution failure due to lookup table: 5 % 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: 1 % 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: 18 % Max term depth in a unit clause: 4 % Number of states in UCFA table: 80 % Total number of terms of all unit clauses in table: 79 % Max allowed number of states in UCFA: 528000 % Ratio n states used/total allowed states: 0.00 % Ratio n states used/total unit clauses terms: 1.01 % Number of symbols (columns) in UCFA: 42 % Profile 2: Number of calls to: % ============================== % PTUnify() = 10 % ConstructUnitClause() = 5 % Profile 1: Time spent in: % ========================= % ConstructUnitClause() : 0.00 secs % -------------------------------------------------------- % | | % Inferences per sec: inf % | | % -------------------------------------------------------- % Elapsed time: 1 secs % CPU time: 0.36 secs % %------------------------------------------------------------------------------