%------------------------------------------------------------------------------ % File : CARINE---0.734 % Problem : SET859-2 : 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 05:51:19 EST 2010 % Result : Unsatisfiable 0.33s % Output : Refutation 0.33s % 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/SystemOnTPTP13320/SET/SET859-2+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 = 5] [nf = 0] [nu = 0] [ut = 3] % Looking for a proof at depth = 2 ... % +================================================+ % | | % | 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(),v_n_0(),t_a_0()),v_m_0(),tc_set_1(tc_set_1(t_a_0()))) % B3: ~c_lessequals_3(x3,x0,tc_set_1(x2)) | ~c_lessequals_3(x0,x1,tc_set_1(x2)) | c_lessequals_3(x3,x1,tc_set_1(x2)) % Unit Clauses: % -------------- % U1: < d0 v0 dv0 f2 c3 t5 td3 b nc > ~c_lessequals_3(v_n_0(),v_m_0(),tc_set_1(tc_set_1(t_a_0()))) % U2: < d0 v5 dv3 f3 c0 t8 td3 b > c_lessequals_3(x0,c_Zorn_Osucc_3(x1,x0,x2),tc_set_1(tc_set_1(x2))) % U4: < d2 v0 dv0 f2 c3 t5 td3 > c_lessequals_3(v_n_0(),v_m_0(),tc_set_1(tc_set_1(t_a_0()))) % --------------- Start of Proof --------------- % Derivation of unit clause U1: % ~c_lessequals_3(v_n_0(),v_m_0(),tc_set_1(tc_set_1(t_a_0()))) ....... U1 % Derivation of unit clause U2: % c_lessequals_3(x0,c_Zorn_Osucc_3(x1,x0,x2),tc_set_1(tc_set_1(x2))) ....... U2 % Derivation of unit clause U4: % c_lessequals_3(c_Zorn_Osucc_3(v_S_0(),v_n_0(),t_a_0()),v_m_0(),tc_set_1(tc_set_1(t_a_0()))) ....... B0 % ~c_lessequals_3(x3,x0,tc_set_1(x2)) | ~c_lessequals_3(x0,x1,tc_set_1(x2)) | c_lessequals_3(x3,x1,tc_set_1(x2)) ....... B3 % ~c_lessequals_3(x0, c_Zorn_Osucc_3(v_S_0(), v_n_0(), t_a_0()), tc_set_1(tc_set_1(t_a_0()))) | c_lessequals_3(x0, v_m_0(), tc_set_1(tc_set_1(t_a_0()))) ....... R1 [B0:L0, B3:L1] % c_lessequals_3(x0,c_Zorn_Osucc_3(x1,x0,x2),tc_set_1(tc_set_1(x2))) ....... U2 % c_lessequals_3(v_n_0(), v_m_0(), tc_set_1(tc_set_1(t_a_0()))) ....... R2 [R1:L0, U2:L0] % Derivation of the empty clause: % c_lessequals_3(v_n_0(),v_m_0(),tc_set_1(tc_set_1(t_a_0()))) ....... U4 % ~c_lessequals_3(v_n_0(),v_m_0(),tc_set_1(tc_set_1(t_a_0()))) ....... U1 % [] ....... R1 [U4:L0, U1:L0] % --------------- End of Proof --------------- % PROOF FOUND! % --------------------------------------------- % | Statistics | % --------------------------------------------- % Profile 3: Performance Statistics: % ================================== % Total number of generated clauses: 9 % resolvents: 9 factors: 0 % Number of unit clauses generated: 2 % % unit clauses generated to total clauses generated: 22.22 % Number of unit clauses constructed and retained at depth [x]: % ============================================================= % [0] = 3 [2] = 2 % Total = 5 % Number of generated clauses having [x] literals: % ------------------------------------------------ % [1] = 2 [2] = 7 % Average size of a generated clause: 2.0 % Number of unit clauses per predicate list: % ========================================== % [0] c_lessequals_3 (+)4 (-)1 % ------------------ % Total: (+)4 (-)1 % Total number of unit clauses retained: 5 % Number of clauses skipped because of their length: 1 % N base clauses skippped in resolve-with-all-base-clauses % because of the shortest resolvents table: 0 % Number of successful unifications: 11 % Number of unification failures: 4 % Number of unit to unit unification failures: 3 % N literal unification failure due to lookup root_id table: 4 % N base clause resolution failure due to lookup table: 0 % 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: 0 % 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: 11 % Max term depth in a unit clause: 3 % Number of states in UCFA table: 33 % Total number of terms of all unit clauses in table: 37 % Max allowed number of states in UCFA: 448000 % Ratio n states used/total allowed states: 0.00 % Ratio n states used/total unit clauses terms: 0.89 % Number of symbols (columns) in UCFA: 41 % Profile 2: Number of calls to: % ============================== % PTUnify() = 15 % ConstructUnitClause() = 2 % Profile 1: Time spent in: % ========================= % ConstructUnitClause() : 0.00 secs % -------------------------------------------------------- % | | % Inferences per sec: inf % | | % -------------------------------------------------------- % Elapsed time: 0 secs % CPU time: 0.32 secs % %------------------------------------------------------------------------------