%------------------------------------------------------------------------------ % File : CARINE---0.734 % Problem : SYN006-1 : 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 08:21:55 EST 2010 % Result : Unsatisfiable 0.38s % Output : Refutation 0.38s % 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/SystemOnTPTP11146/SYN/SYN006-1+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 = 4] [nf = 0] [nu = 0] [ut = 4] % Looking for a proof at depth = 2 ... % t = 1 secs [nr = 24] [nf = 0] [nu = 6] [ut = 6] % Looking for a proof at depth = 3 ... % +================================================+ % | | % | Congratulations!!! ........ A proof was found. | % | | % +================================================+ % Base Clauses and Unit Clauses used in proof: % ============================================ % Base Clauses: % ------------- % B0: ~q2_2(x0,f_1(x1)) % B1: ~q3_2(x0,g_1(x1)) % B4: ~p1_2(x0,f_1(x1)) | q1_2(f_1(x0),x1) | q2_2(x0,f_1(x1)) % B5: ~p2_2(x0,f_1(x1)) | q3_2(f_1(x0),x1) | q4_2(x0,f_1(x1)) % Unit Clauses: % -------------- % U2: < d0 v2 dv2 f5 c0 t7 td4 b nc > ~q4_2(f_1(f_1(x0)),f_1(g_1(f_1(x1)))) % U3: < d0 v1 dv1 f0 c1 t2 td1 b nc > p1_2(a_0(),x0) % U5: < d2 v2 dv2 f5 c0 t7 td4 > ~p2_2(f_1(f_1(x0)),f_1(g_1(f_1(x1)))) % U6: < d3 v1 dv1 f2 c1 t4 td3 > p2_2(f_1(f_1(a_0())),x0) % --------------- Start of Proof --------------- % Derivation of unit clause U2: % ~q4_2(f_1(f_1(x0)),f_1(g_1(f_1(x1)))) ....... U2 % Derivation of unit clause U3: % p1_2(a_0(),x0) ....... U3 % Derivation of unit clause U5: % ~q3_2(x0,g_1(x1)) ....... B1 % ~p2_2(x0,f_1(x1)) | q3_2(f_1(x0),x1) | q4_2(x0,f_1(x1)) ....... B5 % ~p2_2(x0, f_1(g_1(x1))) | q4_2(x0, f_1(g_1(x1))) ....... R1 [B1:L0, B5:L1] % ~q4_2(f_1(f_1(x0)),f_1(g_1(f_1(x1)))) ....... U2 % ~p2_2(f_1(f_1(x0)), f_1(g_1(f_1(x1)))) ....... R2 [R1:L1, U2:L0] % Derivation of unit clause U6: % ~q2_2(x0,f_1(x1)) ....... B0 % ~p1_2(x0,f_1(x1)) | q1_2(f_1(x0),x1) | q2_2(x0,f_1(x1)) ....... B4 % ~p1_2(x0, f_1(x1)) | q1_2(f_1(x0), x1) ....... R1 [B0:L0, B4:L2] % ~q1_2(x0,f_1(x1)) | p2_2(f_1(x0),x1) ....... B6 % ~p1_2(x0, f_1(f_1(x1))) | p2_2(f_1(f_1(x0)), x1) ....... R2 [R1:L1, B6:L0] % p1_2(a_0(),x0) ....... U3 % p2_2(f_1(f_1(a_0())), x0) ....... R3 [R2:L0, U3:L0] % Derivation of the empty clause: % p2_2(f_1(f_1(a_0())),x0) ....... U6 % ~p2_2(f_1(f_1(x0)),f_1(g_1(f_1(x1)))) ....... U5 % [] ....... R1 [U6:L0, U5:L0] % --------------- End of Proof --------------- % PROOF FOUND! % --------------------------------------------- % | Statistics | % --------------------------------------------- % Profile 3: Performance Statistics: % ================================== % Total number of generated clauses: 28 % resolvents: 28 factors: 0 % Number of unit clauses generated: 8 % % unit clauses generated to total clauses generated: 28.57 % Number of unit clauses constructed and retained at depth [x]: % ============================================================= % [0] = 4 [2] = 2 [3] = 1 % Total = 7 % Number of generated clauses having [x] literals: % ------------------------------------------------ % [1] = 8 [2] = 18 [3] = 2 % Average size of a generated clause: 2.0 % Number of unit clauses per predicate list: % ========================================== % [0] p1_2 (+)1 (-)0 % [1] p2_2 (+)1 (-)1 % [2] q1_2 (+)1 (-)0 % [3] q2_2 (+)0 (-)1 % [4] q3_2 (+)0 (-)1 % [5] q4_2 (+)0 (-)1 % ------------------ % Total: (+)3 (-)4 % Total number of unit clauses retained: 7 % Number of clauses skipped because of their length: 10 % N base clauses skippped in resolve-with-all-base-clauses % because of the shortest resolvents table: 0 % Number of successful unifications: 33 % Number of unification failures: 0 % Number of unit to unit unification failures: 0 % N literal unification failure due to lookup root_id table: 41 % N base clause resolution failure due to lookup table: 20 % N UC-BCL resolution dropped due to lookup table: 0 % Max entries in substitution set: 4 % N unit clauses dropped because they exceeded max values: 2 % 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: 7 % Max term depth in a unit clause: 4 % Number of states in UCFA table: 32 % Total number of terms of all unit clauses in table: 29 % 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: 1.10 % Number of symbols (columns) in UCFA: 43 % Profile 2: Number of calls to: % ============================== % PTUnify() = 33 % ConstructUnitClause() = 5 % Profile 1: Time spent in: % ========================= % ConstructUnitClause() : 0.00 secs % -------------------------------------------------------- % | | % Inferences per sec: inf % | | % -------------------------------------------------------- % Elapsed time: 1 secs % CPU time: 0.37 secs % %------------------------------------------------------------------------------