%------------------------------------------------------------------------------ % File : CARINE---0.734 % Problem : SYN009-3 : 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 08:22:11 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/SystemOnTPTP30820/SYN/SYN009-3+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 = 2] [nf = 0] [nu = 0] [ut = 5] % Looking for a proof at depth = 2 ... % t = 0 secs [nr = 20] [nf = 0] [nu = 5] [ut = 6] % Looking for a proof at depth = 3 ... % t = 0 secs [nr = 56] [nf = 0] [nu = 22] [ut = 9] % Looking for a proof at depth = 4 ... % t = 0 secs [nr = 92] [nf = 0] [nu = 39] [ut = 9] % Looking for a proof at depth = 5 ... % +================================================+ % | | % | Congratulations!!! ........ A proof was found. | % | | % +================================================+ % Base Clauses and Unit Clauses used in proof: % ============================================ % Base Clauses: % ------------- % B0: ~v_3(x0,x1,x2) % B8: ~s_1(x2) | ~s_1(x1) | ~s_1(x0) | p_3(x0,x1,x2) | q_3(x0,x1,x2) | r_3(x0,x1,x2) % B9: ~u_3(x0,x1,x2) | t_3(x0,x1,x2) | v_3(x0,x1,x2) % Unit Clauses: % -------------- % U3: < d0 v0 dv0 f0 c1 t1 td1 b nc > s_1(c_0()) % U4: < d0 v0 dv0 f0 c3 t3 td1 b nc > u_3(c_0(),c_0(),c_0()) % U6: < d3 v0 dv0 f0 c3 t3 td1 > ~p_3(c_0(),c_0(),c_0()) % U7: < d3 v0 dv0 f0 c3 t3 td1 > ~q_3(c_0(),c_0(),c_0()) % U8: < d3 v0 dv0 f0 c3 t3 td1 > ~r_3(c_0(),c_0(),c_0()) % U9: < d5 v0 dv0 f0 c3 t3 td1 > r_3(c_0(),c_0(),c_0()) % --------------- Start of Proof --------------- % Derivation of unit clause U3: % s_1(c_0()) ....... U3 % Derivation of unit clause U4: % u_3(c_0(),c_0(),c_0()) ....... U4 % Derivation of unit clause U6: % ~v_3(x0,x1,x2) ....... B0 % ~u_3(x0,x1,x2) | t_3(x0,x1,x2) | v_3(x0,x1,x2) ....... B9 % ~u_3(x0, x1, x2) | t_3(x0, x1, x2) ....... R1 [B0:L0, B9:L2] % ~p_3(x0,x1,x2) | ~t_3(x0,x1,x2) ....... B5 % ~u_3(x0, x1, x2) | ~p_3(x0, x1, x2) ....... R2 [R1:L1, B5:L1] % u_3(c_0(),c_0(),c_0()) ....... U4 % ~p_3(c_0(), c_0(), c_0()) ....... R3 [R2:L0, U4:L0] % Derivation of unit clause U7: % ~v_3(x0,x1,x2) ....... B0 % ~u_3(x0,x1,x2) | t_3(x0,x1,x2) | v_3(x0,x1,x2) ....... B9 % ~u_3(x0, x1, x2) | t_3(x0, x1, x2) ....... R1 [B0:L0, B9:L2] % ~q_3(x0,x1,x2) | ~t_3(x0,x1,x2) ....... B6 % ~u_3(x0, x1, x2) | ~q_3(x0, x1, x2) ....... R2 [R1:L1, B6:L1] % u_3(c_0(),c_0(),c_0()) ....... U4 % ~q_3(c_0(), c_0(), c_0()) ....... R3 [R2:L0, U4:L0] % Derivation of unit clause U8: % ~v_3(x0,x1,x2) ....... B0 % ~u_3(x0,x1,x2) | t_3(x0,x1,x2) | v_3(x0,x1,x2) ....... B9 % ~u_3(x0, x1, x2) | t_3(x0, x1, x2) ....... R1 [B0:L0, B9:L2] % ~r_3(x0,x1,x2) | ~t_3(x0,x1,x2) ....... B7 % ~u_3(x0, x1, x2) | ~r_3(x0, x1, x2) ....... R2 [R1:L1, B7:L1] % u_3(c_0(),c_0(),c_0()) ....... U4 % ~r_3(c_0(), c_0(), c_0()) ....... R3 [R2:L0, U4:L0] % Derivation of unit clause U9: % ~s_1(x2) | ~s_1(x1) | ~s_1(x0) | p_3(x0,x1,x2) | q_3(x0,x1,x2) | r_3(x0,x1,x2) ....... B8 % ~s_1(x0) | ~s_1(x1) | p_3(x1, x0, x0) | q_3(x1, x0, x0) | r_3(x1, x0, x0) ....... R1 [B8:L0, B8:L1] % s_1(c_0()) ....... U3 % ~s_1(x0) | p_3(x0, c_0(), c_0()) | q_3(x0, c_0(), c_0()) | r_3(x0, c_0(), c_0()) ....... R2 [R1:L0, U3:L0] % s_1(c_0()) ....... U3 % p_3(c_0(), c_0(), c_0()) | q_3(c_0(), c_0(), c_0()) | r_3(c_0(), c_0(), c_0()) ....... R3 [R2:L0, U3:L0] % ~p_3(c_0(),c_0(),c_0()) ....... U6 % q_3(c_0(), c_0(), c_0()) | r_3(c_0(), c_0(), c_0()) ....... R4 [R3:L0, U6:L0] % ~q_3(c_0(),c_0(),c_0()) ....... U7 % r_3(c_0(), c_0(), c_0()) ....... R5 [R4:L0, U7:L0] % Derivation of the empty clause: % r_3(c_0(),c_0(),c_0()) ....... U9 % ~r_3(c_0(),c_0(),c_0()) ....... U8 % [] ....... R1 [U9:L0, U8:L0] % --------------- End of Proof --------------- % PROOF FOUND! % --------------------------------------------- % | Statistics | % --------------------------------------------- % Profile 3: Performance Statistics: % ================================== % Total number of generated clauses: 165 % resolvents: 164 factors: 1 % Number of unit clauses generated: 57 % % unit clauses generated to total clauses generated: 34.55 % Number of unit clauses constructed and retained at depth [x]: % ============================================================= % [0] = 5 [2] = 1 [3] = 3 % [5] = 1 % Total = 10 % Number of generated clauses having [x] literals: % ------------------------------------------------ % [1] = 57 [2] = 59 [3] = 45 [4] = 3 [5] = 1 % Average size of a generated clause: 2.0 % Number of unit clauses per predicate list: % ========================================== % [0] s_1 (+)3 (-)0 % [1] p_3 (+)0 (-)1 % [2] q_3 (+)0 (-)1 % [3] r_3 (+)1 (-)1 % [4] t_3 (+)1 (-)0 % [5] u_3 (+)1 (-)0 % [6] v_3 (+)0 (-)1 % ------------------ % Total: (+)6 (-)4 % Total number of unit clauses retained: 10 % Number of clauses skipped because of their length: 44 % N base clauses skippped in resolve-with-all-base-clauses % because of the shortest resolvents table: 0 % Number of successful unifications: 179 % Number of unification failures: 30 % Number of unit to unit unification failures: 0 % N literal unification failure due to lookup root_id table: 668 % N base clause resolution failure due to lookup table: 285 % N UC-BCL resolution dropped due to lookup table: 0 % Max entries in substitution set: 9 % N unit clauses dropped because they exceeded max values: 10 % 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: 3 % Max term depth in a unit clause: 1 % Number of states in UCFA table: 25 % Total number of terms of all unit clauses in table: 24 % 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: 1.04 % Number of symbols (columns) in UCFA: 44 % Profile 2: Number of calls to: % ============================== % PTUnify() = 209 % ConstructUnitClause() = 15 % Profile 1: Time spent in: % ========================= % ConstructUnitClause() : 0.00 secs % -------------------------------------------------------- % | | % Inferences per sec: inf % | | % -------------------------------------------------------- % Elapsed time: 0 secs % CPU time: 0.15 secs % %------------------------------------------------------------------------------