%------------------------------------------------------------------------------ % File : CARINE---0.734 % Problem : SYN011-1 : TPTP v5.0.0. Released v1.1.0. % Transfm : add_equality % Format : carine % Command : carine %s t=%d xo=off uct=32000 % Computer : art07.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 08:22:23 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/SystemOnTPTP21774/SYN/SYN011-1+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 = 5] [nf = 0] [nu = 1] [ut = 2] % Looking for a proof at depth = 2 ... % t = 0 secs [nr = 18] [nf = 0] [nu = 2] [ut = 2] % Looking for a proof at depth = 3 ... % t = 0 secs [nr = 73] [nf = 2] [nu = 3] [ut = 2] % Looking for a proof at depth = 4 ... % +================================================+ % | | % | Congratulations!!! ........ A proof was found. | % | | % +================================================+ % Base Clauses and Unit Clauses used in proof: % ============================================ % Base Clauses: % ------------- % B0: ~l | ~p % B2: ~m | l % B3: ~n | ~t % B5: m | n | q % B6: n | p | r % Unit Clauses: % -------------- % U0: < d0 v0 dv0 f0 c0 t0 td0 b nc > t % U1: < d1 v0 dv0 f0 c0 t0 td0 > ~n % U2: < d4 v0 dv0 f0 c0 t0 td0 > ~l % U4: < d4 v0 dv0 f0 c0 t0 td0 > l % --------------- Start of Proof --------------- % Derivation of unit clause U0: % t ....... U0 % Derivation of unit clause U1: % ~n | ~t ....... B3 % t ....... U0 % ~n ....... R1 [B3:L1, U0:L0] % Derivation of unit clause U2: % ~l | ~p ....... B0 % n | p | r ....... B6 % ~l | n | r ....... R1 [B0:L1, B6:L1] % ~n ....... U1 % ~l | r ....... R2 [R1:L1, U1:L0] % ~l | ~r ....... B1 % ~l | ~l ....... R3 [R2:L1, B1:L1] % ~l ....... R4 [R3:L0, R3:L1] % Derivation of unit clause U4: % ~m | l ....... B2 % m | n | q ....... B5 % l | n | q ....... R1 [B2:L0, B5:L0] % ~l ....... U2 % n | q ....... R2 [R1:L0, U2:L0] % ~q | l ....... B4 % n | l ....... R3 [R2:L1, B4:L0] % ~n ....... U1 % l ....... R4 [R3:L0, U1:L0] % Derivation of the empty clause: % l ....... U4 % ~l ....... U2 % [] ....... R1 [U4:L0, U2:L0] % --------------- End of Proof --------------- % PROOF FOUND! % --------------------------------------------- % | Statistics | % --------------------------------------------- % Profile 3: Performance Statistics: % ================================== % Total number of generated clauses: 206 % resolvents: 198 factors: 8 % Number of unit clauses generated: 11 % % unit clauses generated to total clauses generated: 5.34 % Number of unit clauses constructed and retained at depth [x]: % ============================================================= % [0] = 1 [1] = 1 [4] = 3 % Total = 5 % Number of generated clauses having [x] literals: % ------------------------------------------------ % [1] = 11 [2] = 120 [3] = 75 % Average size of a generated clause: 3.0 % Number of unit clauses per predicate list: % ========================================== % [0] l (+)1 (-)1 % [1] m (+)0 (-)0 % [2] n (+)0 (-)1 % [3] p (+)0 (-)0 % [4] q (+)1 (-)0 % [5] r (+)0 (-)0 % [6] t (+)1 (-)0 % ------------------ % Total: (+)3 (-)2 % Total number of unit clauses retained: 5 % Number of clauses skipped because of their length: 130 % N base clauses skippped in resolve-with-all-base-clauses % because of the shortest resolvents table: 44 % Number of successful unifications: 215 % Number of unification failures: 0 % Number of unit to unit unification failures: 0 % N literal unification failure due to lookup root_id table: 727 % N base clause resolution failure due to lookup table: 394 % N UC-BCL resolution dropped due to lookup table: 0 % Max entries in substitution set: 0 % N unit clauses dropped because they exceeded max values: 3 % 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: 0 % Max term depth in a unit clause: 0 % Number of states in UCFA table: 3 % Total number of terms of all unit clauses in table: 0 % 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: inf % Number of symbols (columns) in UCFA: 41 % Profile 2: Number of calls to: % ============================== % PTUnify() = 215 % ConstructUnitClause() = 7 % Profile 1: Time spent in: % ========================= % ConstructUnitClause() : 0.00 secs % -------------------------------------------------------- % | | % Inferences per sec: inf % | | % -------------------------------------------------------- % Elapsed time: 0 secs % CPU time: 0.14 secs % %------------------------------------------------------------------------------