%------------------------------------------------------------------------------ % File : CARINE---0.734 % Problem : SYN014-2 : TPTP v5.0.0. Released v1.0.0. % Transfm : add_equality % Format : carine % Command : carine %s t=%d xo=off uct=32000 % Computer : art03.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 08:22:44 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/SystemOnTPTP25779/SYN/SYN014-2+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 = 49] [nf = 0] [nu = 20] [ut = 13] % Looking for a proof at depth = 2 ... % +================================================+ % | | % | Congratulations!!! ........ A proof was found. | % | | % +================================================+ % Base Clauses and Unit Clauses used in proof: % ============================================ % Base Clauses: % ------------- % B2: equalish_2(n_0(),k_0()) % B3: ~equalish_2(m_0(),n_0()) % B20: equalish_2(m_0(),k_0()) % B22: ~equalish_2(x0,x1) | equalish_2(x1,x0) % B25: ~equalish_2(x1,x2) | ~equalish_2(x0,x1) | equalish_2(x0,x2) % Unit Clauses: % -------------- % U10: < d1 v0 dv0 f0 c2 t2 td1 > ~equalish_2(n_0(),m_0()) % U12: < d1 v0 dv0 f0 c2 t2 td1 > equalish_2(k_0(),m_0()) % U18: < d2 v0 dv0 f0 c2 t2 td1 > equalish_2(n_0(),m_0()) % --------------- Start of Proof --------------- % Derivation of unit clause U10: % ~equalish_2(m_0(),n_0()) ....... B3 % ~equalish_2(x0,x1) | equalish_2(x1,x0) ....... B22 % ~equalish_2(n_0(), m_0()) ....... R1 [B3:L0, B22:L1] % Derivation of unit clause U12: % equalish_2(m_0(),k_0()) ....... B20 % ~equalish_2(x0,x1) | equalish_2(x1,x0) ....... B22 % equalish_2(k_0(), m_0()) ....... R1 [B20:L0, B22:L0] % Derivation of unit clause U18: % equalish_2(n_0(),k_0()) ....... B2 % ~equalish_2(x1,x2) | ~equalish_2(x0,x1) | equalish_2(x0,x2) ....... B25 % ~equalish_2(k_0(), x0) | equalish_2(n_0(), x0) ....... R1 [B2:L0, B25:L1] % equalish_2(k_0(),m_0()) ....... U12 % equalish_2(n_0(), m_0()) ....... R2 [R1:L0, U12:L0] % Derivation of the empty clause: % equalish_2(n_0(),m_0()) ....... U18 % ~equalish_2(n_0(),m_0()) ....... U10 % [] ....... R1 [U18:L0, U10:L0] % --------------- End of Proof --------------- % PROOF FOUND! % --------------------------------------------- % | Statistics | % --------------------------------------------- % Profile 3: Performance Statistics: % ================================== % Total number of generated clauses: 91 % resolvents: 91 factors: 0 % Number of unit clauses generated: 40 % % unit clauses generated to total clauses generated: 43.96 % Number of unit clauses constructed and retained at depth [x]: % ============================================================= % [0] = 7 [1] = 6 [2] = 6 % Total = 19 % Number of generated clauses having [x] literals: % ------------------------------------------------ % [1] = 40 [2] = 51 % Average size of a generated clause: 2.0 % Number of unit clauses per predicate list: % ========================================== % [0] element_2 (+)3 (-)0 % [1] equalish_2 (+)8 (-)8 % ------------------ % Total: (+)11 (-)8 % Total number of unit clauses retained: 19 % Number of clauses skipped because of their length: 158 % N base clauses skippped in resolve-with-all-base-clauses % because of the shortest resolvents table: 0 % Number of successful unifications: 95 % Number of unification failures: 58 % Number of unit to unit unification failures: 62 % N literal unification failure due to lookup root_id table: 113 % N base clause resolution failure due to lookup table: 95 % 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: 25 % 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: 2 % Max term depth in a unit clause: 1 % Number of states in UCFA table: 17 % Total number of terms of all unit clauses in table: 38 % 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: 0.45 % Number of symbols (columns) in UCFA: 42 % Profile 2: Number of calls to: % ============================== % PTUnify() = 153 % ConstructUnitClause() = 37 % Profile 1: Time spent in: % ========================= % ConstructUnitClause() : 0.00 secs % -------------------------------------------------------- % | | % Inferences per sec: inf % | | % -------------------------------------------------------- % Elapsed time: 0 secs % CPU time: 0.14 secs % %------------------------------------------------------------------------------