%------------------------------------------------------------------------------ % File : CARINE---0.734 % Problem : SYN054-1 : 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 08:25:56 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/SystemOnTPTP26419/SYN/SYN054-1+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 = 0] [ut = 0] % Looking for a proof at depth = 2 ... % t = 0 secs [nr = 27] [nf = 2] [nu = 2] [ut = 1] % Looking for a proof at depth = 3 ... % t = 0 secs [nr = 139] [nf = 8] [nu = 19] [ut = 5] % Looking for a proof at depth = 4 ... % +================================================+ % | | % | Congratulations!!! ........ A proof was found. | % | | % +================================================+ % Base Clauses and Unit Clauses used in proof: % ============================================ % Base Clauses: % ------------- % B1: ~big_p_1(x0) | ~big_r_1(x0) % B2: ~big_q_1(x0) | big_s_1(x0) % B3: ~big_q_1(x0) | ~big_s_1(x0) % B5: ~big_p_1(x0) | big_q_1(x0) | big_r_1(x0) % Unit Clauses: % -------------- % U0: < d2 v1 dv1 f0 c0 t1 td1 > ~big_q_1(x0) % U7: < d4 v0 dv0 f0 c1 t1 td1 > big_q_1(b_0()) % --------------- Start of Proof --------------- % Derivation of unit clause U0: % ~big_q_1(x0) | big_s_1(x0) ....... B2 % ~big_q_1(x0) | ~big_s_1(x0) ....... B3 % ~big_q_1(x0) | ~big_q_1(x0) ....... R1 [B2:L1, B3:L1] % ~big_q_1(x0) ....... R2 [R1:L0, R1:L1] % Derivation of unit clause U7: % ~big_p_1(x0) | ~big_r_1(x0) ....... B1 % ~big_p_1(x0) | big_q_1(x0) | big_r_1(x0) ....... B5 % ~big_p_1(x0) | ~big_p_1(x0) | big_q_1(x0) ....... R1 [B1:L1, B5:L2] % ~big_p_1(x0) | big_q_1(x0) ....... R2 [R1:L0, R1:L1] % big_p_1(a_0()) | big_q_1(b_0()) ....... B4 % big_q_1(a_0()) | big_q_1(b_0()) ....... R3 [R2:L0, B4:L0] % ~big_q_1(x0) ....... U0 % big_q_1(b_0()) ....... R4 [R3:L0, U0:L0] % Derivation of the empty clause: % big_q_1(b_0()) ....... U7 % ~big_q_1(x0) ....... U0 % [] ....... R1 [U7:L0, U0:L0] % --------------- End of Proof --------------- % PROOF FOUND! % --------------------------------------------- % | Statistics | % --------------------------------------------- % Profile 3: Performance Statistics: % ================================== % Total number of generated clauses: 294 % resolvents: 281 factors: 13 % Number of unit clauses generated: 46 % % unit clauses generated to total clauses generated: 15.65 % Number of unit clauses constructed and retained at depth [x]: % ============================================================= % [2] = 1 [3] = 4 % [4] = 3 % Total = 8 % Number of generated clauses having [x] literals: % ------------------------------------------------ % [1] = 46 [2] = 167 [3] = 81 % Average size of a generated clause: 3.0 % Number of unit clauses per predicate list: % ========================================== % [0] big_p_1 (+)0 (-)2 % [1] big_q_1 (+)1 (-)2 % [2] big_r_1 (+)1 (-)1 % [3] big_s_1 (+)1 (-)0 % ------------------ % Total: (+)3 (-)5 % Total number of unit clauses retained: 8 % Number of clauses skipped because of their length: 117 % N base clauses skippped in resolve-with-all-base-clauses % because of the shortest resolvents table: 0 % Number of successful unifications: 300 % Number of unification failures: 40 % Number of unit to unit unification failures: 1 % N literal unification failure due to lookup root_id table: 963 % N base clause resolution failure due to lookup table: 325 % 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: 19 % 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: 1 % Max term depth in a unit clause: 1 % Number of states in UCFA table: 9 % Total number of terms of all unit clauses in table: 8 % 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: 1.12 % Number of symbols (columns) in UCFA: 40 % Profile 2: Number of calls to: % ============================== % PTUnify() = 340 % ConstructUnitClause() = 27 % Profile 1: Time spent in: % ========================= % ConstructUnitClause() : 0.00 secs % -------------------------------------------------------- % | | % Inferences per sec: inf % | | % -------------------------------------------------------- % Elapsed time: 0 secs % CPU time: 0.13 secs % %------------------------------------------------------------------------------