%------------------------------------------------------------------------------ % File : CARINE---0.734 % Problem : SYN062-1 : 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 08:27:19 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/SystemOnTPTP12452/SYN/SYN062-1+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 = 2] [ut = 4] % Looking for a proof at depth = 2 ... % +================================================+ % | | % | Congratulations!!! ........ A proof was found. | % | | % +================================================+ % Base Clauses and Unit Clauses used in proof: % ============================================ % Base Clauses: % ------------- % B0: big_f_1(a_0()) % B1: big_k_1(a_0()) % B2: ~big_j_1(a_0()) % B3: ~big_k_1(x0) | big_h_1(x0) % B5: ~big_f_1(x0) | ~big_h_1(x0) | big_i_1(x0) % B6: ~big_h_1(x0) | ~big_i_1(x0) | big_j_1(x0) % Unit Clauses: % -------------- % U3: < d1 v0 dv0 f0 c1 t1 td1 > big_h_1(a_0()) % U4: < d2 v0 dv0 f0 c1 t1 td1 > big_i_1(a_0()) % U5: < d2 v0 dv0 f0 c1 t1 td1 > ~big_i_1(a_0()) % --------------- Start of Proof --------------- % Derivation of unit clause U3: % big_k_1(a_0()) ....... B1 % ~big_k_1(x0) | big_h_1(x0) ....... B3 % big_h_1(a_0()) ....... R1 [B1:L0, B3:L0] % Derivation of unit clause U4: % big_f_1(a_0()) ....... B0 % ~big_f_1(x0) | ~big_h_1(x0) | big_i_1(x0) ....... B5 % ~big_h_1(a_0()) | big_i_1(a_0()) ....... R1 [B0:L0, B5:L0] % big_h_1(a_0()) ....... U3 % big_i_1(a_0()) ....... R2 [R1:L0, U3:L0] % Derivation of unit clause U5: % ~big_j_1(a_0()) ....... B2 % ~big_h_1(x0) | ~big_i_1(x0) | big_j_1(x0) ....... B6 % ~big_h_1(a_0()) | ~big_i_1(a_0()) ....... R1 [B2:L0, B6:L2] % big_h_1(a_0()) ....... U3 % ~big_i_1(a_0()) ....... R2 [R1:L0, U3:L0] % Derivation of the empty clause: % ~big_i_1(a_0()) ....... U5 % big_i_1(a_0()) ....... U4 % [] ....... R1 [U5:L0, U4:L0] % --------------- End of Proof --------------- % PROOF FOUND! % --------------------------------------------- % | Statistics | % --------------------------------------------- % Profile 3: Performance Statistics: % ================================== % Total number of generated clauses: 10 % resolvents: 10 factors: 0 % Number of unit clauses generated: 5 % % unit clauses generated to total clauses generated: 50.00 % Number of unit clauses constructed and retained at depth [x]: % ============================================================= % [0] = 3 [1] = 1 [2] = 2 % Total = 6 % Number of generated clauses having [x] literals: % ------------------------------------------------ % [1] = 5 [2] = 5 % Average size of a generated clause: 2.0 % Number of unit clauses per predicate list: % ========================================== % [0] big_f_1 (+)1 (-)0 % [1] big_g_1 (+)0 (-)0 % [2] big_h_1 (+)1 (-)0 % [3] big_i_1 (+)1 (-)1 % [4] big_j_1 (+)0 (-)1 % [5] big_k_1 (+)1 (-)0 % ------------------ % Total: (+)4 (-)2 % Total number of unit clauses retained: 6 % Number of clauses skipped because of their length: 4 % N base clauses skippped in resolve-with-all-base-clauses % because of the shortest resolvents table: 0 % Number of successful unifications: 15 % Number of unification failures: 0 % Number of unit to unit unification failures: 0 % N literal unification failure due to lookup root_id table: 13 % N base clause resolution failure due to lookup table: 13 % N UC-BCL resolution dropped due to lookup table: 0 % Max entries in substitution set: 2 % N unit clauses dropped because they exceeded max values: 1 % 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: 6 % 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: 1.50 % Number of symbols (columns) in UCFA: 41 % Profile 2: Number of calls to: % ============================== % PTUnify() = 15 % ConstructUnitClause() = 4 % Profile 1: Time spent in: % ========================= % ConstructUnitClause() : 0.00 secs % -------------------------------------------------------- % | | % Inferences per sec: inf % | | % -------------------------------------------------------- % Elapsed time: 1 secs % CPU time: 0.14 secs % %------------------------------------------------------------------------------