%------------------------------------------------------------------------------ % File : CARINE---0.734 % Problem : SYN079-1 : TPTP v5.0.0. Released v1.0.0. % Transfm : add_equality % Format : carine % Command : carine %s t=%d xo=off uct=32000 % Computer : art02.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 08:29:30 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/SystemOnTPTP31983/SYN/SYN079-1+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 = 5] [nf = 0] [nu = 0] [ut = 3] % 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_2(f_2(a_0(),b_0()),f_2(a_0(),c_0())) % B3: ~big_f_2(x1,x2) | ~big_f_2(x0,x1) | big_f_2(x0,x2) % Unit Clauses: % -------------- % U1: < d0 v0 dv0 f2 c4 t6 td2 b > big_f_2(f_2(a_0(),b_0()),f_2(b_0(),c_0())) % U2: < d0 v0 dv0 f2 c4 t6 td2 b > big_f_2(f_2(b_0(),c_0()),f_2(a_0(),c_0())) % U3: < d2 v0 dv0 f2 c4 t6 td2 > ~big_f_2(f_2(a_0(),b_0()),f_2(b_0(),c_0())) % --------------- Start of Proof --------------- % Derivation of unit clause U1: % big_f_2(f_2(a_0(),b_0()),f_2(b_0(),c_0())) ....... U1 % Derivation of unit clause U2: % big_f_2(f_2(b_0(),c_0()),f_2(a_0(),c_0())) ....... U2 % Derivation of unit clause U3: % ~big_f_2(f_2(a_0(),b_0()),f_2(a_0(),c_0())) ....... B0 % ~big_f_2(x1,x2) | ~big_f_2(x0,x1) | big_f_2(x0,x2) ....... B3 % ~big_f_2(x0, f_2(a_0(), c_0())) | ~big_f_2(f_2(a_0(), b_0()), x0) ....... R1 [B0:L0, B3:L2] % big_f_2(f_2(b_0(),c_0()),f_2(a_0(),c_0())) ....... U2 % ~big_f_2(f_2(a_0(), b_0()), f_2(b_0(), c_0())) ....... R2 [R1:L0, U2:L0] % Derivation of the empty clause: % ~big_f_2(f_2(a_0(),b_0()),f_2(b_0(),c_0())) ....... U3 % big_f_2(f_2(a_0(),b_0()),f_2(b_0(),c_0())) ....... U1 % [] ....... R1 [U3:L0, U1:L0] % --------------- End of Proof --------------- % PROOF FOUND! % --------------------------------------------- % | Statistics | % --------------------------------------------- % Profile 3: Performance Statistics: % ================================== % Total number of generated clauses: 7 % resolvents: 7 factors: 0 % Number of unit clauses generated: 1 % % unit clauses generated to total clauses generated: 14.29 % Number of unit clauses constructed and retained at depth [x]: % ============================================================= % [0] = 3 [2] = 1 % Total = 4 % Number of generated clauses having [x] literals: % ------------------------------------------------ % [1] = 1 [2] = 6 % Average size of a generated clause: 2.0 % Number of unit clauses per predicate list: % ========================================== % [0] big_f_2 (+)2 (-)2 % ------------------ % Total: (+)2 (-)2 % Total number of unit clauses retained: 4 % Number of clauses skipped because of their length: 0 % N base clauses skippped in resolve-with-all-base-clauses % because of the shortest resolvents table: 0 % Number of successful unifications: 9 % Number of unification failures: 3 % Number of unit to unit unification failures: 2 % N literal unification failure due to lookup root_id table: 6 % N base clause resolution failure due to lookup table: 0 % N UC-BCL resolution dropped due to lookup table: 0 % Max entries in substitution set: 3 % N unit clauses dropped because they exceeded max values: 0 % 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: 6 % Max term depth in a unit clause: 2 % Number of states in UCFA table: 20 % 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: 0.83 % Number of symbols (columns) in UCFA: 39 % Profile 2: Number of calls to: % ============================== % PTUnify() = 12 % ConstructUnitClause() = 1 % Profile 1: Time spent in: % ========================= % ConstructUnitClause() : 0.00 secs % -------------------------------------------------------- % | | % Inferences per sec: inf % | | % -------------------------------------------------------- % Elapsed time: 1 secs % CPU time: 0.14 secs % %------------------------------------------------------------------------------