%------------------------------------------------------------------------------ % File : CARINE---0.734 % Problem : SYN101-1.002.002 : TPTP v5.0.0. Bugfixed v1.2.1. % Transfm : add_equality % Format : carine % Command : carine %s t=%d xo=off uct=32000 % Computer : art04.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 08:32:20 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/SystemOnTPTP2670/SYN/SYN101-1.002.002+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 = 18] [nf = 0] [nu = 0] [ut = 5] % Looking for a proof at depth = 2 ... % t = 1 secs [nr = 138] [nf = 0] [nu = 32] [ut = 21] % Looking for a proof at depth = 3 ... % t = 1 secs [nr = 628] [nf = 0] [nu = 152] [ut = 22] % Looking for a proof at depth = 4 ... % +================================================+ % | | % | Congratulations!!! ........ A proof was found. | % | | % +================================================+ % Base Clauses and Unit Clauses used in proof: % ============================================ % Base Clauses: % ------------- % B0: ~p_1_2_2(a_0(),a_0()) % B1: nq_1_1(a_0()) % B10: ~nq_1_1(x0) | ~nq_2_1(x1) | p_2_2_2(x0,x1) % B13: ~p_1_1_2(x0,x1) | ~p_2_2_2(x0,x1) | p_1_2_2(x0,x1) % Unit Clauses: % -------------- % U1: < d0 v0 dv0 f0 c1 t1 td1 b > nq_1_1(a_0()) % U3: < d0 v0 dv0 f0 c1 t1 td1 b > nq_2_1(a_0()) % U7: < d2 v0 dv0 f0 c2 t2 td1 > p_2_2_2(a_0(),a_0()) % U22: < d4 v0 dv0 f0 c1 t1 td1 > ~nq_2_1(a_0()) % --------------- Start of Proof --------------- % Derivation of unit clause U1: % nq_1_1(a_0()) ....... U1 % Derivation of unit clause U3: % nq_2_1(a_0()) ....... U3 % Derivation of unit clause U7: % nq_1_1(a_0()) ....... B1 % ~nq_1_1(x0) | ~nq_2_1(x1) | p_2_2_2(x0,x1) ....... B10 % ~nq_2_1(x0) | p_2_2_2(a_0(), x0) ....... R1 [B1:L0, B10:L0] % nq_2_1(a_0()) ....... U3 % p_2_2_2(a_0(), a_0()) ....... R2 [R1:L0, U3:L0] % Derivation of unit clause U22: % ~p_1_2_2(a_0(),a_0()) ....... B0 % ~p_1_1_2(x0,x1) | ~p_2_2_2(x0,x1) | p_1_2_2(x0,x1) ....... B13 % ~p_1_1_2(a_0(), a_0()) | ~p_2_2_2(a_0(), a_0()) ....... R1 [B0:L0, B13:L2] % ~nq_1_1(x0) | ~nq_2_1(x1) | p_1_1_2(x0,x1) ....... B9 % ~p_2_2_2(a_0(), a_0()) | ~nq_1_1(a_0()) | ~nq_2_1(a_0()) ....... R2 [R1:L0, B9:L2] % p_2_2_2(a_0(),a_0()) ....... U7 % ~nq_1_1(a_0()) | ~nq_2_1(a_0()) ....... R3 [R2:L0, U7:L0] % nq_1_1(a_0()) ....... U1 % ~nq_2_1(a_0()) ....... R4 [R3:L0, U1:L0] % Derivation of the empty clause: % ~nq_2_1(a_0()) ....... U22 % nq_2_1(a_0()) ....... U3 % [] ....... R1 [U22:L0, U3:L0] % --------------- End of Proof --------------- % PROOF FOUND! % --------------------------------------------- % | Statistics | % --------------------------------------------- % Profile 3: Performance Statistics: % ================================== % Total number of generated clauses: 650 % resolvents: 646 factors: 4 % Number of unit clauses generated: 159 % % unit clauses generated to total clauses generated: 24.46 % Number of unit clauses constructed and retained at depth [x]: % ============================================================= % [0] = 5 [2] = 16 [3] = 1 % [4] = 1 % Total = 23 % Number of generated clauses having [x] literals: % ------------------------------------------------ % [1] = 159 [2] = 416 [3] = 75 % Average size of a generated clause: 2.0 % Number of unit clauses per predicate list: % ========================================== % [0] nq_1_1 (+)2 (-)0 % [1] nq_2_1 (+)2 (-)1 % [2] p_1_1_2 (+)4 (-)0 % [3] p_1_2_2 (+)0 (-)1 % [4] p_2_2_2 (+)4 (-)0 % [5] q_1_1_2 (+)4 (-)0 % [6] q_1_2_2 (+)0 (-)1 % [7] q_2_2_2 (+)4 (-)0 % ------------------ % Total: (+)20 (-)3 % Total number of unit clauses retained: 23 % Number of clauses skipped because of their length: 1114 % N base clauses skippped in resolve-with-all-base-clauses % because of the shortest resolvents table: 64 % Number of successful unifications: 656 % Number of unification failures: 276 % Number of unit to unit unification failures: 0 % N literal unification failure due to lookup root_id table: 990 % N base clause resolution failure due to lookup table: 1036 % N UC-BCL resolution dropped due to lookup table: 0 % Max entries in substitution set: 6 % N unit clauses dropped because they exceeded max values: 101 % 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: 22 % Total number of terms of all unit clauses in table: 41 % 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: 0.54 % Number of symbols (columns) in UCFA: 44 % Profile 2: Number of calls to: % ============================== % PTUnify() = 932 % ConstructUnitClause() = 119 % Profile 1: Time spent in: % ========================= % ConstructUnitClause() : 0.00 secs % -------------------------------------------------------- % | | % Inferences per sec: inf % | | % -------------------------------------------------------- % Elapsed time: 1 secs % CPU time: 0.14 secs % %------------------------------------------------------------------------------