%------------------------------------------------------------------------------ % File : CARINE---0.734 % Problem : SYN148-1 : TPTP v5.0.0. Released v1.1.0. % 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 08:36:58 EST 2010 % Result : Unsatisfiable 0.28s % Output : Refutation 0.28s % 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/SystemOnTPTP13830/SYN/SYN148-1+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 = 830] [nf = 0] [nu = 404] [ut = 133] % Looking for a proof at depth = 2 ... % t = 0 secs [nr = 6510] [nf = 78] [nu = 2294] [ut = 241] % Looking for a proof at depth = 3 ... % +================================================+ % | | % | Congratulations!!! ........ A proof was found. | % | | % +================================================+ % Base Clauses and Unit Clauses used in proof: % ============================================ % Base Clauses: % ------------- % B0: ~n1_3(c_0(),d_0(),d_0()) % B2: p0_2(b_0(),x0) % B15: n0_2(d_0(),c_0()) % B48: ~n0_2(x1,x0) | l1_2(x0,x0) % B296: ~l0_1(x2) | ~l1_2(x2,x0) | ~n1_3(x0,x1,x0) | n1_3(x0,x1,x1) % B320: ~l0_1(x0) | ~s0_1(b_0()) | ~p0_2(b_0(),x1) | n1_3(x0,x1,x0) % Unit Clauses: % -------------- % U8: < d0 v0 dv0 f0 c1 t1 td1 b > l0_1(c_0()) % U12: < d0 v0 dv0 f0 c1 t1 td1 b > s0_1(b_0()) % U70: < d1 v0 dv0 f0 c2 t2 td1 > l1_2(c_0(),c_0()) % U241: < d3 v0 dv0 f0 c3 t3 td1 > ~n1_3(c_0(),d_0(),c_0()) % U277: < d3 v1 dv1 f0 c2 t3 td1 > n1_3(c_0(),x0,c_0()) % --------------- Start of Proof --------------- % Derivation of unit clause U8: % l0_1(c_0()) ....... U8 % Derivation of unit clause U12: % s0_1(b_0()) ....... U12 % Derivation of unit clause U70: % n0_2(d_0(),c_0()) ....... B15 % ~n0_2(x1,x0) | l1_2(x0,x0) ....... B48 % l1_2(c_0(), c_0()) ....... R1 [B15:L0, B48:L0] % Derivation of unit clause U241: % ~n1_3(c_0(),d_0(),d_0()) ....... B0 % ~l0_1(x2) | ~l1_2(x2,x0) | ~n1_3(x0,x1,x0) | n1_3(x0,x1,x1) ....... B296 % ~l0_1(x0) | ~l1_2(x0, c_0()) | ~n1_3(c_0(), d_0(), c_0()) ....... R1 [B0:L0, B296:L3] % l0_1(c_0()) ....... U8 % ~l1_2(c_0(), c_0()) | ~n1_3(c_0(), d_0(), c_0()) ....... R2 [R1:L0, U8:L0] % l1_2(c_0(),c_0()) ....... U70 % ~n1_3(c_0(), d_0(), c_0()) ....... R3 [R2:L0, U70:L0] % Derivation of unit clause U277: % p0_2(b_0(),x0) ....... B2 % ~l0_1(x0) | ~s0_1(b_0()) | ~p0_2(b_0(),x1) | n1_3(x0,x1,x0) ....... B320 % ~l0_1(x0) | ~s0_1(b_0()) | n1_3(x0, x1, x0) ....... R1 [B2:L0, B320:L2] % l0_1(c_0()) ....... U8 % ~s0_1(b_0()) | n1_3(c_0(), x0, c_0()) ....... R2 [R1:L0, U8:L0] % s0_1(b_0()) ....... U12 % n1_3(c_0(), x0, c_0()) ....... R3 [R2:L0, U12:L0] % Derivation of the empty clause: % n1_3(c_0(),x0,c_0()) ....... U277 % ~n1_3(c_0(),d_0(),c_0()) ....... U241 % [] ....... R1 [U277:L0, U241:L0] % --------------- End of Proof --------------- % PROOF FOUND! % --------------------------------------------- % | Statistics | % --------------------------------------------- % Profile 3: Performance Statistics: % ================================== % Total number of generated clauses: 8472 % resolvents: 8365 factors: 107 % Number of unit clauses generated: 2836 % % unit clauses generated to total clauses generated: 33.47 % Number of unit clauses constructed and retained at depth [x]: % ============================================================= % [0] = 39 [1] = 94 [2] = 108 [3] = 37 % Total = 278 % Number of generated clauses having [x] literals: % ------------------------------------------------ % [1] = 2836 [2] = 4316 [3] = 1320 % Average size of a generated clause: 2.0 % Number of unit clauses per predicate list: % ========================================== % [0] k0_1 (+)2 (-)0 % [1] k1_1 (+)5 (-)0 % [2] k4_1 (+)0 (-)0 % [3] k5_1 (+)0 (-)0 % [4] l0_1 (+)2 (-)0 % [5] l4_1 (+)6 (-)0 % [6] l5_1 (+)0 (-)0 % [7] m2_1 (+)2 (-)0 % [8] n2_1 (+)6 (-)0 % [9] n3_1 (+)6 (-)0 % [10] r0_1 (+)2 (-)0 % [11] r1_1 (+)0 (-)0 % [12] r2_1 (+)0 (-)0 % [13] r4_1 (+)6 (-)0 % [14] s0_1 (+)2 (-)0 % [15] s1_1 (+)5 (-)0 % [16] s2_1 (+)1 (-)0 % [17] s4_1 (+)0 (-)0 % [18] s5_1 (+)0 (-)0 % [19] k2_2 (+)6 (-)0 % [20] l1_2 (+)6 (-)0 % [21] l2_2 (+)6 (-)0 % [22] l3_2 (+)3 (-)0 % [23] m4_2 (+)0 (-)0 % [24] m5_2 (+)0 (-)0 % [25] n0_2 (+)8 (-)0 % [26] n4_2 (+)0 (-)0 % [27] n5_2 (+)0 (-)0 % [28] p0_2 (+)4 (-)0 % [29] q0_2 (+)8 (-)0 % [30] q3_2 (+)2 (-)0 % [31] q4_2 (+)0 (-)0 % [32] q5_2 (+)0 (-)0 % [33] r5_2 (+)0 (-)0 % [34] s3_2 (+)1 (-)0 % [35] k3_3 (+)7 (-)0 % [36] m0_3 (+)10 (-)0 % [37] m1_3 (+)27 (-)0 % [38] m3_3 (+)6 (-)0 % [39] n1_3 (+)25 (-)2 % [40] p1_3 (+)21 (-)0 % [41] p2_3 (+)19 (-)0 % [42] p3_3 (+)6 (-)0 % [43] p4_3 (+)6 (-)0 % [44] p5_3 (+)0 (-)0 % [45] q1_3 (+)37 (-)0 % [46] q2_3 (+)16 (-)0 % [47] r3_3 (+)7 (-)0 % ------------------ % Total: (+)276 (-)2 % Total number of unit clauses retained: 278 % Number of clauses skipped because of their length: 104481 % N base clauses skippped in resolve-with-all-base-clauses % because of the shortest resolvents table: 414 % Number of successful unifications: 8479 % Number of unification failures: 5078 % Number of unit to unit unification failures: 49 % N literal unification failure due to lookup root_id table: 25241 % N base clause resolution failure due to lookup table: 119948 % N UC-BCL resolution dropped due to lookup table: 21 % Max entries in substitution set: 9 % N unit clauses dropped because they exceeded max values: 1981 % 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: 3 % Max term depth in a unit clause: 1 % Number of states in UCFA table: 294 % Total number of terms of all unit clauses in table: 700 % 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: 0.42 % Number of symbols (columns) in UCFA: 87 % Profile 2: Number of calls to: % ============================== % PTUnify() = 13557 % ConstructUnitClause() = 2220 % Profile 1: Time spent in: % ========================= % ConstructUnitClause() : 0.01 secs % -------------------------------------------------------- % | | % Inferences per sec: inf % | | % -------------------------------------------------------- % Elapsed time: 0 secs % CPU time: 0.28 secs % %------------------------------------------------------------------------------