%------------------------------------------------------------------------------ % File : CARINE---0.734 % Problem : SYN237-1 : TPTP v5.0.0. Released v1.1.0. % 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 08:45:05 EST 2010 % Result : Unsatisfiable 0.25s % Output : Refutation 0.25s % 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/SystemOnTPTP2488/SYN/SYN237-1+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 ... % +================================================+ % | | % | Congratulations!!! ........ A proof was found. | % | | % +================================================+ % Base Clauses and Unit Clauses used in proof: % ============================================ % Base Clauses: % ------------- % B0: ~m1_3(x0,x0,e_0()) % B42: ~m0_3(x1,x2,x0) | m1_3(x0,x0,x0) % Unit Clauses: % -------------- % U1: < d0 v2 dv2 f0 c1 t3 td1 b > m0_3(x0,d_0(),x1) % U39: < d1 v2 dv2 f0 c1 t3 td1 > ~m0_3(x0,x1,e_0()) % --------------- Start of Proof --------------- % Derivation of unit clause U1: % m0_3(x0,d_0(),x1) ....... U1 % Derivation of unit clause U39: % ~m1_3(x0,x0,e_0()) ....... B0 % ~m0_3(x1,x2,x0) | m1_3(x0,x0,x0) ....... B42 % ~m0_3(x0, x1, e_0()) ....... R1 [B0:L0, B42:L1] % Derivation of the empty clause: % ~m0_3(x0,x1,e_0()) ....... U39 % m0_3(x0,d_0(),x1) ....... U1 % [] ....... R1 [U39:L0, U1:L0] % --------------- End of Proof --------------- % PROOF FOUND! % --------------------------------------------- % | Statistics | % --------------------------------------------- % Profile 3: Performance Statistics: % ================================== % Total number of generated clauses: 1 % resolvents: 1 factors: 0 % Number of unit clauses generated: 1 % % unit clauses generated to total clauses generated: 100.00 % Number of unit clauses constructed and retained at depth [x]: % ============================================================= % [0] = 39 [1] = 1 % Total = 40 % Number of generated clauses having [x] literals: % ------------------------------------------------ % [1] = 1 % Average size of a generated clause: 1.0 % Number of unit clauses per predicate list: % ========================================== % [0] k0_1 (+)2 (-)0 % [1] k1_1 (+)0 (-)0 % [2] k4_1 (+)0 (-)0 % [3] k5_1 (+)0 (-)0 % [4] l0_1 (+)2 (-)0 % [5] l4_1 (+)0 (-)0 % [6] l5_1 (+)0 (-)0 % [7] m2_1 (+)0 (-)0 % [8] n2_1 (+)0 (-)0 % [9] n3_1 (+)0 (-)0 % [10] r0_1 (+)2 (-)0 % [11] r1_1 (+)0 (-)0 % [12] r2_1 (+)0 (-)0 % [13] r4_1 (+)0 (-)0 % [14] s0_1 (+)2 (-)0 % [15] s1_1 (+)0 (-)0 % [16] s2_1 (+)0 (-)0 % [17] s4_1 (+)0 (-)0 % [18] s5_1 (+)0 (-)0 % [19] k2_2 (+)0 (-)0 % [20] l1_2 (+)0 (-)0 % [21] l2_2 (+)0 (-)0 % [22] l3_2 (+)0 (-)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 (+)0 (-)0 % [31] q4_2 (+)0 (-)0 % [32] q5_2 (+)0 (-)0 % [33] r5_2 (+)0 (-)0 % [34] s3_2 (+)0 (-)0 % [35] k3_3 (+)0 (-)0 % [36] m0_3 (+)10 (-)1 % [37] m1_3 (+)0 (-)1 % [38] m3_3 (+)0 (-)0 % [39] n1_3 (+)0 (-)0 % [40] p1_3 (+)0 (-)0 % [41] p2_3 (+)0 (-)0 % [42] p3_3 (+)0 (-)0 % [43] p4_3 (+)0 (-)0 % [44] p5_3 (+)0 (-)0 % [45] q1_3 (+)0 (-)0 % [46] q2_3 (+)0 (-)0 % [47] r3_3 (+)0 (-)0 % ------------------ % Total: (+)38 (-)2 % Total number of unit clauses retained: 40 % 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: 2 % Number of unification failures: 0 % Number of unit to unit unification failures: 0 % N literal unification failure due to lookup root_id table: 1 % N base clause resolution failure due to lookup table: 3 % N UC-BCL resolution dropped due to lookup table: 0 % Max entries in substitution set: 0 % 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: 3 % Max term depth in a unit clause: 1 % Number of states in UCFA table: 44 % Total number of terms of all unit clauses in table: 84 % 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: 0.52 % Number of symbols (columns) in UCFA: 87 % Profile 2: Number of calls to: % ============================== % PTUnify() = 2 % ConstructUnitClause() = 1 % Profile 1: Time spent in: % ========================= % ConstructUnitClause() : 0.00 secs % -------------------------------------------------------- % | | % Inferences per sec: inf % | | % -------------------------------------------------------- % Elapsed time: 1 secs % CPU time: 0.24 secs % %------------------------------------------------------------------------------