%------------------------------------------------------------------------------ % File : CARINE---0.734 % Problem : SYN321-1 : TPTP v5.0.0. Released v1.2.0. % Transfm : add_equality % Format : carine % Command : carine %s t=%d xo=off uct=32000 % Computer : art11.cs.miami.edu % Model : i686 i686 % CPU : Intel(R) Pentium(R) 4 CPU 3.00GHz @ 3000MHz % Memory : 2006MB % OS : Linux 2.6.31.5-127.fc12.i686.PAE % CPULimit : 300s % DateTime : Sun Nov 28 08:54:17 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/SystemOnTPTP18566/SYN/SYN321-1+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 = 8] [nf = 0] [nu = 0] [ut = 0] % Looking for a proof at depth = 2 ... % +================================================+ % | | % | Congratulations!!! ........ A proof was found. | % | | % +================================================+ % Base Clauses and Unit Clauses used in proof: % ============================================ % Base Clauses: % ------------- % B0: ~f_2(a_0(),x0) | g_2(a_0(),x1) % B1: f_2(a_0(),b_0()) | g_2(a_0(),x0) % B2: ~g_2(x0,x0) | f_2(x0,b_0()) % B3: ~f_2(a_0(),b_0()) | ~g_2(a_0(),d_0()) % Unit Clauses: % -------------- % U1: < d2 v0 dv0 f0 c2 t2 td1 > ~f_2(a_0(),b_0()) % U2: < d2 v0 dv0 f0 c2 t2 td1 > f_2(a_0(),b_0()) % --------------- Start of Proof --------------- % Derivation of unit clause U1: % ~f_2(a_0(),x0) | g_2(a_0(),x1) ....... B0 % ~f_2(a_0(),b_0()) | ~g_2(a_0(),d_0()) ....... B3 % ~f_2(a_0(), x0) | ~f_2(a_0(), b_0()) ....... R1 [B0:L1, B3:L1] % ~f_2(a_0(), b_0()) ....... R2 [R1:L0, R1:L1] % Derivation of unit clause U2: % f_2(a_0(),b_0()) | g_2(a_0(),x0) ....... B1 % ~g_2(x0,x0) | f_2(x0,b_0()) ....... B2 % f_2(a_0(), b_0()) | f_2(a_0(), b_0()) ....... R1 [B1:L1, B2:L0] % f_2(a_0(), b_0()) ....... R2 [R1:L0, R1:L1] % Derivation of the empty clause: % f_2(a_0(),b_0()) ....... U2 % ~f_2(a_0(),b_0()) ....... U1 % [] ....... R1 [U2:L0, U1:L0] % --------------- End of Proof --------------- % PROOF FOUND! % --------------------------------------------- % | Statistics | % --------------------------------------------- % Profile 3: Performance Statistics: % ================================== % Total number of generated clauses: 34 % resolvents: 31 factors: 3 % Number of unit clauses generated: 5 % % unit clauses generated to total clauses generated: 14.71 % Number of unit clauses constructed and retained at depth [x]: % ============================================================= % [2] = 3 % Total = 3 % Number of generated clauses having [x] literals: % ------------------------------------------------ % [1] = 5 [2] = 29 % Average size of a generated clause: 2.0 % Number of unit clauses per predicate list: % ========================================== % [0] f_2 (+)1 (-)1 % [1] g_2 (+)1 (-)0 % ------------------ % Total: (+)2 (-)1 % Total number of unit clauses retained: 3 % 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: 38 % Number of unification failures: 0 % Number of unit to unit unification failures: 0 % N literal unification failure due to lookup root_id table: 57 % N base clause resolution failure due to lookup table: 14 % N UC-BCL resolution dropped due to lookup table: 0 % Max entries in substitution set: 4 % 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: 2 % 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: 39 % Profile 2: Number of calls to: % ============================== % PTUnify() = 38 % ConstructUnitClause() = 4 % Profile 1: Time spent in: % ========================= % ConstructUnitClause() : 0.00 secs % -------------------------------------------------------- % | | % Inferences per sec: inf % | | % -------------------------------------------------------- % Elapsed time: 0 secs % CPU time: 0.13 secs % %------------------------------------------------------------------------------