%------------------------------------------------------------------------------ % File : CARINE---0.734 % Problem : SYN331-1 : TPTP v5.0.0. Released v1.2.0. % Transfm : add_equality % Format : carine % Command : carine %s t=%d xo=off uct=32000 % Computer : art03.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 08:56:19 EST 2010 % Result : Unsatisfiable 0.13s % Output : Refutation 0.13s % 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/SystemOnTPTP32003/SYN/SYN331-1+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 = 20] [nf = 0] [nu = 10] [ut = 4] % 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(z_2(x0,x1),x0) % B4: f_2(x0,x1) | f_2(z_2(x1,x0),z_2(x1,x0)) % B5: ~f_2(z_2(x0,x1),z_2(x0,x1)) | f_2(x0,x1) % Unit Clauses: % -------------- % U0: < d0 v3 dv2 f1 c0 t4 td2 b nc > ~f_2(z_2(x0,x1),x0) % U4: < d2 v2 dv1 f0 c0 t2 td1 > f_2(x0,x0) % U5: < d2 v2 dv2 f0 c0 t2 td1 > f_2(x0,x1) % --------------- Start of Proof --------------- % Derivation of unit clause U0: % ~f_2(z_2(x0,x1),x0) ....... U0 % Derivation of unit clause U4: % f_2(x0,x1) | f_2(z_2(x1,x0),z_2(x1,x0)) ....... B4 % ~f_2(z_2(x0,x1),z_2(x0,x1)) | f_2(x0,x1) ....... B5 % f_2(x0, x1) | f_2(x1, x0) ....... R1 [B4:L1, B5:L0] % f_2(x0, x0) ....... R2 [R1:L0, R1:L1] % Derivation of unit clause U5: % ~f_2(z_2(x0,x1),z_2(x0,x1)) | f_2(x0,x1) ....... B5 % ~f_2(z_2(x0,x1),z_2(x0,x1)) | f_2(x0,x1) ....... B5 % ~f_2(z_2(z_2(x0, x1), z_2(x0, x1)), z_2(z_2(x0, x1), z_2(x0, x1))) | f_2(x0, x1) ....... R1 [B5:L1, B5:L0] % f_2(x0,x0) ....... U4 % f_2(x0, x1) ....... R2 [R1:L0, U4:L0] % Derivation of the empty clause: % f_2(x0,x1) ....... U5 % ~f_2(z_2(x0,x1),x0) ....... U0 % [] ....... R1 [U5:L0, U0:L0] % --------------- End of Proof --------------- % PROOF FOUND! % --------------------------------------------- % | Statistics | % --------------------------------------------- % Profile 3: Performance Statistics: % ================================== % Total number of generated clauses: 98 % resolvents: 97 factors: 1 % Number of unit clauses generated: 39 % % unit clauses generated to total clauses generated: 39.80 % Number of unit clauses constructed and retained at depth [x]: % ============================================================= % [0] = 4 [2] = 2 % Total = 6 % Number of generated clauses having [x] literals: % ------------------------------------------------ % [1] = 39 [2] = 59 % Average size of a generated clause: 2.0 % Number of unit clauses per predicate list: % ========================================== % [0] f_2 (+)4 (-)2 % ------------------ % Total: (+)4 (-)2 % Total number of unit clauses retained: 6 % 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: 102 % Number of unification failures: 5 % Number of unit to unit unification failures: 6 % N literal unification failure due to lookup root_id table: 105 % N base clause resolution failure due to lookup table: 16 % 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: 26 % 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: 4 % Max term depth in a unit clause: 2 % Number of states in UCFA table: 12 % Total number of terms of all unit clauses in table: 20 % 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: 0.60 % Number of symbols (columns) in UCFA: 36 % Profile 2: Number of calls to: % ============================== % PTUnify() = 107 % ConstructUnitClause() = 28 % Profile 1: Time spent in: % ========================= % ConstructUnitClause() : 0.00 secs % -------------------------------------------------------- % | | % Inferences per sec: inf % | | % -------------------------------------------------------- % Elapsed time: 0 secs % CPU time: 0.13 secs % %------------------------------------------------------------------------------