%------------------------------------------------------------------------------ % File : CARINE---0.734 % Problem : SYN354-1 : TPTP v5.0.0. Released v1.2.0. % Transfm : add_equality % Format : carine % Command : carine %s t=%d xo=off uct=32000 % Computer : art09.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 09:01:52 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/SystemOnTPTP4501/SYN/SYN354-1+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 = 1 secs [nr = 8] [nf = 0] [nu = 0] [ut = 2] % Looking for a proof at depth = 2 ... % t = 1 secs [nr = 46] [nf = 10] [nu = 4] [ut = 3] % Looking for a proof at depth = 3 ... % +================================================+ % | | % | Congratulations!!! ........ A proof was found. | % | | % +================================================+ % Base Clauses and Unit Clauses used in proof: % ============================================ % Base Clauses: % ------------- % B0: f_2(a_0(),b_0()) % B4: ~f_2(x0,x1) | f_2(b_0(),x1) | g_2(b_0(),z_2(x0,x1)) | g_2(x1,z_2(x0,x1)) % B5: ~f_2(x0,x1) | ~g_2(x1,z_2(x0,x1)) | ~g_2(b_0(),z_2(x0,x1)) | f_2(b_0(),x1) % B6: ~f_2(x0,x1) | ~f_2(b_0(),x0) | ~f_2(a_0(),x0) % Unit Clauses: % -------------- % U2: < d2 v0 dv0 f0 c2 t2 td1 > ~f_2(b_0(),b_0()) % U3: < d3 v0 dv0 f1 c3 t4 td2 > g_2(b_0(),z_2(a_0(),b_0())) % U4: < d3 v0 dv0 f0 c2 t2 td1 > f_2(b_0(),b_0()) % --------------- Start of Proof --------------- % Derivation of unit clause U2: % f_2(a_0(),b_0()) ....... B0 % ~f_2(x0,x1) | ~f_2(b_0(),x0) | ~f_2(a_0(),x0) ....... B6 % ~f_2(b_0(), x0) | ~f_2(b_0(), b_0()) ....... R1 [B0:L0, B6:L2] % ~f_2(b_0(), b_0()) ....... R2 [R1:L1, R1:L0] % Derivation of unit clause U3: % f_2(a_0(),b_0()) ....... B0 % ~f_2(x0,x1) | f_2(b_0(),x1) | g_2(b_0(),z_2(x0,x1)) | g_2(x1,z_2(x0,x1)) ....... B4 % f_2(b_0(), b_0()) | g_2(b_0(), z_2(a_0(), b_0())) | g_2(b_0(), z_2(a_0(), b_0())) ....... R1 [B0:L0, B4:L0] % f_2(b_0(), b_0()) | g_2(b_0(), z_2(a_0(), b_0())) ....... R2 [R1:L2, R1:L1] % ~f_2(b_0(),b_0()) ....... U2 % g_2(b_0(), z_2(a_0(), b_0())) ....... R3 [R2:L0, U2:L0] % Derivation of unit clause U4: % f_2(a_0(),b_0()) ....... B0 % ~f_2(x0,x1) | ~g_2(x1,z_2(x0,x1)) | ~g_2(b_0(),z_2(x0,x1)) | f_2(b_0(),x1) ....... B5 % ~g_2(b_0(), z_2(a_0(), b_0())) | ~g_2(b_0(), z_2(a_0(), b_0())) | f_2(b_0(), b_0()) ....... R1 [B0:L0, B5:L0] % ~g_2(b_0(), z_2(a_0(), b_0())) | f_2(b_0(), b_0()) ....... R2 [R1:L1, R1:L0] % g_2(b_0(),z_2(a_0(),b_0())) ....... U3 % f_2(b_0(), b_0()) ....... R3 [R2:L0, U3:L0] % Derivation of the empty clause: % f_2(b_0(),b_0()) ....... U4 % ~f_2(b_0(),b_0()) ....... U2 % [] ....... R1 [U4:L0, U2:L0] % --------------- End of Proof --------------- % PROOF FOUND! % --------------------------------------------- % | Statistics | % --------------------------------------------- % Profile 3: Performance Statistics: % ================================== % Total number of generated clauses: 71 % resolvents: 58 factors: 13 % Number of unit clauses generated: 7 % % unit clauses generated to total clauses generated: 9.86 % Number of unit clauses constructed and retained at depth [x]: % ============================================================= % [0] = 2 [2] = 1 [3] = 2 % Total = 5 % Number of generated clauses having [x] literals: % ------------------------------------------------ % [1] = 7 [2] = 58 [3] = 6 % Average size of a generated clause: 2.0 % Number of unit clauses per predicate list: % ========================================== % [0] f_2 (+)2 (-)1 % [1] g_2 (+)2 (-)0 % ------------------ % Total: (+)4 (-)1 % Total number of unit clauses retained: 5 % Number of clauses skipped because of their length: 25 % N base clauses skippped in resolve-with-all-base-clauses % because of the shortest resolvents table: 0 % Number of successful unifications: 79 % Number of unification failures: 13 % Number of unit to unit unification failures: 1 % N literal unification failure due to lookup root_id table: 92 % N base clause resolution failure due to lookup table: 28 % N UC-BCL resolution dropped due to lookup table: 0 % Max entries in substitution set: 5 % N unit clauses dropped because they exceeded max values: 4 % 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: 13 % Total number of terms of all unit clauses in table: 12 % 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: 1.08 % Number of symbols (columns) in UCFA: 39 % Profile 2: Number of calls to: % ============================== % PTUnify() = 92 % ConstructUnitClause() = 7 % Profile 1: Time spent in: % ========================= % ConstructUnitClause() : 0.00 secs % -------------------------------------------------------- % | | % Inferences per sec: inf % | | % -------------------------------------------------------- % Elapsed time: 1 secs % CPU time: 0.13 secs % %------------------------------------------------------------------------------