%------------------------------------------------------------------------------ % File : CARINE---0.734 % Problem : SYN555-1 : TPTP v5.0.0. Released v2.5.0. % Transfm : add_equality % Format : carine % Command : carine %s t=%d xo=off uct=32000 % Computer : art06.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 10:20:04 EST 2010 % Result : Unsatisfiable 0.18s % Output : Refutation 0.18s % 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/SystemOnTPTP4412/SYN/SYN555-1+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 = 15] [nf = 0] [nu = 0] [ut = 6] % Looking for a proof at depth = 2 ... % +================================================+ % | | % | Congratulations!!! ........ A proof was found. | % | | % +================================================+ % Base Clauses and Unit Clauses used in proof: % ============================================ % Base Clauses: % ------------- % B0: p3_2(x0,x0) % B1: p4_2(x0,x0) % B3: p4_2(f5_3(c7_0(),c10_0(),c9_0()),c9_0()) % B8: ~p4_2(x2,x1) | ~p4_2(x2,x0) | p4_2(x0,x1) % B11: ~p4_2(f5_3(c7_0(),f6_3(x0,x2,x1),x2),f5_3(c7_0(),f6_3(x0,x2,x1),x1)) | ~p4_2(f5_3(c7_0(),x0,x2),x2) | p4_2(f5_3(c7_0(),x0,x1),x1) % Unit Clauses: % -------------- % U2: < d0 v2 dv1 f2 c4 t8 td2 b nc > p4_2(f5_3(c7_0(),x0,c8_0()),f5_3(c7_0(),x0,c9_0())) % U4: < d0 v0 dv0 f1 c4 t5 td2 b nc > ~p4_2(f5_3(c7_0(),c10_0(),c8_0()),c8_0()) % U6: < d2 v2 dv1 f2 c4 t8 td2 > p4_2(f5_3(c7_0(),x0,c9_0()),f5_3(c7_0(),x0,c8_0())) % U13: < d2 v0 dv0 f1 c4 t5 td2 > p4_2(f5_3(c7_0(),c10_0(),c8_0()),c8_0()) % --------------- Start of Proof --------------- % Derivation of unit clause U2: % p4_2(f5_3(c7_0(),x0,c8_0()),f5_3(c7_0(),x0,c9_0())) ....... U2 % Derivation of unit clause U4: % ~p4_2(f5_3(c7_0(),c10_0(),c8_0()),c8_0()) ....... U4 % Derivation of unit clause U6: % p4_2(x0,x0) ....... B1 % ~p4_2(x2,x1) | ~p4_2(x2,x0) | p4_2(x0,x1) ....... B8 % ~p4_2(x0, x1) | p4_2(x1, x0) ....... R1 [B1:L0, B8:L0] % p4_2(f5_3(c7_0(),x0,c8_0()),f5_3(c7_0(),x0,c9_0())) ....... U2 % p4_2(f5_3(c7_0(), x0, c9_0()), f5_3(c7_0(), x0, c8_0())) ....... R2 [R1:L0, U2:L0] % Derivation of unit clause U13: % p4_2(f5_3(c7_0(),c10_0(),c9_0()),c9_0()) ....... B3 % ~p4_2(f5_3(c7_0(),f6_3(x0,x2,x1),x2),f5_3(c7_0(),f6_3(x0,x2,x1),x1)) | ~p4_2(f5_3(c7_0(),x0,x2),x2) | p4_2(f5_3(c7_0(),x0,x1),x1) ....... B11 % ~p4_2(f5_3(c7_0(), f6_3(c10_0(), c9_0(), x0), c9_0()), f5_3(c7_0(), f6_3(c10_0(), c9_0(), x0), x0)) | p4_2(f5_3(c7_0(), c10_0(), x0), x0) ....... R1 [B3:L0, B11:L1] % p4_2(f5_3(c7_0(),x0,c9_0()),f5_3(c7_0(),x0,c8_0())) ....... U6 % p4_2(f5_3(c7_0(), c10_0(), c8_0()), c8_0()) ....... R2 [R1:L0, U6:L0] % Derivation of the empty clause: % p4_2(f5_3(c7_0(),c10_0(),c8_0()),c8_0()) ....... U13 % ~p4_2(f5_3(c7_0(),c10_0(),c8_0()),c8_0()) ....... U4 % [] ....... R1 [U13:L0, U4:L0] % --------------- End of Proof --------------- % PROOF FOUND! % --------------------------------------------- % | Statistics | % --------------------------------------------- % Profile 3: Performance Statistics: % ================================== % Total number of generated clauses: 71 % resolvents: 69 factors: 2 % Number of unit clauses generated: 32 % % unit clauses generated to total clauses generated: 45.07 % Number of unit clauses constructed and retained at depth [x]: % ============================================================= % [0] = 6 [2] = 8 % Total = 14 % Number of generated clauses having [x] literals: % ------------------------------------------------ % [1] = 32 [2] = 28 [3] = 11 % Average size of a generated clause: 2.0 % Number of unit clauses per predicate list: % ========================================== % [0] p2_2 (+)1 (-)0 % [1] p3_2 (+)1 (-)0 % [2] p4_2 (+)10 (-)2 % ------------------ % Total: (+)12 (-)2 % Total number of unit clauses retained: 14 % Number of clauses skipped because of their length: 63 % N base clauses skippped in resolve-with-all-base-clauses % because of the shortest resolvents table: 0 % Number of successful unifications: 75 % Number of unification failures: 35 % Number of unit to unit unification failures: 18 % N literal unification failure due to lookup root_id table: 50 % N base clause resolution failure due to lookup table: 23 % 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: 24 % 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: 8 % Max term depth in a unit clause: 2 % Number of states in UCFA table: 36 % Total number of terms of all unit clauses in table: 67 % Max allowed number of states in UCFA: 160000 % Ratio n states used/total allowed states: 0.00 % Ratio n states used/total unit clauses terms: 0.54 % Number of symbols (columns) in UCFA: 43 % Profile 2: Number of calls to: % ============================== % PTUnify() = 110 % ConstructUnitClause() = 32 % Profile 1: Time spent in: % ========================= % ConstructUnitClause() : 0.00 secs % -------------------------------------------------------- % | | % Inferences per sec: inf % | | % -------------------------------------------------------- % Elapsed time: 0 secs % CPU time: 0.18 secs % %------------------------------------------------------------------------------