%------------------------------------------------------------------------------ % File : CARINE---0.734 % Problem : SYN570-1 : 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 10:27:01 EST 2010 % Result : Unsatisfiable 0.15s % Output : Refutation 0.15s % 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/SystemOnTPTP5106/SYN/SYN570-1+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 = 32] [nf = 0] [nu = 16] [ut = 20] % Looking for a proof at depth = 2 ... % t = 0 secs [nr = 382] [nf = 16] [nu = 222] [ut = 41] % Looking for a proof at depth = 3 ... % +================================================+ % | | % | Congratulations!!! ........ A proof was found. | % | | % +================================================+ % Base Clauses and Unit Clauses used in proof: % ============================================ % Base Clauses: % ------------- % B0: p2_2(x0,x0) % B1: p3_2(x0,x0) % B3: p7_2(x0,x0) % B6: p2_2(c12_0(),f5_1(c15_0())) % B10: ~p2_2(x0,x1) | p3_2(f4_1(x0),f4_1(x1)) % B15: ~p3_2(x2,x1) | ~p3_2(x2,x0) | p3_2(x0,x1) % B18: ~p3_2(x3,x0) | ~p7_2(x2,x1) | ~p9_2(x3,x2) | p9_2(x0,x1) % Unit Clauses: % -------------- % U4: < d0 v2 dv1 f2 c0 t4 td3 b nc > p3_2(f4_1(f5_1(x0)),x0) % U7: < d0 v0 dv0 f1 c2 t3 td2 b nc > p9_2(c15_0(),f8_1(c13_0())) % U8: < d0 v0 dv0 f2 c2 t4 td2 b nc > ~p9_2(f4_1(c12_0()),f8_1(c13_0())) % U14: < d1 v0 dv0 f3 c2 t5 td3 > p3_2(f4_1(c12_0()),f4_1(f5_1(c15_0()))) % U23: < d2 v2 dv1 f2 c0 t4 td3 > p3_2(x0,f4_1(f5_1(x0))) % U24: < d2 v0 dv0 f3 c2 t5 td3 > p3_2(f4_1(f5_1(c15_0())),f4_1(c12_0())) % U44: < d3 v0 dv0 f3 c2 t5 td3 > p9_2(f4_1(f5_1(c15_0())),f8_1(c13_0())) % U46: < d3 v0 dv0 f2 c2 t4 td2 > p9_2(f4_1(c12_0()),f8_1(c13_0())) % --------------- Start of Proof --------------- % Derivation of unit clause U4: % p3_2(f4_1(f5_1(x0)),x0) ....... U4 % Derivation of unit clause U7: % p9_2(c15_0(),f8_1(c13_0())) ....... U7 % Derivation of unit clause U8: % ~p9_2(f4_1(c12_0()),f8_1(c13_0())) ....... U8 % Derivation of unit clause U14: % p2_2(c12_0(),f5_1(c15_0())) ....... B6 % ~p2_2(x0,x1) | p3_2(f4_1(x0),f4_1(x1)) ....... B10 % p3_2(f4_1(c12_0()), f4_1(f5_1(c15_0()))) ....... R1 [B6:L0, B10:L0] % Derivation of unit clause U23: % p3_2(x0,x0) ....... B1 % ~p3_2(x2,x1) | ~p3_2(x2,x0) | p3_2(x0,x1) ....... B15 % ~p3_2(x0, x1) | p3_2(x1, x0) ....... R1 [B1:L0, B15:L0] % p3_2(f4_1(f5_1(x0)),x0) ....... U4 % p3_2(x0, f4_1(f5_1(x0))) ....... R2 [R1:L0, U4:L0] % Derivation of unit clause U24: % p3_2(x0,x0) ....... B1 % ~p3_2(x2,x1) | ~p3_2(x2,x0) | p3_2(x0,x1) ....... B15 % ~p3_2(x0, x1) | p3_2(x1, x0) ....... R1 [B1:L0, B15:L0] % p3_2(f4_1(c12_0()),f4_1(f5_1(c15_0()))) ....... U14 % p3_2(f4_1(f5_1(c15_0())), f4_1(c12_0())) ....... R2 [R1:L0, U14:L0] % Derivation of unit clause U44: % p7_2(x0,x0) ....... B3 % ~p3_2(x3,x0) | ~p7_2(x2,x1) | ~p9_2(x3,x2) | p9_2(x0,x1) ....... B18 % ~p3_2(x0, x1) | ~p9_2(x0, x2) | p9_2(x1, x2) ....... R1 [B3:L0, B18:L1] % p3_2(x0,f4_1(f5_1(x0))) ....... U23 % ~p9_2(x0, x1) | p9_2(f4_1(f5_1(x0)), x1) ....... R2 [R1:L0, U23:L0] % p9_2(c15_0(),f8_1(c13_0())) ....... U7 % p9_2(f4_1(f5_1(c15_0())), f8_1(c13_0())) ....... R3 [R2:L0, U7:L0] % Derivation of unit clause U46: % p7_2(x0,x0) ....... B3 % ~p3_2(x3,x0) | ~p7_2(x2,x1) | ~p9_2(x3,x2) | p9_2(x0,x1) ....... B18 % ~p3_2(x0, x1) | ~p9_2(x0, x2) | p9_2(x1, x2) ....... R1 [B3:L0, B18:L1] % p3_2(f4_1(f5_1(c15_0())),f4_1(c12_0())) ....... U24 % ~p9_2(f4_1(f5_1(c15_0())), x0) | p9_2(f4_1(c12_0()), x0) ....... R2 [R1:L0, U24:L0] % p9_2(f4_1(f5_1(c15_0())),f8_1(c13_0())) ....... U44 % p9_2(f4_1(c12_0()), f8_1(c13_0())) ....... R3 [R2:L0, U44:L0] % Derivation of the empty clause: % p9_2(f4_1(c12_0()),f8_1(c13_0())) ....... U46 % ~p9_2(f4_1(c12_0()),f8_1(c13_0())) ....... U8 % [] ....... R1 [U46:L0, U8:L0] % --------------- End of Proof --------------- % PROOF FOUND! % --------------------------------------------- % | Statistics | % --------------------------------------------- % Profile 3: Performance Statistics: % ================================== % Total number of generated clauses: 758 % resolvents: 710 factors: 48 % Number of unit clauses generated: 470 % % unit clauses generated to total clauses generated: 62.01 % Number of unit clauses constructed and retained at depth [x]: % ============================================================= % [0] = 10 [1] = 10 [2] = 21 [3] = 6 % Total = 47 % Number of generated clauses having [x] literals: % ------------------------------------------------ % [1] = 470 [2] = 242 [3] = 46 % Average size of a generated clause: 2.0 % Number of unit clauses per predicate list: % ========================================== % [0] p10_2 (+)1 (-)0 % [1] p11_2 (+)1 (-)0 % [2] p2_2 (+)16 (-)0 % [3] p3_2 (+)20 (-)0 % [4] p6_2 (+)1 (-)0 % [5] p7_2 (+)2 (-)0 % [6] p9_2 (+)4 (-)2 % ------------------ % Total: (+)45 (-)2 % Total number of unit clauses retained: 47 % Number of clauses skipped because of their length: 333 % N base clauses skippped in resolve-with-all-base-clauses % because of the shortest resolvents table: 0 % Number of successful unifications: 769 % Number of unification failures: 38 % Number of unit to unit unification failures: 6 % N literal unification failure due to lookup root_id table: 407 % N base clause resolution failure due to lookup table: 349 % N UC-BCL resolution dropped due to lookup table: 0 % Max entries in substitution set: 6 % N unit clauses dropped because they exceeded max values: 321 % N unit clauses dropped because too much nesting: 26 % 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: 5 % Number of states in UCFA table: 101 % Total number of terms of all unit clauses in table: 229 % 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: 0.44 % Number of symbols (columns) in UCFA: 48 % Profile 2: Number of calls to: % ============================== % PTUnify() = 807 % ConstructUnitClause() = 358 % Profile 1: Time spent in: % ========================= % ConstructUnitClause() : 0.00 secs % -------------------------------------------------------- % | | % Inferences per sec: inf % | | % -------------------------------------------------------- % Elapsed time: 0 secs % CPU time: 0.14 secs % %------------------------------------------------------------------------------