%------------------------------------------------------------------------------ % File : CARINE---0.734 % Problem : SYN585-1 : TPTP v5.0.0. Released v2.5.0. % Transfm : add_equality % Format : carine % Command : carine %s t=%d xo=off uct=32000 % Computer : art01.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 10:32:16 EST 2010 % Result : Unsatisfiable 0.17s % Output : Refutation 0.17s % 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/SystemOnTPTP25551/SYN/SYN585-1+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 = 173] [nf = 0] [nu = 101] [ut = 69] % Looking for a proof at depth = 2 ... % +================================================+ % | | % | Congratulations!!! ........ A proof was found. | % | | % +================================================+ % Base Clauses and Unit Clauses used in proof: % ============================================ % Base Clauses: % ------------- % B0: p11_2(x0,x0) % B3: p11_2(c18_0(),f9_2(c12_0(),c14_0())) % B9: ~p2_2(c12_0(),f3_1(c13_0())) % B12: ~p11_2(x0,x2) | p11_2(x0,f8_2(x1,x2)) % B20: ~p11_2(x2,x1) | ~p11_2(x0,x2) | p11_2(x0,x1) % B25: ~p11_2(x1,x2) | p11_2(f9_2(x0,x1),f9_2(x0,x2)) | p2_2(x0,f3_1(c13_0())) % Unit Clauses: % -------------- % U4: < d0 v0 dv0 f2 c4 t6 td3 b nc > ~p11_2(c18_0(),f9_2(c12_0(),f8_2(c16_0(),c14_0()))) % U12: < d1 v3 dv2 f1 c0 t4 td2 > p11_2(x0,f8_2(x1,x0)) % U71: < d2 v0 dv0 f3 c5 t8 td3 > ~p11_2(f9_2(c12_0(),c14_0()),f9_2(c12_0(),f8_2(c16_0(),c14_0()))) % U217: < d2 v3 dv2 f3 c2 t8 td3 > p11_2(f9_2(c12_0(),x0),f9_2(c12_0(),f8_2(x1,x0))) % --------------- Start of Proof --------------- % Derivation of unit clause U4: % ~p11_2(c18_0(),f9_2(c12_0(),f8_2(c16_0(),c14_0()))) ....... U4 % Derivation of unit clause U12: % p11_2(x0,x0) ....... B0 % ~p11_2(x0,x2) | p11_2(x0,f8_2(x1,x2)) ....... B12 % p11_2(x0, f8_2(x1, x0)) ....... R1 [B0:L0, B12:L0] % Derivation of unit clause U71: % p11_2(c18_0(),f9_2(c12_0(),c14_0())) ....... B3 % ~p11_2(x2,x1) | ~p11_2(x0,x2) | p11_2(x0,x1) ....... B20 % ~p11_2(f9_2(c12_0(), c14_0()), x0) | p11_2(c18_0(), x0) ....... R1 [B3:L0, B20:L1] % ~p11_2(c18_0(),f9_2(c12_0(),f8_2(c16_0(),c14_0()))) ....... U4 % ~p11_2(f9_2(c12_0(), c14_0()), f9_2(c12_0(), f8_2(c16_0(), c14_0()))) ....... R2 [R1:L1, U4:L0] % Derivation of unit clause U217: % ~p2_2(c12_0(),f3_1(c13_0())) ....... B9 % ~p11_2(x1,x2) | p11_2(f9_2(x0,x1),f9_2(x0,x2)) | p2_2(x0,f3_1(c13_0())) ....... B25 % ~p11_2(x0, x1) | p11_2(f9_2(c12_0(), x0), f9_2(c12_0(), x1)) ....... R1 [B9:L0, B25:L2] % p11_2(x0,f8_2(x1,x0)) ....... U12 % p11_2(f9_2(c12_0(), x0), f9_2(c12_0(), f8_2(x1, x0))) ....... R2 [R1:L0, U12:L0] % Derivation of the empty clause: % p11_2(f9_2(c12_0(),x0),f9_2(c12_0(),f8_2(x1,x0))) ....... U217 % ~p11_2(f9_2(c12_0(),c14_0()),f9_2(c12_0(),f8_2(c16_0(),c14_0()))) ....... U71 % [] ....... R1 [U217:L0, U71:L0] % --------------- End of Proof --------------- % PROOF FOUND! % --------------------------------------------- % | Statistics | % --------------------------------------------- % Profile 3: Performance Statistics: % ================================== % Total number of generated clauses: 3632 % resolvents: 3630 factors: 2 % Number of unit clauses generated: 3338 % % unit clauses generated to total clauses generated: 91.91 % Number of unit clauses constructed and retained at depth [x]: % ============================================================= % [0] = 12 [1] = 57 [2] = 149 % Total = 218 % Number of generated clauses having [x] literals: % ------------------------------------------------ % [1] = 3338 [2] = 277 [3] = 17 % Average size of a generated clause: 2.0 % Number of unit clauses per predicate list: % ========================================== % [0] p10_2 (+)2 (-)0 % [1] p11_2 (+)14 (-)7 % [2] p2_2 (+)190 (-)5 % ------------------ % Total: (+)206 (-)12 % Total number of unit clauses retained: 218 % Number of clauses skipped because of their length: 500 % N base clauses skippped in resolve-with-all-base-clauses % because of the shortest resolvents table: 0 % Number of successful unifications: 3637 % Number of unification failures: 1365 % Number of unit to unit unification failures: 1042 % N literal unification failure due to lookup root_id table: 470 % N base clause resolution failure due to lookup table: 238 % 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: 3124 % N unit clauses dropped because too much nesting: 755 % 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: 10 % Max term depth in a unit clause: 5 % Number of states in UCFA table: 1088 % Total number of terms of all unit clauses in table: 1837 % Max allowed number of states in UCFA: 96000 % Ratio n states used/total allowed states: 0.01 % Ratio n states used/total unit clauses terms: 0.59 % Number of symbols (columns) in UCFA: 51 % Profile 2: Number of calls to: % ============================== % PTUnify() = 5002 % ConstructUnitClause() = 3330 % Profile 1: Time spent in: % ========================= % ConstructUnitClause() : 0.02 secs % -------------------------------------------------------- % | | % Inferences per sec: inf % | | % -------------------------------------------------------- % Elapsed time: 0 secs % CPU time: 0.17 secs % %------------------------------------------------------------------------------