%------------------------------------------------------------------------------ % File : CARINE---0.734 % Problem : SYN721-1 : 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 11:31:50 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/SystemOnTPTP10669/SYN/SYN721-1+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 ... % +================================================+ % | | % | Congratulations!!! ........ A proof was found. | % | | % +================================================+ % Base Clauses and Unit Clauses used in proof: % ============================================ % Base Clauses: % ------------- % B0: r_2(a_0(),b_0()) % B1: ~q_2(x2,x1) | r_2(x0,x1) % B2: ~r_2(x0,x1) | q_2(x0,x0) % B3: ~q_2(x0,a_0()) | ~r_2(b_0(),x0) % Unit Clauses: % -------------- % U1: < d1 v0 dv0 f0 c2 t2 td1 > q_2(a_0(),a_0()) % U2: < d1 v1 dv1 f0 c1 t2 td1 > r_2(x0,a_0()) % U4: < d1 v0 dv0 f0 c2 t2 td1 > ~r_2(b_0(),a_0()) % --------------- Start of Proof --------------- % Derivation of unit clause U1: % r_2(a_0(),b_0()) ....... B0 % ~r_2(x0,x1) | q_2(x0,x0) ....... B2 % q_2(a_0(), a_0()) ....... R1 [B0:L0, B2:L0] % Derivation of unit clause U2: % ~q_2(x2,x1) | r_2(x0,x1) ....... B1 % q_2(a_0(),a_0()) ....... U1 % r_2(x0, a_0()) ....... R1 [B1:L0, U1:L0] % Derivation of unit clause U4: % ~q_2(x0,a_0()) | ~r_2(b_0(),x0) ....... B3 % q_2(a_0(),a_0()) ....... U1 % ~r_2(b_0(), a_0()) ....... R1 [B3:L0, U1:L0] % Derivation of the empty clause: % ~r_2(b_0(),a_0()) ....... U4 % r_2(x0,a_0()) ....... U2 % [] ....... R1 [U4:L0, U2:L0] % --------------- End of Proof --------------- % PROOF FOUND! % --------------------------------------------- % | Statistics | % --------------------------------------------- % Profile 3: Performance Statistics: % ================================== % Total number of generated clauses: 9 % resolvents: 9 factors: 0 % Number of unit clauses generated: 5 % % unit clauses generated to total clauses generated: 55.56 % Number of unit clauses constructed and retained at depth [x]: % ============================================================= % [0] = 1 [1] = 4 % Total = 5 % Number of generated clauses having [x] literals: % ------------------------------------------------ % [1] = 5 [2] = 4 % Average size of a generated clause: 2.0 % Number of unit clauses per predicate list: % ========================================== % [0] q_2 (+)2 (-)0 % [1] r_2 (+)2 (-)1 % ------------------ % Total: (+)4 (-)1 % Total number of unit clauses retained: 5 % 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: 12 % Number of unification failures: 0 % Number of unit to unit unification failures: 1 % N literal unification failure due to lookup root_id table: 9 % N base clause resolution failure due to lookup table: 4 % N UC-BCL resolution dropped due to lookup table: 0 % Max entries in substitution set: 2 % N unit clauses dropped because they exceeded max values: 1 % 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: 2 % Max term depth in a unit clause: 1 % Number of states in UCFA table: 11 % Total number of terms of all unit clauses in table: 10 % 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: 1.10 % Number of symbols (columns) in UCFA: 38 % Profile 2: Number of calls to: % ============================== % PTUnify() = 12 % ConstructUnitClause() = 5 % Profile 1: Time spent in: % ========================= % ConstructUnitClause() : 0.00 secs % -------------------------------------------------------- % | | % Inferences per sec: inf % | | % -------------------------------------------------------- % Elapsed time: 0 secs % CPU time: 0.14 secs % %------------------------------------------------------------------------------