%------------------------------------------------------------------------------ % File : CARINE---0.734 % Problem : SYN724-1 : TPTP v5.0.0. Released v2.5.0. % Transfm : add_equality % Format : carine % Command : carine %s t=%d xo=off uct=32000 % Computer : art11.cs.miami.edu % Model : i686 i686 % CPU : Intel(R) Pentium(R) 4 CPU 3.00GHz @ 3000MHz % Memory : 2006MB % OS : Linux 2.6.31.5-127.fc12.i686.PAE % CPULimit : 300s % DateTime : Sun Nov 28 11:33:41 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/SystemOnTPTP9824/SYN/SYN724-1+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 = 4] [nf = 0] [nu = 0] [ut = 0] % Looking for a proof at depth = 2 ... % t = 1 secs [nr = 22] [nf = 4] [nu = 0] [ut = 0] % Looking for a proof at depth = 3 ... % t = 1 secs [nr = 120] [nf = 14] [nu = 10] [ut = 4] % Looking for a proof at depth = 4 ... % +================================================+ % | | % | Congratulations!!! ........ A proof was found. | % | | % +================================================+ % Base Clauses and Unit Clauses used in proof: % ============================================ % Base Clauses: % ------------- % B0: ~r_1(x0) | s_1(x0) % B1: r_1(sk1_0()) | r_1(sk2_0()) % B3: ~r_1(sk2_0()) | ~s_1(sk2_0()) | r_1(sk1_0()) % B4: ~r_1(sk2_0()) | ~s_1(sk2_0()) | ~s_1(sk1_0()) % Unit Clauses: % -------------- % U0: < d3 v0 dv0 f0 c1 t1 td1 > r_1(sk2_0()) % U2: < d3 v0 dv0 f0 c1 t1 td1 > ~s_1(sk1_0()) % U4: < d4 v0 dv0 f0 c1 t1 td1 > s_1(sk1_0()) % --------------- Start of Proof --------------- % Derivation of unit clause U0: % ~r_1(x0) | s_1(x0) ....... B0 % r_1(sk1_0()) | r_1(sk2_0()) ....... B1 % s_1(sk1_0()) | r_1(sk2_0()) ....... R1 [B0:L0, B1:L0] % ~s_1(sk1_0()) | r_1(sk2_0()) ....... B2 % r_1(sk2_0()) | r_1(sk2_0()) ....... R2 [R1:L0, B2:L0] % r_1(sk2_0()) ....... R3 [R2:L0, R2:L1] % Derivation of unit clause U2: % ~r_1(x0) | s_1(x0) ....... B0 % ~r_1(sk2_0()) | ~s_1(sk2_0()) | ~s_1(sk1_0()) ....... B4 % ~r_1(sk2_0()) | ~r_1(sk2_0()) | ~s_1(sk1_0()) ....... R1 [B0:L1, B4:L1] % ~r_1(sk2_0()) | ~s_1(sk1_0()) ....... R2 [R1:L0, R1:L1] % r_1(sk2_0()) ....... U0 % ~s_1(sk1_0()) ....... R3 [R2:L0, U0:L0] % Derivation of unit clause U4: % ~r_1(x0) | s_1(x0) ....... B0 % ~r_1(sk2_0()) | ~s_1(sk2_0()) | r_1(sk1_0()) ....... B3 % ~r_1(sk2_0()) | ~r_1(sk2_0()) | r_1(sk1_0()) ....... R1 [B0:L1, B3:L1] % ~r_1(sk2_0()) | r_1(sk1_0()) ....... R2 [R1:L0, R1:L1] % ~r_1(x0) | s_1(x0) ....... B0 % ~r_1(sk2_0()) | s_1(sk1_0()) ....... R3 [R2:L1, B0:L0] % r_1(sk2_0()) ....... U0 % s_1(sk1_0()) ....... R4 [R3:L0, U0:L0] % Derivation of the empty clause: % s_1(sk1_0()) ....... U4 % ~s_1(sk1_0()) ....... U2 % [] ....... R1 [U4:L0, U2:L0] % --------------- End of Proof --------------- % PROOF FOUND! % --------------------------------------------- % | Statistics | % --------------------------------------------- % Profile 3: Performance Statistics: % ================================== % Total number of generated clauses: 285 % resolvents: 262 factors: 23 % Number of unit clauses generated: 40 % % unit clauses generated to total clauses generated: 14.04 % Number of unit clauses constructed and retained at depth [x]: % ============================================================= % [3] = 4 % [4] = 1 % Total = 5 % Number of generated clauses having [x] literals: % ------------------------------------------------ % [1] = 40 [2] = 152 [3] = 93 % Average size of a generated clause: 3.0 % Number of unit clauses per predicate list: % ========================================== % [0] r_1 (+)2 (-)0 % [1] s_1 (+)1 (-)2 % ------------------ % Total: (+)3 (-)2 % Total number of unit clauses retained: 5 % Number of clauses skipped because of their length: 162 % N base clauses skippped in resolve-with-all-base-clauses % because of the shortest resolvents table: 36 % Number of successful unifications: 295 % Number of unification failures: 108 % Number of unit to unit unification failures: 0 % N literal unification failure due to lookup root_id table: 609 % N base clause resolution failure due to lookup table: 129 % N UC-BCL resolution dropped due to lookup table: 0 % Max entries in substitution set: 3 % N unit clauses dropped because they exceeded max values: 16 % 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: 1 % Max term depth in a unit clause: 1 % Number of states in UCFA table: 6 % Total number of terms of all unit clauses in table: 5 % 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: 1.20 % Number of symbols (columns) in UCFA: 38 % Profile 2: Number of calls to: % ============================== % PTUnify() = 403 % ConstructUnitClause() = 21 % Profile 1: Time spent in: % ========================= % ConstructUnitClause() : 0.00 secs % -------------------------------------------------------- % | | % Inferences per sec: inf % | | % -------------------------------------------------------- % Elapsed time: 1 secs % CPU time: 0.13 secs % %------------------------------------------------------------------------------