%------------------------------------------------------------------------------ % File : CARINE---0.734 % Problem : SYN728-1 : 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 11:33:57 EST 2010 % Result : Unsatisfiable 0.20s % Output : Refutation 0.20s % 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/SystemOnTPTP10232/SYN/SYN728-1+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 = 10] [nf = 0] [nu = 0] [ut = 0] % Looking for a proof at depth = 2 ... % t = 0 secs [nr = 65] [nf = 2] [nu = 7] [ut = 4] % Looking for a proof at depth = 3 ... % +================================================+ % | | % | Congratulations!!! ........ A proof was found. | % | | % +================================================+ % Base Clauses and Unit Clauses used in proof: % ============================================ % Base Clauses: % ------------- % B0: ~p_2(x1,x2) | p_2(x0,x0) % B1: ~m_1(g_1(x0)) | ~q_1(x0) % B3: q_1(f_2(x0,sk1_1(x0))) | p_2(x0,sk1_1(x0)) % B4: ~p_2(g_1(sk2_0()),x0) | ~p_2(sk2_0(),sk2_0()) % Unit Clauses: % -------------- % U0: < d2 v0 dv0 f0 c2 t2 td1 > ~p_2(sk2_0(),sk2_0()) % U1: < d2 v1 dv1 f1 c1 t3 td2 > ~p_2(g_1(sk2_0()),x0) % U3: < d2 v0 dv0 f5 c2 t7 td5 > ~m_1(g_1(f_2(g_1(sk2_0()),sk1_1(g_1(sk2_0()))))) % U5: < d3 v1 dv1 f0 c0 t1 td1 > m_1(x0) % --------------- Start of Proof --------------- % Derivation of unit clause U0: % ~p_2(x1,x2) | p_2(x0,x0) ....... B0 % ~p_2(g_1(sk2_0()),x0) | ~p_2(sk2_0(),sk2_0()) ....... B4 % ~p_2(x0, x1) | ~p_2(sk2_0(), sk2_0()) ....... R1 [B0:L1, B4:L0] % ~p_2(sk2_0(), sk2_0()) ....... R2 [R1:L0, R1:L1] % Derivation of unit clause U1: % ~p_2(x1,x2) | p_2(x0,x0) ....... B0 % ~p_2(g_1(sk2_0()),x0) | ~p_2(sk2_0(),sk2_0()) ....... B4 % ~p_2(x0, x1) | ~p_2(g_1(sk2_0()), x2) ....... R1 [B0:L1, B4:L1] % ~p_2(g_1(sk2_0()), x0) ....... R2 [R1:L0, R1:L1] % Derivation of unit clause U3: % ~m_1(g_1(x0)) | ~q_1(x0) ....... B1 % q_1(f_2(x0,sk1_1(x0))) | p_2(x0,sk1_1(x0)) ....... B3 % ~m_1(g_1(f_2(x0, sk1_1(x0)))) | p_2(x0, sk1_1(x0)) ....... R1 [B1:L1, B3:L0] % ~p_2(g_1(sk2_0()),x0) ....... U1 % ~m_1(g_1(f_2(g_1(sk2_0()), sk1_1(g_1(sk2_0()))))) ....... R2 [R1:L1, U1:L0] % Derivation of unit clause U5: % ~p_2(x1,x2) | p_2(x0,x0) ....... B0 % ~p_2(x1,x2) | p_2(x0,x0) ....... B0 % ~p_2(x0, x1) | p_2(x2, x2) ....... R1 [B0:L1, B0:L0] % m_1(x0) | p_2(x0,sk1_1(x0)) ....... B2 % p_2(x0, x0) | m_1(x1) ....... R2 [R1:L0, B2:L1] % ~p_2(sk2_0(),sk2_0()) ....... U0 % m_1(x0) ....... R3 [R2:L0, U0:L0] % Derivation of the empty clause: % m_1(x0) ....... U5 % ~m_1(g_1(f_2(g_1(sk2_0()),sk1_1(g_1(sk2_0()))))) ....... U3 % [] ....... R1 [U5:L0, U3:L0] % --------------- End of Proof --------------- % PROOF FOUND! % --------------------------------------------- % | Statistics | % --------------------------------------------- % Profile 3: Performance Statistics: % ================================== % Total number of generated clauses: 94 % resolvents: 92 factors: 2 % Number of unit clauses generated: 18 % % unit clauses generated to total clauses generated: 19.15 % Number of unit clauses constructed and retained at depth [x]: % ============================================================= % [2] = 4 [3] = 2 % Total = 6 % Number of generated clauses having [x] literals: % ------------------------------------------------ % [1] = 18 [2] = 76 % Average size of a generated clause: 2.0 % Number of unit clauses per predicate list: % ========================================== % [0] m_1 (+)1 (-)1 % [1] q_1 (+)0 (-)1 % [2] p_2 (+)0 (-)3 % ------------------ % Total: (+)1 (-)5 % Total number of unit clauses retained: 6 % 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: 103 % Number of unification failures: 3 % Number of unit to unit unification failures: 0 % N literal unification failure due to lookup root_id table: 168 % N base clause resolution failure due to lookup table: 54 % 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: 5 % 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: 7 % Max term depth in a unit clause: 5 % Number of states in UCFA table: 17 % Total number of terms of all unit clauses in table: 16 % Max allowed number of states in UCFA: 208000 % Ratio n states used/total allowed states: 0.00 % Ratio n states used/total unit clauses terms: 1.06 % Number of symbols (columns) in UCFA: 41 % Profile 2: Number of calls to: % ============================== % PTUnify() = 106 % ConstructUnitClause() = 11 % Profile 1: Time spent in: % ========================= % ConstructUnitClause() : 0.00 secs % -------------------------------------------------------- % | | % Inferences per sec: inf % | | % -------------------------------------------------------- % Elapsed time: 0 secs % CPU time: 0.19 secs % %------------------------------------------------------------------------------