%------------------------------------------------------------------------------ % File : CARINE---0.734 % Problem : SYN729-1 : 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 11:32:18 EST 2010 % Result : Unsatisfiable 0.37s % Output : Refutation 0.37s % 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/SystemOnTPTP10797/SYN/SYN729-1+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: p_1(sk2_0()) % B1: ~p_1(x0) | p_1(sk1_1(x0)) % B2: ~p_1(x0) | p_1(h_1(x0)) % B3: ~p_1(x0) | p_1(g_1(x0)) % B4: ~p_1(x0) | l_2(x0,g_1(h_1(sk1_1(x0)))) % B5: ~p_1(x0) | ~l_2(sk2_0(),x0) % Unit Clauses: % -------------- % U1: < d1 v0 dv0 f1 c1 t2 td2 > p_1(sk1_1(sk2_0())) % U4: < d1 v0 dv0 f3 c2 t5 td4 > l_2(sk2_0(),g_1(h_1(sk1_1(sk2_0())))) % U30: < d1 v0 dv0 f2 c1 t3 td3 > p_1(h_1(sk1_1(sk2_0()))) % U162: < d1 v0 dv0 f3 c1 t4 td4 > p_1(g_1(h_1(sk1_1(sk2_0())))) % U825: < d1 v0 dv0 f3 c2 t5 td4 > ~l_2(sk2_0(),g_1(h_1(sk1_1(sk2_0())))) % --------------- Start of Proof --------------- % Derivation of unit clause U1: % p_1(sk2_0()) ....... B0 % ~p_1(x0) | p_1(sk1_1(x0)) ....... B1 % p_1(sk1_1(sk2_0())) ....... R1 [B0:L0, B1:L0] % Derivation of unit clause U4: % p_1(sk2_0()) ....... B0 % ~p_1(x0) | l_2(x0,g_1(h_1(sk1_1(x0)))) ....... B4 % l_2(sk2_0(), g_1(h_1(sk1_1(sk2_0())))) ....... R1 [B0:L0, B4:L0] % Derivation of unit clause U30: % ~p_1(x0) | p_1(h_1(x0)) ....... B2 % p_1(sk1_1(sk2_0())) ....... U1 % p_1(h_1(sk1_1(sk2_0()))) ....... R1 [B2:L0, U1:L0] % Derivation of unit clause U162: % ~p_1(x0) | p_1(g_1(x0)) ....... B3 % p_1(h_1(sk1_1(sk2_0()))) ....... U30 % p_1(g_1(h_1(sk1_1(sk2_0())))) ....... R1 [B3:L0, U30:L0] % Derivation of unit clause U825: % ~p_1(x0) | ~l_2(sk2_0(),x0) ....... B5 % p_1(g_1(h_1(sk1_1(sk2_0())))) ....... U162 % ~l_2(sk2_0(), g_1(h_1(sk1_1(sk2_0())))) ....... R1 [B5:L0, U162:L0] % Derivation of the empty clause: % ~l_2(sk2_0(),g_1(h_1(sk1_1(sk2_0())))) ....... U825 % l_2(sk2_0(),g_1(h_1(sk1_1(sk2_0())))) ....... U4 % [] ....... R1 [U825:L0, U4:L0] % --------------- End of Proof --------------- % PROOF FOUND! % --------------------------------------------- % | Statistics | % --------------------------------------------- % Profile 3: Performance Statistics: % ================================== % Total number of generated clauses: 1341 % resolvents: 1341 factors: 0 % Number of unit clauses generated: 1322 % % unit clauses generated to total clauses generated: 98.58 % Number of unit clauses constructed and retained at depth [x]: % ============================================================= % [0] = 1 [1] = 825 % Total = 826 % Number of generated clauses having [x] literals: % ------------------------------------------------ % [1] = 1322 [2] = 19 % Average size of a generated clause: 2.0 % Number of unit clauses per predicate list: % ========================================== % [0] p_1 (+)496 (-)0 % [1] l_2 (+)169 (-)161 % ------------------ % Total: (+)665 (-)161 % Total number of unit clauses retained: 826 % 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: 1346 % Number of unification failures: 1 % Number of unit to unit unification failures: 27040 % N literal unification failure due to lookup root_id table: 38 % N base clause resolution failure due to lookup table: 1 % 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: 497 % N unit clauses dropped because too much nesting: 492 % 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: 17 % Max term depth in a unit clause: 10 % Number of states in UCFA table: 2304 % Total number of terms of all unit clauses in table: 7714 % Max allowed number of states in UCFA: 528000 % Ratio n states used/total allowed states: 0.00 % Ratio n states used/total unit clauses terms: 0.30 % Number of symbols (columns) in UCFA: 40 % Profile 2: Number of calls to: % ============================== % PTUnify() = 1347 % ConstructUnitClause() = 1322 % Profile 1: Time spent in: % ========================= % ConstructUnitClause() : 0.00 secs % -------------------------------------------------------- % | | % Inferences per sec: inf % | | % -------------------------------------------------------- % Elapsed time: 1 secs % CPU time: 0.37 secs % %------------------------------------------------------------------------------