TSTP Solution File: FLD070-4 by CARINE---0.734
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : CARINE---0.734
% Problem : FLD070-4 : TPTP v5.0.0. Bugfixed v2.1.0.
% 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 : Sat Nov 27 19:25:30 EST 2010
% Result : Unsatisfiable 0.80s
% Output : Refutation 0.80s
% 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/SystemOnTPTP26041/FLD/FLD070-4+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 = 185] [nf = 0] [nu = 113] [ut = 74]
% Looking for a proof at depth = 2 ...
% t = 1 secs [nr = 349444] [nf = 72] [nu = 270655] [ut = 8241]
% Looking for a proof at depth = 3 ...
% +================================================+
% | |
% | Congratulations!!! ........ A proof was found. |
% | |
% +================================================+
% Base Clauses and Unit Clauses used in proof:
% ============================================
% Base Clauses:
% -------------
% B0: sum_3(a_0(),b_0(),c_0())
% B1: less_or_equal_2(additive_identity_0(),b_0())
% B7: defined_1(b_0())
% B13: ~defined_1(x0) | sum_3(additive_identity_0(),x0,x0)
% B16: ~less_or_equal_2(x2,x1) | ~less_or_equal_2(x0,x2) | less_or_equal_2(x0,x1)
% B28: ~less_or_equal_2(x2,x3) | ~sum_3(x3,x4,x1) | ~sum_3(x2,x4,x0) | less_or_equal_2(x0,x1)
% Unit Clauses:
% --------------
% U2: < d0 v0 dv0 f0 c2 t2 td1 b nc > less_or_equal_2(additive_identity_0(),a_0())
% U3: < d0 v0 dv0 f0 c2 t2 td1 b nc > ~less_or_equal_2(additive_identity_0(),c_0())
% U24: < d1 v0 dv0 f0 c3 t3 td1 > sum_3(additive_identity_0(),b_0(),b_0())
% U74: < d2 v0 dv0 f0 c2 t2 td1 > ~less_or_equal_2(b_0(),c_0())
% U8284: < d3 v0 dv0 f0 c2 t2 td1 > less_or_equal_2(b_0(),c_0())
% --------------- Start of Proof ---------------
% Derivation of unit clause U2:
% less_or_equal_2(additive_identity_0(),a_0()) ....... U2
% Derivation of unit clause U3:
% ~less_or_equal_2(additive_identity_0(),c_0()) ....... U3
% Derivation of unit clause U24:
% defined_1(b_0()) ....... B7
% ~defined_1(x0) | sum_3(additive_identity_0(),x0,x0) ....... B13
% sum_3(additive_identity_0(), b_0(), b_0()) ....... R1 [B7:L0, B13:L0]
% Derivation of unit clause U74:
% less_or_equal_2(additive_identity_0(),b_0()) ....... B1
% ~less_or_equal_2(x2,x1) | ~less_or_equal_2(x0,x2) | less_or_equal_2(x0,x1) ....... B16
% ~less_or_equal_2(b_0(), x0) | less_or_equal_2(additive_identity_0(), x0) ....... R1 [B1:L0, B16:L1]
% ~less_or_equal_2(additive_identity_0(),c_0()) ....... U3
% ~less_or_equal_2(b_0(), c_0()) ....... R2 [R1:L1, U3:L0]
% Derivation of unit clause U8284:
% sum_3(a_0(),b_0(),c_0()) ....... B0
% ~less_or_equal_2(x2,x3) | ~sum_3(x3,x4,x1) | ~sum_3(x2,x4,x0) | less_or_equal_2(x0,x1) ....... B28
% ~less_or_equal_2(x0, a_0()) | ~sum_3(x0, b_0(), x1) | less_or_equal_2(x1, c_0()) ....... R1 [B0:L0, B28:L1]
% less_or_equal_2(additive_identity_0(),a_0()) ....... U2
% ~sum_3(additive_identity_0(), b_0(), x0) | less_or_equal_2(x0, c_0()) ....... R2 [R1:L0, U2:L0]
% sum_3(additive_identity_0(),b_0(),b_0()) ....... U24
% less_or_equal_2(b_0(), c_0()) ....... R3 [R2:L0, U24:L0]
% Derivation of the empty clause:
% less_or_equal_2(b_0(),c_0()) ....... U8284
% ~less_or_equal_2(b_0(),c_0()) ....... U74
% [] ....... R1 [U8284:L0, U74:L0]
% --------------- End of Proof ---------------
% PROOF FOUND!
% ---------------------------------------------
% | Statistics |
% ---------------------------------------------
% Profile 3: Performance Statistics:
% ==================================
% Total number of generated clauses: 350245
% resolvents: 350161 factors: 84
% Number of unit clauses generated: 270811
% % unit clauses generated to total clauses generated: 77.32
% Number of unit clauses constructed and retained at depth [x]:
% =============================================================
% [0] = 10 [1] = 64 [2] = 8167 [3] = 44
% Total = 8285
% Number of generated clauses having [x] literals:
% ------------------------------------------------
% [1] = 270811 [2] = 79339 [3] = 95
% Average size of a generated clause: 2.0
% Number of unit clauses per predicate list:
% ==========================================
% [0] defined_1 (+)7845 (-)0
% [1] less_or_equal_2 (+)3 (-)3
% [2] product_3 (+)154 (-)0
% [3] sum_3 (+)279 (-)1
% ------------------
% Total: (+)8281 (-)4
% Total number of unit clauses retained: 8285
% Number of clauses skipped because of their length: 2230
% N base clauses skippped in resolve-with-all-base-clauses
% because of the shortest resolvents table: 0
% Number of successful unifications: 350251
% Number of unification failures: 46800
% Number of unit to unit unification failures: 286
% N literal unification failure due to lookup root_id table: 2433
% N base clause resolution failure due to lookup table: 1125
% N UC-BCL resolution dropped due to lookup table: 0
% Max entries in substitution set: 9
% N unit clauses dropped because they exceeded max values: 231562
% N unit clauses dropped because too much nesting: 107664
% 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: 8
% Max term depth in a unit clause: 4
% Number of states in UCFA table: 5437
% Total number of terms of all unit clauses in table: 54375
% Max allowed number of states in UCFA: 80000
% Ratio n states used/total allowed states: 0.07
% Ratio n states used/total unit clauses terms: 0.10
% Number of symbols (columns) in UCFA: 47
% Profile 2: Number of calls to:
% ==============================
% PTUnify() = 397051
% ConstructUnitClause() = 239837
% Profile 1: Time spent in:
% =========================
% ConstructUnitClause() : 0.26 secs
% --------------------------------------------------------
% | |
% Inferences per sec: inf
% | |
% --------------------------------------------------------
% Elapsed time: 1 secs
% CPU time: 0.80 secs
%
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------