TSTP Solution File: MSC003-1 by CARINE---0.734
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : CARINE---0.734
% Problem : MSC003-1 : TPTP v5.0.0. Released v1.0.0.
% Transfm : add_equality
% Format : carine
% Command : carine %s t=%d xo=off uct=32000
% Computer : art03.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 02:00:28 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/SystemOnTPTP7896/MSC/MSC003-1+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 = 6] [nf = 0] [nu = 3] [ut = 4]
% Looking for a proof at depth = 2 ...
% t = 0 secs [nr = 41] [nf = 0] [nu = 11] [ut = 6]
% Looking for a proof at depth = 3 ...
% +================================================+
% | |
% | Congratulations!!! ........ A proof was found. |
% | |
% +================================================+
% Base Clauses and Unit Clauses used in proof:
% ============================================
% Base Clauses:
% -------------
% B0: ~has_parts_3(john_0(),times_2(n2_0(),n1_0()),hand_0())
% B1: in_2(john_0(),boy_0())
% B2: ~in_2(x0,boy_0()) | in_2(x0,human_0())
% B3: ~in_2(x0,human_0()) | has_parts_3(x0,n2_0(),arm_0())
% B6: ~has_parts_3(x0,x3,x1) | in_2(object_in_5(x0,x1,x2,x3,x4),x1) | has_parts_3(x0,times_2(x3,x4),x2)
% B7: ~has_parts_3(object_in_5(x0,x4,x3,x1,x2),x2,x3) | ~has_parts_3(x0,x1,x4) | has_parts_3(x0,times_2(x1,x2),x3)
% Unit Clauses:
% --------------
% U2: < d1 v0 dv0 f0 c2 t2 td1 > in_2(john_0(),human_0())
% U3: < d1 v0 dv0 f0 c3 t3 td1 > has_parts_3(john_0(),n2_0(),arm_0())
% U5: < d2 v0 dv0 f1 c7 t8 td2 > ~has_parts_3(object_in_5(john_0(),arm_0(),hand_0(),n2_0(),n1_0()),n1_0(),hand_0())
% U6: < d3 v0 dv0 f1 c7 t8 td2 > has_parts_3(object_in_5(john_0(),arm_0(),hand_0(),n2_0(),n1_0()),n1_0(),hand_0())
% --------------- Start of Proof ---------------
% Derivation of unit clause U2:
% in_2(john_0(),boy_0()) ....... B1
% ~in_2(x0,boy_0()) | in_2(x0,human_0()) ....... B2
% in_2(john_0(), human_0()) ....... R1 [B1:L0, B2:L0]
% Derivation of unit clause U3:
% ~in_2(x0,human_0()) | has_parts_3(x0,n2_0(),arm_0()) ....... B3
% in_2(john_0(),human_0()) ....... U2
% has_parts_3(john_0(), n2_0(), arm_0()) ....... R1 [B3:L0, U2:L0]
% Derivation of unit clause U5:
% ~has_parts_3(john_0(),times_2(n2_0(),n1_0()),hand_0()) ....... B0
% ~has_parts_3(object_in_5(x0,x4,x3,x1,x2),x2,x3) | ~has_parts_3(x0,x1,x4) | has_parts_3(x0,times_2(x1,x2),x3) ....... B7
% ~has_parts_3(object_in_5(john_0(), x0, hand_0(), n2_0(), n1_0()), n1_0(), hand_0()) | ~has_parts_3(john_0(), n2_0(), x0) ....... R1 [B0:L0, B7:L2]
% has_parts_3(john_0(),n2_0(),arm_0()) ....... U3
% ~has_parts_3(object_in_5(john_0(), arm_0(), hand_0(), n2_0(), n1_0()), n1_0(), hand_0()) ....... R2 [R1:L1, U3:L0]
% Derivation of unit clause U6:
% ~has_parts_3(john_0(),times_2(n2_0(),n1_0()),hand_0()) ....... B0
% ~has_parts_3(x0,x3,x1) | in_2(object_in_5(x0,x1,x2,x3,x4),x1) | has_parts_3(x0,times_2(x3,x4),x2) ....... B6
% ~has_parts_3(john_0(), n2_0(), x0) | in_2(object_in_5(john_0(), x0, hand_0(), n2_0(), n1_0()), x0) ....... R1 [B0:L0, B6:L2]
% ~in_2(x0,arm_0()) | has_parts_3(x0,n1_0(),hand_0()) ....... B5
% ~has_parts_3(john_0(), n2_0(), arm_0()) | has_parts_3(object_in_5(john_0(), arm_0(), hand_0(), n2_0(), n1_0()), n1_0(), hand_0()) ....... R2 [R1:L1, B5:L0]
% has_parts_3(john_0(),n2_0(),arm_0()) ....... U3
% has_parts_3(object_in_5(john_0(), arm_0(), hand_0(), n2_0(), n1_0()), n1_0(), hand_0()) ....... R3 [R2:L0, U3:L0]
% Derivation of the empty clause:
% has_parts_3(object_in_5(john_0(),arm_0(),hand_0(),n2_0(),n1_0()),n1_0(),hand_0()) ....... U6
% ~has_parts_3(object_in_5(john_0(),arm_0(),hand_0(),n2_0(),n1_0()),n1_0(),hand_0()) ....... U5
% [] ....... R1 [U6:L0, U5:L0]
% --------------- End of Proof ---------------
% PROOF FOUND!
% ---------------------------------------------
% | Statistics |
% ---------------------------------------------
% Profile 3: Performance Statistics:
% ==================================
% Total number of generated clauses: 53
% resolvents: 53 factors: 0
% Number of unit clauses generated: 14
% % unit clauses generated to total clauses generated: 26.42
% Number of unit clauses constructed and retained at depth [x]:
% =============================================================
% [0] = 2 [1] = 2 [2] = 2 [3] = 1
% Total = 7
% Number of generated clauses having [x] literals:
% ------------------------------------------------
% [1] = 14 [2] = 26 [3] = 13
% Average size of a generated clause: 2.0
% Number of unit clauses per predicate list:
% ==========================================
% [0] in_2 (+)3 (-)0
% [1] has_parts_3 (+)2 (-)2
% ------------------
% Total: (+)5 (-)2
% Total number of unit clauses retained: 7
% Number of clauses skipped because of their length: 35
% N base clauses skippped in resolve-with-all-base-clauses
% because of the shortest resolvents table: 0
% Number of successful unifications: 60
% Number of unification failures: 40
% Number of unit to unit unification failures: 3
% N literal unification failure due to lookup root_id table: 120
% N base clause resolution failure due to lookup table: 61
% N UC-BCL resolution dropped due to lookup table: 0
% Max entries in substitution set: 7
% N unit clauses dropped because they exceeded max values: 3
% 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: 8
% Max term depth in a unit clause: 2
% Number of states in UCFA table: 33
% Total number of terms of all unit clauses in table: 35
% 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: 0.94
% Number of symbols (columns) in UCFA: 47
% Profile 2: Number of calls to:
% ==============================
% PTUnify() = 100
% ConstructUnitClause() = 8
% Profile 1: Time spent in:
% =========================
% ConstructUnitClause() : 0.00 secs
% --------------------------------------------------------
% | |
% Inferences per sec: inf
% | |
% --------------------------------------------------------
% Elapsed time: 0 secs
% CPU time: 0.15 secs
%
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------