TSTP Solution File: MSC005-1 by CARINE---0.734
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : CARINE---0.734
% Problem : MSC005-1 : TPTP v5.0.0. Released v1.0.0.
% Transfm : add_equality
% Format : carine
% Command : carine %s t=%d xo=off uct=32000
% Computer : art01.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 02:00:36 EST 2010
% Result : Unsatisfiable 0.36s
% Output : Refutation 0.36s
% 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/SystemOnTPTP25163/MSC/MSC005-1+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 = 12] [nf = 0] [nu = 0] [ut = 3]
% Looking for a proof at depth = 2 ...
% +================================================+
% | |
% | Congratulations!!! ........ A proof was found. |
% | |
% +================================================+
% Base Clauses and Unit Clauses used in proof:
% ============================================
% Base Clauses:
% -------------
% B0: ~value_2(xor_2(xor_2(xor_2(xor_2(truth_0(),falsity_0()),falsity_0()),truth_0()),falsity_0()),x0)
% B1: value_2(truth_0(),truth_0())
% B2: value_2(falsity_0(),falsity_0())
% B3: ~value_2(x1,truth_0()) | ~value_2(x0,truth_0()) | value_2(xor_2(x0,x1),falsity_0())
% B5: ~value_2(x1,falsity_0()) | ~value_2(x0,truth_0()) | value_2(xor_2(x0,x1),truth_0())
% B6: ~value_2(x1,falsity_0()) | ~value_2(x0,falsity_0()) | value_2(xor_2(x0,x1),falsity_0())
% Unit Clauses:
% --------------
% U2: < d0 v0 dv0 f0 c2 t2 td1 b > value_2(falsity_0(),falsity_0())
% U4: < d2 v0 dv0 f3 c5 t8 td4 > ~value_2(xor_2(xor_2(xor_2(truth_0(),falsity_0()),falsity_0()),truth_0()),falsity_0())
% U6: < d2 v0 dv0 f2 c4 t6 td3 > ~value_2(xor_2(xor_2(truth_0(),falsity_0()),falsity_0()),truth_0())
% U10: < d2 v0 dv0 f1 c3 t4 td2 > value_2(xor_2(truth_0(),falsity_0()),truth_0())
% U48: < d2 v0 dv0 f2 c4 t6 td3 > value_2(xor_2(xor_2(truth_0(),falsity_0()),falsity_0()),truth_0())
% --------------- Start of Proof ---------------
% Derivation of unit clause U2:
% value_2(falsity_0(),falsity_0()) ....... U2
% Derivation of unit clause U4:
% ~value_2(xor_2(xor_2(xor_2(xor_2(truth_0(),falsity_0()),falsity_0()),truth_0()),falsity_0()),x0) ....... B0
% ~value_2(x1,falsity_0()) | ~value_2(x0,falsity_0()) | value_2(xor_2(x0,x1),falsity_0()) ....... B6
% ~value_2(falsity_0(), falsity_0()) | ~value_2(xor_2(xor_2(xor_2(truth_0(), falsity_0()), falsity_0()), truth_0()), falsity_0()) ....... R1 [B0:L0, B6:L2]
% value_2(falsity_0(),falsity_0()) ....... U2
% ~value_2(xor_2(xor_2(xor_2(truth_0(), falsity_0()), falsity_0()), truth_0()), falsity_0()) ....... R2 [R1:L0, U2:L0]
% Derivation of unit clause U6:
% value_2(truth_0(),truth_0()) ....... B1
% ~value_2(x1,truth_0()) | ~value_2(x0,truth_0()) | value_2(xor_2(x0,x1),falsity_0()) ....... B3
% ~value_2(x0, truth_0()) | value_2(xor_2(x0, truth_0()), falsity_0()) ....... R1 [B1:L0, B3:L0]
% ~value_2(xor_2(xor_2(xor_2(truth_0(),falsity_0()),falsity_0()),truth_0()),falsity_0()) ....... U4
% ~value_2(xor_2(xor_2(truth_0(), falsity_0()), falsity_0()), truth_0()) ....... R2 [R1:L1, U4:L0]
% Derivation of unit clause U10:
% value_2(truth_0(),truth_0()) ....... B1
% ~value_2(x1,falsity_0()) | ~value_2(x0,truth_0()) | value_2(xor_2(x0,x1),truth_0()) ....... B5
% ~value_2(x0, falsity_0()) | value_2(xor_2(truth_0(), x0), truth_0()) ....... R1 [B1:L0, B5:L1]
% value_2(falsity_0(),falsity_0()) ....... U2
% value_2(xor_2(truth_0(), falsity_0()), truth_0()) ....... R2 [R1:L0, U2:L0]
% Derivation of unit clause U48:
% value_2(falsity_0(),falsity_0()) ....... B2
% ~value_2(x1,falsity_0()) | ~value_2(x0,truth_0()) | value_2(xor_2(x0,x1),truth_0()) ....... B5
% ~value_2(x0, truth_0()) | value_2(xor_2(x0, falsity_0()), truth_0()) ....... R1 [B2:L0, B5:L0]
% value_2(xor_2(truth_0(),falsity_0()),truth_0()) ....... U10
% value_2(xor_2(xor_2(truth_0(), falsity_0()), falsity_0()), truth_0()) ....... R2 [R1:L0, U10:L0]
% Derivation of the empty clause:
% value_2(xor_2(xor_2(truth_0(),falsity_0()),falsity_0()),truth_0()) ....... U48
% ~value_2(xor_2(xor_2(truth_0(),falsity_0()),falsity_0()),truth_0()) ....... U6
% [] ....... R1 [U48:L0, U6:L0]
% --------------- End of Proof ---------------
% PROOF FOUND!
% ---------------------------------------------
% | Statistics |
% ---------------------------------------------
% Profile 3: Performance Statistics:
% ==================================
% Total number of generated clauses: 75
% resolvents: 75 factors: 0
% Number of unit clauses generated: 53
% % unit clauses generated to total clauses generated: 70.67
% Number of unit clauses constructed and retained at depth [x]:
% =============================================================
% [0] = 3 [2] = 46
% Total = 49
% Number of generated clauses having [x] literals:
% ------------------------------------------------
% [1] = 53 [2] = 22
% Average size of a generated clause: 2.0
% Number of unit clauses per predicate list:
% ==========================================
% [0] value_2 (+)44 (-)5
% ------------------
% Total: (+)44 (-)5
% Total number of unit clauses retained: 49
% Number of clauses skipped because of their length: 36
% N base clauses skippped in resolve-with-all-base-clauses
% because of the shortest resolvents table: 0
% Number of successful unifications: 83
% Number of unification failures: 21
% Number of unit to unit unification failures: 218
% N literal unification failure due to lookup root_id table: 71
% N base clause resolution failure due to lookup table: 4
% 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: 7
% N unit clauses dropped because too much nesting: 4
% 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: 22
% Max term depth in a unit clause: 11
% Number of states in UCFA table: 147
% Total number of terms of all unit clauses in table: 578
% 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: 0.25
% Number of symbols (columns) in UCFA: 38
% Profile 2: Number of calls to:
% ==============================
% PTUnify() = 104
% ConstructUnitClause() = 53
% Profile 1: Time spent in:
% =========================
% ConstructUnitClause() : 0.00 secs
% --------------------------------------------------------
% | |
% Inferences per sec: inf
% | |
% --------------------------------------------------------
% Elapsed time: 1 secs
% CPU time: 0.34 secs
%
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------