TSTP Solution File: PUZ012-1 by CARINE---0.734
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : CARINE---0.734
% Problem : PUZ012-1 : TPTP v5.0.0. Bugfixed v1.2.1.
% Transfm : add_equality
% Format : carine
% Command : carine %s t=%d xo=off uct=32000
% Computer : art04.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 03:53:28 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/SystemOnTPTP22886/PUZ/PUZ012-1+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 = 18] [nf = 0] [nu = 8] [ut = 16]
% Looking for a proof at depth = 2 ...
% t = 0 secs [nr = 82] [nf = 4] [nu = 32] [ut = 20]
% Looking for a proof at depth = 3 ...
% +================================================+
% | |
% | Congratulations!!! ........ A proof was found. |
% | |
% +================================================+
% Base Clauses and Unit Clauses used in proof:
% ============================================
% Base Clauses:
% -------------
% B0: ~contains_2(boxc_0(),oranges_0()) | ~contains_2(boxa_0(),bananas_0())
% B3: contains_2(boxb_0(),apples_0())
% B12: label_2(boxc_0(),bananas_0())
% B13: ~contains_2(x0,x1) | ~label_2(x0,x1)
% B14: ~contains_2(x0,x2) | ~contains_2(x0,x1) | equal_fruits_2(x1,x2)
% B15: ~contains_2(x2,x1) | ~contains_2(x0,x1) | equal_boxes_2(x0,x2)
% B16: contains_2(x0,apples_0()) | contains_2(x0,bananas_0()) | contains_2(x0,oranges_0())
% B17: contains_2(boxa_0(),x0) | contains_2(boxb_0(),x0) | contains_2(boxc_0(),x0)
% Unit Clauses:
% --------------
% U5: < d0 v0 dv0 f0 c2 t2 td1 b > ~equal_boxes_2(boxb_0(),boxc_0())
% U6: < d0 v0 dv0 f0 c2 t2 td1 b > ~equal_fruits_2(apples_0(),bananas_0())
% U11: < d0 v0 dv0 f0 c2 t2 td1 b > label_2(boxc_0(),bananas_0())
% U15: < d1 v0 dv0 f0 c2 t2 td1 > ~contains_2(boxc_0(),bananas_0())
% U17: < d2 v0 dv0 f0 c2 t2 td1 > ~contains_2(boxb_0(),bananas_0())
% U19: < d2 v0 dv0 f0 c2 t2 td1 > ~contains_2(boxc_0(),apples_0())
% U21: < d3 v0 dv0 f0 c2 t2 td1 > ~contains_2(boxc_0(),oranges_0())
% U24: < d3 v0 dv0 f0 c2 t2 td1 > contains_2(boxc_0(),oranges_0())
% --------------- Start of Proof ---------------
% Derivation of unit clause U5:
% ~equal_boxes_2(boxb_0(),boxc_0()) ....... U5
% Derivation of unit clause U6:
% ~equal_fruits_2(apples_0(),bananas_0()) ....... U6
% Derivation of unit clause U11:
% label_2(boxc_0(),bananas_0()) ....... U11
% Derivation of unit clause U15:
% label_2(boxc_0(),bananas_0()) ....... B12
% ~contains_2(x0,x1) | ~label_2(x0,x1) ....... B13
% ~contains_2(boxc_0(), bananas_0()) ....... R1 [B12:L0, B13:L1]
% Derivation of unit clause U17:
% contains_2(boxb_0(),apples_0()) ....... B3
% ~contains_2(x0,x2) | ~contains_2(x0,x1) | equal_fruits_2(x1,x2) ....... B14
% ~contains_2(boxb_0(), x0) | equal_fruits_2(apples_0(), x0) ....... R1 [B3:L0, B14:L1]
% ~equal_fruits_2(apples_0(),bananas_0()) ....... U6
% ~contains_2(boxb_0(), bananas_0()) ....... R2 [R1:L1, U6:L0]
% Derivation of unit clause U19:
% contains_2(boxb_0(),apples_0()) ....... B3
% ~contains_2(x2,x1) | ~contains_2(x0,x1) | equal_boxes_2(x0,x2) ....... B15
% ~contains_2(x0, apples_0()) | equal_boxes_2(boxb_0(), x0) ....... R1 [B3:L0, B15:L1]
% ~equal_boxes_2(boxb_0(),boxc_0()) ....... U5
% ~contains_2(boxc_0(), apples_0()) ....... R2 [R1:L1, U5:L0]
% Derivation of unit clause U21:
% ~contains_2(boxc_0(),oranges_0()) | ~contains_2(boxa_0(),bananas_0()) ....... B0
% contains_2(boxa_0(),x0) | contains_2(boxb_0(),x0) | contains_2(boxc_0(),x0) ....... B17
% ~contains_2(boxc_0(), oranges_0()) | contains_2(boxb_0(), bananas_0()) | contains_2(boxc_0(), bananas_0()) ....... R1 [B0:L1, B17:L0]
% ~contains_2(boxb_0(),bananas_0()) ....... U17
% ~contains_2(boxc_0(), oranges_0()) | contains_2(boxc_0(), bananas_0()) ....... R2 [R1:L1, U17:L0]
% ~contains_2(boxc_0(),bananas_0()) ....... U15
% ~contains_2(boxc_0(), oranges_0()) ....... R3 [R2:L1, U15:L0]
% Derivation of unit clause U24:
% ~contains_2(x0,x1) | ~label_2(x0,x1) ....... B13
% contains_2(x0,apples_0()) | contains_2(x0,bananas_0()) | contains_2(x0,oranges_0()) ....... B16
% ~label_2(x0, bananas_0()) | contains_2(x0, apples_0()) | contains_2(x0, oranges_0()) ....... R1 [B13:L0, B16:L1]
% label_2(boxc_0(),bananas_0()) ....... U11
% contains_2(boxc_0(), apples_0()) | contains_2(boxc_0(), oranges_0()) ....... R2 [R1:L0, U11:L0]
% ~contains_2(boxc_0(),apples_0()) ....... U19
% contains_2(boxc_0(), oranges_0()) ....... R3 [R2:L0, U19:L0]
% Derivation of the empty clause:
% contains_2(boxc_0(),oranges_0()) ....... U24
% ~contains_2(boxc_0(),oranges_0()) ....... U21
% [] ....... R1 [U24:L0, U21:L0]
% --------------- End of Proof ---------------
% PROOF FOUND!
% ---------------------------------------------
% | Statistics |
% ---------------------------------------------
% Profile 3: Performance Statistics:
% ==================================
% Total number of generated clauses: 235
% resolvents: 231 factors: 4
% Number of unit clauses generated: 63
% % unit clauses generated to total clauses generated: 26.81
% Number of unit clauses constructed and retained at depth [x]:
% =============================================================
% [0] = 12 [1] = 4 [2] = 4 [3] = 5
% Total = 25
% Number of generated clauses having [x] literals:
% ------------------------------------------------
% [1] = 63 [2] = 82 [3] = 90
% Average size of a generated clause: 3.0
% Number of unit clauses per predicate list:
% ==========================================
% [0] contains_2 (+)3 (-)7
% [1] equal_boxes_2 (+)2 (-)3
% [2] equal_fruits_2 (+)2 (-)3
% [3] label_2 (+)3 (-)2
% ------------------
% Total: (+)10 (-)15
% Total number of unit clauses retained: 25
% Number of clauses skipped because of their length: 196
% N base clauses skippped in resolve-with-all-base-clauses
% because of the shortest resolvents table: 5
% Number of successful unifications: 246
% Number of unification failures: 263
% Number of unit to unit unification failures: 38
% N literal unification failure due to lookup root_id table: 354
% N base clause resolution failure due to lookup table: 256
% N UC-BCL resolution dropped due to lookup table: 0
% Max entries in substitution set: 5
% N unit clauses dropped because they exceeded max values: 22
% 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: 2
% Max term depth in a unit clause: 1
% Number of states in UCFA table: 30
% Total number of terms of all unit clauses in table: 50
% 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: 0.60
% Number of symbols (columns) in UCFA: 44
% Profile 2: Number of calls to:
% ==============================
% PTUnify() = 509
% ConstructUnitClause() = 35
% Profile 1: Time spent in:
% =========================
% ConstructUnitClause() : 0.00 secs
% --------------------------------------------------------
% | |
% Inferences per sec: inf
% | |
% --------------------------------------------------------
% Elapsed time: 0 secs
% CPU time: 0.14 secs
%
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------