TSTP Solution File: SET846-2 by CARINE---0.734
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : CARINE---0.734
% Problem : SET846-2 : TPTP v5.0.0. Released v3.2.0.
% Transfm : add_equality
% Format : carine
% Command : carine %s t=%d xo=off uct=32000
% Computer : art02.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 05:49:12 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/SystemOnTPTP12887/SET/SET846-2+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: ~c_lessequals_3(c_Zorn_Osucc_3(v_S_0(),c_Union_2(c_Zorn_OTFin_2(v_S_0(),t_a_0()),tc_set_1(t_a_0())),t_a_0()),c_Union_2(c_Zorn_OTFin_2(v_S_0(),t_a_0()),tc_set_1(t_a_0())),tc_set_1(tc_set_1(t_a_0())))
% B1: c_lessequals_3(x0,x0,tc_set_1(x1))
% B2: ~c_in_3(x0,x1,tc_set_1(x2)) | c_lessequals_3(x0,c_Union_2(x1,x2),tc_set_1(x2))
% B3: ~c_in_3(x0,c_Zorn_OTFin_2(x1,x2),tc_set_1(tc_set_1(x2))) | c_in_3(c_Zorn_Osucc_3(x1,x0,x2),c_Zorn_OTFin_2(x1,x2),tc_set_1(tc_set_1(x2)))
% B4: ~c_lessequals_3(x0,c_Zorn_OTFin_2(x1,x2),tc_set_1(tc_set_1(tc_set_1(x2)))) | c_in_3(c_Union_2(x0,tc_set_1(x2)),c_Zorn_OTFin_2(x1,x2),tc_set_1(tc_set_1(x2)))
% Unit Clauses:
% --------------
% U2: < d1 v0 dv0 f7 c8 t15 td4 > ~c_in_3(c_Zorn_Osucc_3(v_S_0(),c_Union_2(c_Zorn_OTFin_2(v_S_0(),t_a_0()),tc_set_1(t_a_0())),t_a_0()),c_Zorn_OTFin_2(v_S_0(),t_a_0()),tc_set_1(tc_set_1(t_a_0())))
% U3: < d1 v6 dv2 f6 c0 t12 td3 > c_in_3(c_Union_2(c_Zorn_OTFin_2(x0,x1),tc_set_1(x1)),c_Zorn_OTFin_2(x0,x1),tc_set_1(tc_set_1(x1)))
% U5: < d1 v8 dv2 f7 c0 t15 td4 > c_in_3(c_Zorn_Osucc_3(x0,c_Union_2(c_Zorn_OTFin_2(x0,x1),tc_set_1(x1)),x1),c_Zorn_OTFin_2(x0,x1),tc_set_1(tc_set_1(x1)))
% --------------- Start of Proof ---------------
% Derivation of unit clause U2:
% ~c_lessequals_3(c_Zorn_Osucc_3(v_S_0(),c_Union_2(c_Zorn_OTFin_2(v_S_0(),t_a_0()),tc_set_1(t_a_0())),t_a_0()),c_Union_2(c_Zorn_OTFin_2(v_S_0(),t_a_0()),tc_set_1(t_a_0())),tc_set_1(tc_set_1(t_a_0()))) ....... B0
% ~c_in_3(x0,x1,tc_set_1(x2)) | c_lessequals_3(x0,c_Union_2(x1,x2),tc_set_1(x2)) ....... B2
% ~c_in_3(c_Zorn_Osucc_3(v_S_0(), c_Union_2(c_Zorn_OTFin_2(v_S_0(), t_a_0()), tc_set_1(t_a_0())), t_a_0()), c_Zorn_OTFin_2(v_S_0(), t_a_0()), tc_set_1(tc_set_1(t_a_0()))) ....... R1 [B0:L0, B2:L1]
% Derivation of unit clause U3:
% c_lessequals_3(x0,x0,tc_set_1(x1)) ....... B1
% ~c_lessequals_3(x0,c_Zorn_OTFin_2(x1,x2),tc_set_1(tc_set_1(tc_set_1(x2)))) | c_in_3(c_Union_2(x0,tc_set_1(x2)),c_Zorn_OTFin_2(x1,x2),tc_set_1(tc_set_1(x2))) ....... B4
% c_in_3(c_Union_2(c_Zorn_OTFin_2(x0, x1), tc_set_1(x1)), c_Zorn_OTFin_2(x0, x1), tc_set_1(tc_set_1(x1))) ....... R1 [B1:L0, B4:L0]
% Derivation of unit clause U5:
% ~c_in_3(x0,c_Zorn_OTFin_2(x1,x2),tc_set_1(tc_set_1(x2))) | c_in_3(c_Zorn_Osucc_3(x1,x0,x2),c_Zorn_OTFin_2(x1,x2),tc_set_1(tc_set_1(x2))) ....... B3
% c_in_3(c_Union_2(c_Zorn_OTFin_2(x0,x1),tc_set_1(x1)),c_Zorn_OTFin_2(x0,x1),tc_set_1(tc_set_1(x1))) ....... U3
% c_in_3(c_Zorn_Osucc_3(x0, c_Union_2(c_Zorn_OTFin_2(x0, x1), tc_set_1(x1)), x1), c_Zorn_OTFin_2(x0, x1), tc_set_1(tc_set_1(x1))) ....... R1 [B3:L0, U3:L0]
% Derivation of the empty clause:
% c_in_3(c_Zorn_Osucc_3(x0,c_Union_2(c_Zorn_OTFin_2(x0,x1),tc_set_1(x1)),x1),c_Zorn_OTFin_2(x0,x1),tc_set_1(tc_set_1(x1))) ....... U5
% ~c_in_3(c_Zorn_Osucc_3(v_S_0(),c_Union_2(c_Zorn_OTFin_2(v_S_0(),t_a_0()),tc_set_1(t_a_0())),t_a_0()),c_Zorn_OTFin_2(v_S_0(),t_a_0()),tc_set_1(tc_set_1(t_a_0()))) ....... U2
% [] ....... R1 [U5:L0, U2:L0]
% --------------- End of Proof ---------------
% PROOF FOUND!
% ---------------------------------------------
% | Statistics |
% ---------------------------------------------
% Profile 3: Performance Statistics:
% ==================================
% Total number of generated clauses: 7
% resolvents: 7 factors: 0
% Number of unit clauses generated: 5
% % unit clauses generated to total clauses generated: 71.43
% Number of unit clauses constructed and retained at depth [x]:
% =============================================================
% [0] = 2 [1] = 4
% Total = 6
% Number of generated clauses having [x] literals:
% ------------------------------------------------
% [1] = 5 [2] = 2
% Average size of a generated clause: 2.0
% Number of unit clauses per predicate list:
% ==========================================
% [0] c_in_3 (+)2 (-)1
% [1] c_lessequals_3 (+)2 (-)1
% ------------------
% Total: (+)4 (-)2
% Total number of unit clauses retained: 6
% 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: 10
% Number of unification failures: 0
% Number of unit to unit unification failures: 3
% N literal unification failure due to lookup root_id table: 8
% N base clause resolution failure due to lookup table: 5
% 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: 1
% 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: 18
% Max term depth in a unit clause: 4
% Number of states in UCFA table: 80
% Total number of terms of all unit clauses in table: 79
% 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: 1.01
% Number of symbols (columns) in UCFA: 42
% Profile 2: Number of calls to:
% ==============================
% PTUnify() = 10
% ConstructUnitClause() = 5
% Profile 1: Time spent in:
% =========================
% ConstructUnitClause() : 0.00 secs
% --------------------------------------------------------
% | |
% Inferences per sec: inf
% | |
% --------------------------------------------------------
% Elapsed time: 1 secs
% CPU time: 0.36 secs
%
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------