%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File     : CARINE---0.734
% Problem  : SYN014-2 : 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 08:22:44 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/SystemOnTPTP25779/SYN/SYN014-2+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 ...
% 	t = 0 secs [nr = 49] [nf = 0] [nu = 20] [ut = 13]
% Looking for a proof at depth = 2 ...
% +================================================+
% |                                                |
% | Congratulations!!! ........ A proof was found. |
% |                                                |
% +================================================+
% Base Clauses and Unit Clauses used in proof:
% ============================================
% Base Clauses:
% -------------
% B2: equalish_2(n_0(),k_0())
% B3: ~equalish_2(m_0(),n_0())
% B20: equalish_2(m_0(),k_0())
% B22: ~equalish_2(x0,x1) | equalish_2(x1,x0)
% B25: ~equalish_2(x1,x2) | ~equalish_2(x0,x1) | equalish_2(x0,x2)
% Unit Clauses:
% --------------
% U10: < d1 v0 dv0 f0 c2 t2 td1 > ~equalish_2(n_0(),m_0())
% U12: < d1 v0 dv0 f0 c2 t2 td1 > equalish_2(k_0(),m_0())
% U18: < d2 v0 dv0 f0 c2 t2 td1 > equalish_2(n_0(),m_0())
% --------------- Start of Proof ---------------
% Derivation of unit clause U10:
% ~equalish_2(m_0(),n_0()) ....... B3
% ~equalish_2(x0,x1) | equalish_2(x1,x0) ....... B22
%  ~equalish_2(n_0(), m_0()) ....... R1 [B3:L0, B22:L1]
% Derivation of unit clause U12:
% equalish_2(m_0(),k_0()) ....... B20
% ~equalish_2(x0,x1) | equalish_2(x1,x0) ....... B22
%  equalish_2(k_0(), m_0()) ....... R1 [B20:L0, B22:L0]
% Derivation of unit clause U18:
% equalish_2(n_0(),k_0()) ....... B2
% ~equalish_2(x1,x2) | ~equalish_2(x0,x1) | equalish_2(x0,x2) ....... B25
%  ~equalish_2(k_0(), x0) | equalish_2(n_0(), x0) ....... R1 [B2:L0, B25:L1]
%  equalish_2(k_0(),m_0()) ....... U12
%   equalish_2(n_0(), m_0()) ....... R2 [R1:L0, U12:L0]
% Derivation of the empty clause:
% equalish_2(n_0(),m_0()) ....... U18
% ~equalish_2(n_0(),m_0()) ....... U10
%  [] ....... R1 [U18:L0, U10:L0]
% --------------- End of Proof ---------------
% PROOF FOUND!
% ---------------------------------------------
% |                Statistics                 |
% ---------------------------------------------
% Profile 3: Performance Statistics:
% ==================================
% Total number of generated clauses: 91
% 	resolvents: 91	factors: 0
% Number of unit clauses generated: 40
% % unit clauses generated to total clauses generated: 43.96
% Number of unit clauses constructed and retained at depth [x]:
% =============================================================
% [0] = 7		[1] = 6		[2] = 6		
% Total = 19
% Number of generated clauses having [x] literals:
% ------------------------------------------------
% [1] = 40	[2] = 51	
% Average size of a generated clause: 2.0
% Number of unit clauses per predicate list:
% ==========================================
% [0] element_2		(+)3	(-)0
% [1] equalish_2		(+)8	(-)8
% 			------------------
% 		Total:	(+)11	(-)8
% Total number of unit clauses retained: 19
% Number of clauses skipped because of their length: 158
% N base clauses skippped in resolve-with-all-base-clauses
% 	because of the shortest resolvents table: 0
% Number of successful unifications: 95
% Number of unification failures: 58
% Number of unit to unit unification failures: 62
% N literal unification failure due to lookup root_id table: 113
% N base clause resolution failure due to lookup table: 95
% N UC-BCL resolution dropped due to lookup table: 0
% Max entries in substitution set: 4
% N unit clauses dropped because they exceeded max values: 25
% 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: 17
% Total number of terms of all unit clauses in table: 38
% 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: 0.45
% Number of symbols (columns) in UCFA: 42
% Profile 2: Number of calls to:
% ==============================
% PTUnify() = 153
% ConstructUnitClause() = 37
% Profile 1: Time spent in:
% =========================
% ConstructUnitClause() : 0.00 secs
% --------------------------------------------------------
% |                                                      |
%   Inferences per sec: inf
% |                                                      |
% --------------------------------------------------------
% Elapsed time: 0 secs
% CPU time: 0.14 secs
% 
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------