TSTP Solution File: SYN211-1 by CARINE---0.734
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : CARINE---0.734
% Problem : SYN211-1 : TPTP v5.0.0. Released v1.1.0.
% Transfm : add_equality
% Format : carine
% Command : carine %s t=%d xo=off uct=32000
% Computer : art06.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 08:42:52 EST 2010
% Result : Unsatisfiable 0.25s
% Output : Refutation 0.25s
% 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/SystemOnTPTP28383/SYN/SYN211-1+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 = 831] [nf = 0] [nu = 404] [ut = 133]
% Looking for a proof at depth = 2 ...
% +================================================+
% | |
% | Congratulations!!! ........ A proof was found. |
% | |
% +================================================+
% Base Clauses and Unit Clauses used in proof:
% ============================================
% Base Clauses:
% -------------
% B0: ~s4_1(d_0())
% B2: p0_2(b_0(),x0)
% B20: n0_2(c_0(),d_0())
% B39: ~p1_3(x1,x2,x0) | n2_1(x0)
% B48: ~n0_2(x1,x0) | l1_2(x0,x0)
% B57: ~p0_2(x1,x0) | p1_3(x0,x0,x0)
% B87: ~n2_1(x0) | p3_3(x0,x0,x0)
% B132: ~l1_2(x0,x2) | ~p3_3(x1,x2,x3) | s4_1(x0)
% Unit Clauses:
% --------------
% U44: < d1 v3 dv1 f0 c0 t3 td1 > p1_3(x0,x0,x0)
% U76: < d1 v0 dv0 f0 c2 t2 td1 > l1_2(d_0(),d_0())
% U88: < d1 v1 dv1 f0 c0 t1 td1 > n2_1(x0)
% U125: < d1 v3 dv1 f0 c0 t3 td1 > p3_3(x0,x0,x0)
% U133: < d2 v2 dv2 f0 c1 t3 td1 > ~p3_3(x0,d_0(),x1)
% --------------- Start of Proof ---------------
% Derivation of unit clause U44:
% p0_2(b_0(),x0) ....... B2
% ~p0_2(x1,x0) | p1_3(x0,x0,x0) ....... B57
% p1_3(x0, x0, x0) ....... R1 [B2:L0, B57:L0]
% Derivation of unit clause U76:
% n0_2(c_0(),d_0()) ....... B20
% ~n0_2(x1,x0) | l1_2(x0,x0) ....... B48
% l1_2(d_0(), d_0()) ....... R1 [B20:L0, B48:L0]
% Derivation of unit clause U88:
% ~p1_3(x1,x2,x0) | n2_1(x0) ....... B39
% p1_3(x0,x0,x0) ....... U44
% n2_1(x0) ....... R1 [B39:L0, U44:L0]
% Derivation of unit clause U125:
% ~n2_1(x0) | p3_3(x0,x0,x0) ....... B87
% n2_1(x0) ....... U88
% p3_3(x0, x0, x0) ....... R1 [B87:L0, U88:L0]
% Derivation of unit clause U133:
% ~s4_1(d_0()) ....... B0
% ~l1_2(x0,x2) | ~p3_3(x1,x2,x3) | s4_1(x0) ....... B132
% ~l1_2(d_0(), x0) | ~p3_3(x1, x0, x2) ....... R1 [B0:L0, B132:L2]
% l1_2(d_0(),d_0()) ....... U76
% ~p3_3(x0, d_0(), x1) ....... R2 [R1:L0, U76:L0]
% Derivation of the empty clause:
% ~p3_3(x0,d_0(),x1) ....... U133
% p3_3(x0,x0,x0) ....... U125
% [] ....... R1 [U133:L0, U125:L0]
% --------------- End of Proof ---------------
% PROOF FOUND!
% ---------------------------------------------
% | Statistics |
% ---------------------------------------------
% Profile 3: Performance Statistics:
% ==================================
% Total number of generated clauses: 833
% resolvents: 833 factors: 0
% Number of unit clauses generated: 405
% % unit clauses generated to total clauses generated: 48.62
% Number of unit clauses constructed and retained at depth [x]:
% =============================================================
% [0] = 39 [1] = 94 [2] = 1
% Total = 134
% Number of generated clauses having [x] literals:
% ------------------------------------------------
% [1] = 405 [2] = 428
% Average size of a generated clause: 2.0
% Number of unit clauses per predicate list:
% ==========================================
% [0] k0_1 (+)2 (-)0
% [1] k1_1 (+)5 (-)0
% [2] k4_1 (+)0 (-)0
% [3] k5_1 (+)0 (-)0
% [4] l0_1 (+)2 (-)0
% [5] l4_1 (+)0 (-)0
% [6] l5_1 (+)0 (-)0
% [7] m2_1 (+)1 (-)0
% [8] n2_1 (+)6 (-)0
% [9] n3_1 (+)0 (-)0
% [10] r0_1 (+)2 (-)0
% [11] r1_1 (+)0 (-)0
% [12] r2_1 (+)0 (-)0
% [13] r4_1 (+)0 (-)0
% [14] s0_1 (+)2 (-)0
% [15] s1_1 (+)1 (-)0
% [16] s2_1 (+)0 (-)0
% [17] s4_1 (+)0 (-)1
% [18] s5_1 (+)0 (-)0
% [19] k2_2 (+)6 (-)0
% [20] l1_2 (+)5 (-)0
% [21] l2_2 (+)0 (-)0
% [22] l3_2 (+)0 (-)0
% [23] m4_2 (+)0 (-)0
% [24] m5_2 (+)0 (-)0
% [25] n0_2 (+)8 (-)0
% [26] n4_2 (+)0 (-)0
% [27] n5_2 (+)0 (-)0
% [28] p0_2 (+)4 (-)0
% [29] q0_2 (+)8 (-)0
% [30] q3_2 (+)0 (-)0
% [31] q4_2 (+)0 (-)0
% [32] q5_2 (+)0 (-)0
% [33] r5_2 (+)0 (-)0
% [34] s3_2 (+)0 (-)0
% [35] k3_3 (+)6 (-)0
% [36] m0_3 (+)10 (-)0
% [37] m1_3 (+)8 (-)0
% [38] m3_3 (+)6 (-)0
% [39] n1_3 (+)10 (-)0
% [40] p1_3 (+)10 (-)0
% [41] p2_3 (+)8 (-)0
% [42] p3_3 (+)6 (-)1
% [43] p4_3 (+)0 (-)0
% [44] p5_3 (+)0 (-)0
% [45] q1_3 (+)10 (-)0
% [46] q2_3 (+)6 (-)0
% [47] r3_3 (+)0 (-)0
% ------------------
% Total: (+)132 (-)2
% Total number of unit clauses retained: 134
% Number of clauses skipped because of their length: 14304
% N base clauses skippped in resolve-with-all-base-clauses
% because of the shortest resolvents table: 0
% Number of successful unifications: 839
% Number of unification failures: 53
% Number of unit to unit unification failures: 0
% N literal unification failure due to lookup root_id table: 1247
% N base clause resolution failure due to lookup table: 11785
% 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: 310
% 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: 3
% Max term depth in a unit clause: 1
% Number of states in UCFA table: 187
% Total number of terms of all unit clauses in table: 327
% 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: 0.57
% Number of symbols (columns) in UCFA: 87
% Profile 2: Number of calls to:
% ==============================
% PTUnify() = 892
% ConstructUnitClause() = 405
% Profile 1: Time spent in:
% =========================
% ConstructUnitClause() : 0.01 secs
% --------------------------------------------------------
% | |
% Inferences per sec: inf
% | |
% --------------------------------------------------------
% Elapsed time: 0 secs
% CPU time: 0.25 secs
%
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------