TSTP Solution File: SYN570-1 by CARINE---0.734
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : CARINE---0.734
% Problem : SYN570-1 : TPTP v5.0.0. Released v2.5.0.
% 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 10:27:01 EST 2010
% Result : Unsatisfiable 0.15s
% Output : Refutation 0.15s
% 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/SystemOnTPTP5106/SYN/SYN570-1+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 = 32] [nf = 0] [nu = 16] [ut = 20]
% Looking for a proof at depth = 2 ...
% t = 0 secs [nr = 382] [nf = 16] [nu = 222] [ut = 41]
% Looking for a proof at depth = 3 ...
% +================================================+
% | |
% | Congratulations!!! ........ A proof was found. |
% | |
% +================================================+
% Base Clauses and Unit Clauses used in proof:
% ============================================
% Base Clauses:
% -------------
% B0: p2_2(x0,x0)
% B1: p3_2(x0,x0)
% B3: p7_2(x0,x0)
% B6: p2_2(c12_0(),f5_1(c15_0()))
% B10: ~p2_2(x0,x1) | p3_2(f4_1(x0),f4_1(x1))
% B15: ~p3_2(x2,x1) | ~p3_2(x2,x0) | p3_2(x0,x1)
% B18: ~p3_2(x3,x0) | ~p7_2(x2,x1) | ~p9_2(x3,x2) | p9_2(x0,x1)
% Unit Clauses:
% --------------
% U4: < d0 v2 dv1 f2 c0 t4 td3 b nc > p3_2(f4_1(f5_1(x0)),x0)
% U7: < d0 v0 dv0 f1 c2 t3 td2 b nc > p9_2(c15_0(),f8_1(c13_0()))
% U8: < d0 v0 dv0 f2 c2 t4 td2 b nc > ~p9_2(f4_1(c12_0()),f8_1(c13_0()))
% U14: < d1 v0 dv0 f3 c2 t5 td3 > p3_2(f4_1(c12_0()),f4_1(f5_1(c15_0())))
% U23: < d2 v2 dv1 f2 c0 t4 td3 > p3_2(x0,f4_1(f5_1(x0)))
% U24: < d2 v0 dv0 f3 c2 t5 td3 > p3_2(f4_1(f5_1(c15_0())),f4_1(c12_0()))
% U44: < d3 v0 dv0 f3 c2 t5 td3 > p9_2(f4_1(f5_1(c15_0())),f8_1(c13_0()))
% U46: < d3 v0 dv0 f2 c2 t4 td2 > p9_2(f4_1(c12_0()),f8_1(c13_0()))
% --------------- Start of Proof ---------------
% Derivation of unit clause U4:
% p3_2(f4_1(f5_1(x0)),x0) ....... U4
% Derivation of unit clause U7:
% p9_2(c15_0(),f8_1(c13_0())) ....... U7
% Derivation of unit clause U8:
% ~p9_2(f4_1(c12_0()),f8_1(c13_0())) ....... U8
% Derivation of unit clause U14:
% p2_2(c12_0(),f5_1(c15_0())) ....... B6
% ~p2_2(x0,x1) | p3_2(f4_1(x0),f4_1(x1)) ....... B10
% p3_2(f4_1(c12_0()), f4_1(f5_1(c15_0()))) ....... R1 [B6:L0, B10:L0]
% Derivation of unit clause U23:
% p3_2(x0,x0) ....... B1
% ~p3_2(x2,x1) | ~p3_2(x2,x0) | p3_2(x0,x1) ....... B15
% ~p3_2(x0, x1) | p3_2(x1, x0) ....... R1 [B1:L0, B15:L0]
% p3_2(f4_1(f5_1(x0)),x0) ....... U4
% p3_2(x0, f4_1(f5_1(x0))) ....... R2 [R1:L0, U4:L0]
% Derivation of unit clause U24:
% p3_2(x0,x0) ....... B1
% ~p3_2(x2,x1) | ~p3_2(x2,x0) | p3_2(x0,x1) ....... B15
% ~p3_2(x0, x1) | p3_2(x1, x0) ....... R1 [B1:L0, B15:L0]
% p3_2(f4_1(c12_0()),f4_1(f5_1(c15_0()))) ....... U14
% p3_2(f4_1(f5_1(c15_0())), f4_1(c12_0())) ....... R2 [R1:L0, U14:L0]
% Derivation of unit clause U44:
% p7_2(x0,x0) ....... B3
% ~p3_2(x3,x0) | ~p7_2(x2,x1) | ~p9_2(x3,x2) | p9_2(x0,x1) ....... B18
% ~p3_2(x0, x1) | ~p9_2(x0, x2) | p9_2(x1, x2) ....... R1 [B3:L0, B18:L1]
% p3_2(x0,f4_1(f5_1(x0))) ....... U23
% ~p9_2(x0, x1) | p9_2(f4_1(f5_1(x0)), x1) ....... R2 [R1:L0, U23:L0]
% p9_2(c15_0(),f8_1(c13_0())) ....... U7
% p9_2(f4_1(f5_1(c15_0())), f8_1(c13_0())) ....... R3 [R2:L0, U7:L0]
% Derivation of unit clause U46:
% p7_2(x0,x0) ....... B3
% ~p3_2(x3,x0) | ~p7_2(x2,x1) | ~p9_2(x3,x2) | p9_2(x0,x1) ....... B18
% ~p3_2(x0, x1) | ~p9_2(x0, x2) | p9_2(x1, x2) ....... R1 [B3:L0, B18:L1]
% p3_2(f4_1(f5_1(c15_0())),f4_1(c12_0())) ....... U24
% ~p9_2(f4_1(f5_1(c15_0())), x0) | p9_2(f4_1(c12_0()), x0) ....... R2 [R1:L0, U24:L0]
% p9_2(f4_1(f5_1(c15_0())),f8_1(c13_0())) ....... U44
% p9_2(f4_1(c12_0()), f8_1(c13_0())) ....... R3 [R2:L0, U44:L0]
% Derivation of the empty clause:
% p9_2(f4_1(c12_0()),f8_1(c13_0())) ....... U46
% ~p9_2(f4_1(c12_0()),f8_1(c13_0())) ....... U8
% [] ....... R1 [U46:L0, U8:L0]
% --------------- End of Proof ---------------
% PROOF FOUND!
% ---------------------------------------------
% | Statistics |
% ---------------------------------------------
% Profile 3: Performance Statistics:
% ==================================
% Total number of generated clauses: 758
% resolvents: 710 factors: 48
% Number of unit clauses generated: 470
% % unit clauses generated to total clauses generated: 62.01
% Number of unit clauses constructed and retained at depth [x]:
% =============================================================
% [0] = 10 [1] = 10 [2] = 21 [3] = 6
% Total = 47
% Number of generated clauses having [x] literals:
% ------------------------------------------------
% [1] = 470 [2] = 242 [3] = 46
% Average size of a generated clause: 2.0
% Number of unit clauses per predicate list:
% ==========================================
% [0] p10_2 (+)1 (-)0
% [1] p11_2 (+)1 (-)0
% [2] p2_2 (+)16 (-)0
% [3] p3_2 (+)20 (-)0
% [4] p6_2 (+)1 (-)0
% [5] p7_2 (+)2 (-)0
% [6] p9_2 (+)4 (-)2
% ------------------
% Total: (+)45 (-)2
% Total number of unit clauses retained: 47
% Number of clauses skipped because of their length: 333
% N base clauses skippped in resolve-with-all-base-clauses
% because of the shortest resolvents table: 0
% Number of successful unifications: 769
% Number of unification failures: 38
% Number of unit to unit unification failures: 6
% N literal unification failure due to lookup root_id table: 407
% N base clause resolution failure due to lookup table: 349
% N UC-BCL resolution dropped due to lookup table: 0
% Max entries in substitution set: 6
% N unit clauses dropped because they exceeded max values: 321
% N unit clauses dropped because too much nesting: 26
% 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: 8
% Max term depth in a unit clause: 5
% Number of states in UCFA table: 101
% Total number of terms of all unit clauses in table: 229
% 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: 0.44
% Number of symbols (columns) in UCFA: 48
% Profile 2: Number of calls to:
% ==============================
% PTUnify() = 807
% ConstructUnitClause() = 358
% Profile 1: Time spent in:
% =========================
% ConstructUnitClause() : 0.00 secs
% --------------------------------------------------------
% | |
% Inferences per sec: inf
% | |
% --------------------------------------------------------
% Elapsed time: 0 secs
% CPU time: 0.14 secs
%
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------