TSTP Solution File: CAT007-3 by CARINE---0.734
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : CARINE---0.734
% Problem : CAT007-3 : TPTP v5.0.0. Released v1.0.0.
% Transfm : add_equality
% Format : carine
% Command : carine %s t=%d xo=off uct=32000
% Computer : art05.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 : Sat Nov 27 17:44:13 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/SystemOnTPTP17060/CAT/CAT007-3+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 = 26] [nf = 0] [nu = 13] [ut = 10]
% Looking for a proof at depth = 2 ...
% +================================================+
% | |
% | Congratulations!!! ........ A proof was found. |
% | |
% +================================================+
% Base Clauses and Unit Clauses used in proof:
% ============================================
% Base Clauses:
% -------------
% B0: ~there_exists_1(compose_2(c2_0(),c1_0()))
% B9: ~there_exists_1(domain_1(x0)) | ~equalish_2(domain_1(x0),codomain_1(x1)) | there_exists_1(compose_2(x0,x1))
% Unit Clauses:
% --------------
% U1: < d0 v0 dv0 f1 c1 t2 td2 b > there_exists_1(domain_1(c2_0()))
% U4: < d0 v0 dv0 f2 c2 t4 td2 b > equalish_2(domain_1(c2_0()),codomain_1(c1_0()))
% U10: < d2 v0 dv0 f2 c2 t4 td2 > ~equalish_2(domain_1(c2_0()),codomain_1(c1_0()))
% --------------- Start of Proof ---------------
% Derivation of unit clause U1:
% there_exists_1(domain_1(c2_0())) ....... U1
% Derivation of unit clause U4:
% equalish_2(domain_1(c2_0()),codomain_1(c1_0())) ....... U4
% Derivation of unit clause U10:
% ~there_exists_1(compose_2(c2_0(),c1_0())) ....... B0
% ~there_exists_1(domain_1(x0)) | ~equalish_2(domain_1(x0),codomain_1(x1)) | there_exists_1(compose_2(x0,x1)) ....... B9
% ~there_exists_1(domain_1(c2_0())) | ~equalish_2(domain_1(c2_0()), codomain_1(c1_0())) ....... R1 [B0:L0, B9:L2]
% there_exists_1(domain_1(c2_0())) ....... U1
% ~equalish_2(domain_1(c2_0()), codomain_1(c1_0())) ....... R2 [R1:L0, U1:L0]
% Derivation of the empty clause:
% ~equalish_2(domain_1(c2_0()),codomain_1(c1_0())) ....... U10
% equalish_2(domain_1(c2_0()),codomain_1(c1_0())) ....... U4
% [] ....... R1 [U10:L0, U4:L0]
% --------------- End of Proof ---------------
% PROOF FOUND!
% ---------------------------------------------
% | Statistics |
% ---------------------------------------------
% Profile 3: Performance Statistics:
% ==================================
% Total number of generated clauses: 29
% resolvents: 29 factors: 0
% Number of unit clauses generated: 15
% % unit clauses generated to total clauses generated: 51.72
% Number of unit clauses constructed and retained at depth [x]:
% =============================================================
% [0] = 5 [1] = 5 [2] = 1
% Total = 11
% Number of generated clauses having [x] literals:
% ------------------------------------------------
% [1] = 15 [2] = 14
% Average size of a generated clause: 2.0
% Number of unit clauses per predicate list:
% ==========================================
% [0] there_exists_1 (+)4 (-)3
% [1] equalish_2 (+)3 (-)1
% ------------------
% Total: (+)7 (-)4
% Total number of unit clauses retained: 11
% Number of clauses skipped because of their length: 12
% N base clauses skippped in resolve-with-all-base-clauses
% because of the shortest resolvents table: 0
% Number of successful unifications: 31
% Number of unification failures: 2
% Number of unit to unit unification failures: 13
% N literal unification failure due to lookup root_id table: 27
% N base clause resolution failure due to lookup table: 30
% N UC-BCL resolution dropped due to lookup table: 0
% Max entries in substitution set: 2
% N unit clauses dropped because they exceeded max values: 8
% N unit clauses dropped because too much nesting: 1
% 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: 5
% Max term depth in a unit clause: 4
% Number of states in UCFA table: 26
% Total number of terms of all unit clauses in table: 32
% 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: 0.81
% Number of symbols (columns) in UCFA: 42
% Profile 2: Number of calls to:
% ==============================
% PTUnify() = 33
% ConstructUnitClause() = 14
% Profile 1: Time spent in:
% =========================
% ConstructUnitClause() : 0.00 secs
% --------------------------------------------------------
% | |
% Inferences per sec: inf
% | |
% --------------------------------------------------------
% Elapsed time: 0 secs
% CPU time: 0.14 secs
%
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------