TSTP Solution File: COM002-1 by CARINE---0.734
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : CARINE---0.734
% Problem : COM002-1 : TPTP v5.0.0. Released v1.0.0.
% Transfm : add_equality
% Format : carine
% Command : carine %s t=%d xo=off uct=32000
% Computer : art09.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 18:04:14 EST 2010
% Result : Unsatisfiable 0.17s
% Output : Refutation 0.17s
% 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/SystemOnTPTP21024/COM/COM002-1+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 = 23] [nf = 0] [nu = 18] [ut = 24]
% Looking for a proof at depth = 2 ...
% t = 0 secs [nr = 103] [nf = 4] [nu = 56] [ut = 32]
% Looking for a proof at depth = 3 ...
% +================================================+
% | |
% | Congratulations!!! ........ A proof was found. |
% | |
% +================================================+
% Base Clauses and Unit Clauses used in proof:
% ============================================
% Base Clauses:
% -------------
% B0: ~succeeds_2(p3_0(),p3_0())
% B4: follows_2(p6_0(),p3_0())
% B7: labels_2(loop_0(),p3_0())
% B16: ~follows_2(x0,x1) | succeeds_2(x0,x1)
% B17: ~succeeds_2(x2,x1) | ~succeeds_2(x0,x2) | succeeds_2(x0,x1)
% B18: ~has_2(x1,goto_1(x2)) | ~labels_2(x2,x0) | succeeds_2(x0,x1)
% Unit Clauses:
% --------------
% U5: < d0 v0 dv0 f0 c2 t2 td1 b > follows_2(p7_0(),p6_0())
% U6: < d0 v0 dv0 f0 c2 t2 td1 b > follows_2(p8_0(),p7_0())
% U9: < d0 v0 dv0 f1 c2 t3 td2 b > has_2(p8_0(),goto_1(loop_0()))
% U20: < d1 v0 dv0 f0 c2 t2 td1 > succeeds_2(p6_0(),p3_0())
% U24: < d2 v0 dv0 f0 c2 t2 td1 > ~succeeds_2(p3_0(),p6_0())
% U28: < d2 v0 dv0 f0 c2 t2 td1 > succeeds_2(p3_0(),p8_0())
% U62: < d3 v0 dv0 f0 c2 t2 td1 > ~succeeds_2(p3_0(),p7_0())
% U64: < d3 v0 dv0 f0 c2 t2 td1 > succeeds_2(p3_0(),p7_0())
% --------------- Start of Proof ---------------
% Derivation of unit clause U5:
% follows_2(p7_0(),p6_0()) ....... U5
% Derivation of unit clause U6:
% follows_2(p8_0(),p7_0()) ....... U6
% Derivation of unit clause U9:
% has_2(p8_0(),goto_1(loop_0())) ....... U9
% Derivation of unit clause U20:
% follows_2(p6_0(),p3_0()) ....... B4
% ~follows_2(x0,x1) | succeeds_2(x0,x1) ....... B16
% succeeds_2(p6_0(), p3_0()) ....... R1 [B4:L0, B16:L0]
% Derivation of unit clause U24:
% ~succeeds_2(p3_0(),p3_0()) ....... B0
% ~succeeds_2(x2,x1) | ~succeeds_2(x0,x2) | succeeds_2(x0,x1) ....... B17
% ~succeeds_2(x0, p3_0()) | ~succeeds_2(p3_0(), x0) ....... R1 [B0:L0, B17:L2]
% succeeds_2(p6_0(),p3_0()) ....... U20
% ~succeeds_2(p3_0(), p6_0()) ....... R2 [R1:L0, U20:L0]
% Derivation of unit clause U28:
% labels_2(loop_0(),p3_0()) ....... B7
% ~has_2(x1,goto_1(x2)) | ~labels_2(x2,x0) | succeeds_2(x0,x1) ....... B18
% ~has_2(x0, goto_1(loop_0())) | succeeds_2(p3_0(), x0) ....... R1 [B7:L0, B18:L1]
% has_2(p8_0(),goto_1(loop_0())) ....... U9
% succeeds_2(p3_0(), p8_0()) ....... R2 [R1:L0, U9:L0]
% Derivation of unit clause U62:
% ~follows_2(x0,x1) | succeeds_2(x0,x1) ....... B16
% ~succeeds_2(x2,x1) | ~succeeds_2(x0,x2) | succeeds_2(x0,x1) ....... B17
% ~follows_2(x0, x1) | ~succeeds_2(x2, x0) | succeeds_2(x2, x1) ....... R1 [B16:L1, B17:L0]
% follows_2(p7_0(),p6_0()) ....... U5
% ~succeeds_2(x0, p7_0()) | succeeds_2(x0, p6_0()) ....... R2 [R1:L0, U5:L0]
% ~succeeds_2(p3_0(),p6_0()) ....... U24
% ~succeeds_2(p3_0(), p7_0()) ....... R3 [R2:L1, U24:L0]
% Derivation of unit clause U64:
% ~follows_2(x0,x1) | succeeds_2(x0,x1) ....... B16
% ~succeeds_2(x2,x1) | ~succeeds_2(x0,x2) | succeeds_2(x0,x1) ....... B17
% ~follows_2(x0, x1) | ~succeeds_2(x2, x0) | succeeds_2(x2, x1) ....... R1 [B16:L1, B17:L0]
% follows_2(p8_0(),p7_0()) ....... U6
% ~succeeds_2(x0, p8_0()) | succeeds_2(x0, p7_0()) ....... R2 [R1:L0, U6:L0]
% succeeds_2(p3_0(),p8_0()) ....... U28
% succeeds_2(p3_0(), p7_0()) ....... R3 [R2:L0, U28:L0]
% Derivation of the empty clause:
% succeeds_2(p3_0(),p7_0()) ....... U64
% ~succeeds_2(p3_0(),p7_0()) ....... U62
% [] ....... R1 [U64:L0, U62:L0]
% --------------- End of Proof ---------------
% PROOF FOUND!
% ---------------------------------------------
% | Statistics |
% ---------------------------------------------
% Profile 3: Performance Statistics:
% ==================================
% Total number of generated clauses: 330
% resolvents: 314 factors: 16
% Number of unit clauses generated: 163
% % unit clauses generated to total clauses generated: 49.39
% Number of unit clauses constructed and retained at depth [x]:
% =============================================================
% [0] = 15 [1] = 9 [2] = 8 [3] = 33
% Total = 65
% Number of generated clauses having [x] literals:
% ------------------------------------------------
% [1] = 163 [2] = 146 [3] = 21
% Average size of a generated clause: 2.0
% Number of unit clauses per predicate list:
% ==========================================
% [0] follows_2 (+)6 (-)5
% [1] has_2 (+)7 (-)17
% [2] labels_2 (+)1 (-)1
% [3] succeeds_2 (+)18 (-)10
% ------------------
% Total: (+)32 (-)33
% Total number of unit clauses retained: 65
% Number of clauses skipped because of their length: 118
% N base clauses skippped in resolve-with-all-base-clauses
% because of the shortest resolvents table: 0
% Number of successful unifications: 341
% Number of unification failures: 425
% Number of unit to unit unification failures: 328
% N literal unification failure due to lookup root_id table: 525
% N base clause resolution failure due to lookup table: 242
% N UC-BCL resolution dropped due to lookup table: 0
% Max entries in substitution set: 7
% N unit clauses dropped because they exceeded max values: 51
% 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: 6
% Max term depth in a unit clause: 3
% Number of states in UCFA table: 74
% Total number of terms of all unit clauses in table: 179
% Max allowed number of states in UCFA: 96000
% Ratio n states used/total allowed states: 0.00
% Ratio n states used/total unit clauses terms: 0.41
% Number of symbols (columns) in UCFA: 60
% Profile 2: Number of calls to:
% ==============================
% PTUnify() = 766
% ConstructUnitClause() = 101
% Profile 1: Time spent in:
% =========================
% ConstructUnitClause() : 0.00 secs
% --------------------------------------------------------
% | |
% Inferences per sec: inf
% | |
% --------------------------------------------------------
% Elapsed time: 0 secs
% CPU time: 0.17 secs
%
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------