TSTP Solution File: FLD005-3 by CARINE---0.734
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : CARINE---0.734
% Problem : FLD005-3 : TPTP v5.0.0. Bugfixed v2.1.0.
% 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 18:09:40 EST 2010
% Result : Unsatisfiable 0.43s
% Output : Refutation 0.43s
% 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/SystemOnTPTP21754/FLD/FLD005-3+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 = 144] [nf = 0] [nu = 91] [ut = 57]
% Looking for a proof at depth = 2 ...
% t = 0 secs [nr = 151348] [nf = 70] [nu = 115314] [ut = 3841]
% Looking for a proof at depth = 3 ...
% +================================================+
% | |
% | Congratulations!!! ........ A proof was found. |
% | |
% +================================================+
% Base Clauses and Unit Clauses used in proof:
% ============================================
% Base Clauses:
% -------------
% B0: ~sum_3(a_0(),x0,b_0())
% B3: defined_1(a_0())
% B4: defined_1(b_0())
% B7: ~sum_3(x1,x0,x2) | sum_3(x0,x1,x2)
% B9: ~defined_1(x0) | sum_3(additive_identity_0(),x0,x0)
% B10: ~defined_1(x0) | defined_1(additive_inverse_1(x0))
% B11: ~defined_1(x0) | sum_3(additive_inverse_1(x0),x0,additive_identity_0())
% B17: ~defined_1(x1) | ~defined_1(x0) | sum_3(x0,x1,add_2(x0,x1))
% B23: ~sum_3(x4,x5,x2) | ~sum_3(x3,x5,x1) | ~sum_3(x0,x3,x4) | sum_3(x0,x1,x2)
% Unit Clauses:
% --------------
% U17: < d1 v0 dv0 f1 c1 t2 td2 > defined_1(additive_inverse_1(a_0()))
% U18: < d1 v0 dv0 f1 c3 t4 td2 > sum_3(additive_inverse_1(a_0()),a_0(),additive_identity_0())
% U20: < d1 v0 dv0 f0 c3 t3 td1 > sum_3(additive_identity_0(),b_0(),b_0())
% U30: < d1 v0 dv0 f1 c3 t4 td2 > sum_3(a_0(),additive_inverse_1(a_0()),additive_identity_0())
% U3595: < d2 v0 dv0 f3 c4 t7 td3 > sum_3(additive_inverse_1(a_0()),b_0(),add_2(additive_inverse_1(a_0()),b_0()))
% U3929: < d3 v0 dv0 f1 c3 t4 td2 > ~sum_3(a_0(),additive_inverse_1(a_0()),additive_identity_0())
% --------------- Start of Proof ---------------
% Derivation of unit clause U17:
% defined_1(a_0()) ....... B3
% ~defined_1(x0) | defined_1(additive_inverse_1(x0)) ....... B10
% defined_1(additive_inverse_1(a_0())) ....... R1 [B3:L0, B10:L0]
% Derivation of unit clause U18:
% defined_1(a_0()) ....... B3
% ~defined_1(x0) | sum_3(additive_inverse_1(x0),x0,additive_identity_0()) ....... B11
% sum_3(additive_inverse_1(a_0()), a_0(), additive_identity_0()) ....... R1 [B3:L0, B11:L0]
% Derivation of unit clause U20:
% defined_1(b_0()) ....... B4
% ~defined_1(x0) | sum_3(additive_identity_0(),x0,x0) ....... B9
% sum_3(additive_identity_0(), b_0(), b_0()) ....... R1 [B4:L0, B9:L0]
% Derivation of unit clause U30:
% ~sum_3(x1,x0,x2) | sum_3(x0,x1,x2) ....... B7
% sum_3(additive_inverse_1(a_0()),a_0(),additive_identity_0()) ....... U18
% sum_3(a_0(), additive_inverse_1(a_0()), additive_identity_0()) ....... R1 [B7:L0, U18:L0]
% Derivation of unit clause U3595:
% defined_1(b_0()) ....... B4
% ~defined_1(x1) | ~defined_1(x0) | sum_3(x0,x1,add_2(x0,x1)) ....... B17
% ~defined_1(x0) | sum_3(x0, b_0(), add_2(x0, b_0())) ....... R1 [B4:L0, B17:L0]
% defined_1(additive_inverse_1(a_0())) ....... U17
% sum_3(additive_inverse_1(a_0()), b_0(), add_2(additive_inverse_1(a_0()), b_0())) ....... R2 [R1:L0, U17:L0]
% Derivation of unit clause U3929:
% ~sum_3(a_0(),x0,b_0()) ....... B0
% ~sum_3(x4,x5,x2) | ~sum_3(x3,x5,x1) | ~sum_3(x0,x3,x4) | sum_3(x0,x1,x2) ....... B23
% ~sum_3(x0, x1, b_0()) | ~sum_3(x2, x1, x3) | ~sum_3(a_0(), x2, x0) ....... R1 [B0:L0, B23:L3]
% sum_3(additive_identity_0(),b_0(),b_0()) ....... U20
% ~sum_3(x0, b_0(), x1) | ~sum_3(a_0(), x0, additive_identity_0()) ....... R2 [R1:L0, U20:L0]
% sum_3(additive_inverse_1(a_0()),b_0(),add_2(additive_inverse_1(a_0()),b_0())) ....... U3595
% ~sum_3(a_0(), additive_inverse_1(a_0()), additive_identity_0()) ....... R3 [R2:L0, U3595:L0]
% Derivation of the empty clause:
% ~sum_3(a_0(),additive_inverse_1(a_0()),additive_identity_0()) ....... U3929
% sum_3(a_0(),additive_inverse_1(a_0()),additive_identity_0()) ....... U30
% [] ....... R1 [U3929:L0, U30:L0]
% --------------- End of Proof ---------------
% PROOF FOUND!
% ---------------------------------------------
% | Statistics |
% ---------------------------------------------
% Profile 3: Performance Statistics:
% ==================================
% Total number of generated clauses: 152167
% resolvents: 152085 factors: 82
% Number of unit clauses generated: 115514
% % unit clauses generated to total clauses generated: 75.91
% Number of unit clauses constructed and retained at depth [x]:
% =============================================================
% [0] = 6 [1] = 51 [2] = 3784 [3] = 89
% Total = 3930
% Number of generated clauses having [x] literals:
% ------------------------------------------------
% [1] = 115514 [2] = 36604 [3] = 49
% Average size of a generated clause: 2.0
% Number of unit clauses per predicate list:
% ==========================================
% [0] defined_1 (+)3576 (-)0
% [1] less_or_equal_2 (+)0 (-)0
% [2] product_3 (+)103 (-)0
% [3] sum_3 (+)159 (-)92
% ------------------
% Total: (+)3838 (-)92
% Total number of unit clauses retained: 3930
% Number of clauses skipped because of their length: 2025
% N base clauses skippped in resolve-with-all-base-clauses
% because of the shortest resolvents table: 0
% Number of successful unifications: 152176
% Number of unification failures: 55291
% Number of unit to unit unification failures: 14481
% N literal unification failure due to lookup root_id table: 1920
% N base clause resolution failure due to lookup table: 937
% N UC-BCL resolution dropped due to lookup table: 0
% Max entries in substitution set: 9
% N unit clauses dropped because they exceeded max values: 97546
% N unit clauses dropped because too much nesting: 44462
% 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: 4
% Number of states in UCFA table: 3290
% Total number of terms of all unit clauses in table: 25288
% Max allowed number of states in UCFA: 80000
% Ratio n states used/total allowed states: 0.04
% Ratio n states used/total unit clauses terms: 0.13
% Number of symbols (columns) in UCFA: 46
% Profile 2: Number of calls to:
% ==============================
% PTUnify() = 207467
% ConstructUnitClause() = 101470
% Profile 1: Time spent in:
% =========================
% ConstructUnitClause() : 0.12 secs
% --------------------------------------------------------
% | |
% Inferences per sec: inf
% | |
% --------------------------------------------------------
% Elapsed time: 0 secs
% CPU time: 0.43 secs
%
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------