TSTP Solution File: FLD006-3 by CARINE---0.734
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : CARINE---0.734
% Problem : FLD006-3 : TPTP v5.0.0. Bugfixed v2.1.0.
% Transfm : add_equality
% Format : carine
% Command : carine %s t=%d xo=off uct=32000
% Computer : art03.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 18:09:55 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/SystemOnTPTP19701/FLD/FLD006-3+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 ...
% +================================================+
% | |
% | Congratulations!!! ........ A proof was found. |
% | |
% +================================================+
% Base Clauses and Unit Clauses used in proof:
% ============================================
% Base Clauses:
% -------------
% B0: ~sum_3(additive_identity_0(),additive_inverse_1(additive_identity_0()),additive_identity_0())
% B1: defined_1(additive_identity_0())
% B5: ~sum_3(x1,x0,x2) | sum_3(x0,x1,x2)
% B9: ~defined_1(x0) | sum_3(additive_inverse_1(x0),x0,additive_identity_0())
% Unit Clauses:
% --------------
% U4: < d1 v0 dv0 f1 c3 t4 td2 > ~sum_3(additive_inverse_1(additive_identity_0()),additive_identity_0(),additive_identity_0())
% U8: < d1 v0 dv0 f1 c3 t4 td2 > sum_3(additive_inverse_1(additive_identity_0()),additive_identity_0(),additive_identity_0())
% --------------- Start of Proof ---------------
% Derivation of unit clause U4:
% ~sum_3(additive_identity_0(),additive_inverse_1(additive_identity_0()),additive_identity_0()) ....... B0
% ~sum_3(x1,x0,x2) | sum_3(x0,x1,x2) ....... B5
% ~sum_3(additive_inverse_1(additive_identity_0()), additive_identity_0(), additive_identity_0()) ....... R1 [B0:L0, B5:L1]
% Derivation of unit clause U8:
% defined_1(additive_identity_0()) ....... B1
% ~defined_1(x0) | sum_3(additive_inverse_1(x0),x0,additive_identity_0()) ....... B9
% sum_3(additive_inverse_1(additive_identity_0()), additive_identity_0(), additive_identity_0()) ....... R1 [B1:L0, B9:L0]
% Derivation of the empty clause:
% sum_3(additive_inverse_1(additive_identity_0()),additive_identity_0(),additive_identity_0()) ....... U8
% ~sum_3(additive_inverse_1(additive_identity_0()),additive_identity_0(),additive_identity_0()) ....... U4
% [] ....... R1 [U8:L0, U4:L0]
% --------------- End of Proof ---------------
% PROOF FOUND!
% ---------------------------------------------
% | Statistics |
% ---------------------------------------------
% Profile 3: Performance Statistics:
% ==================================
% Total number of generated clauses: 8
% resolvents: 8 factors: 0
% Number of unit clauses generated: 5
% % unit clauses generated to total clauses generated: 62.50
% Number of unit clauses constructed and retained at depth [x]:
% =============================================================
% [0] = 4 [1] = 5
% Total = 9
% Number of generated clauses having [x] literals:
% ------------------------------------------------
% [1] = 5 [2] = 3
% Average size of a generated clause: 2.0
% Number of unit clauses per predicate list:
% ==========================================
% [0] defined_1 (+)3 (-)0
% [1] less_or_equal_2 (+)0 (-)0
% [2] product_3 (+)1 (-)0
% [3] sum_3 (+)2 (-)3
% ------------------
% Total: (+)6 (-)3
% Total number of unit clauses retained: 9
% Number of clauses skipped because of their length: 7
% N base clauses skippped in resolve-with-all-base-clauses
% because of the shortest resolvents table: 0
% Number of successful unifications: 10
% Number of unification failures: 0
% Number of unit to unit unification failures: 5
% N literal unification failure due to lookup root_id table: 10
% N base clause resolution failure due to lookup table: 12
% 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: 0
% 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: 4
% Max term depth in a unit clause: 2
% Number of states in UCFA table: 22
% Total number of terms of all unit clauses in table: 25
% 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: 0.88
% Number of symbols (columns) in UCFA: 44
% Profile 2: Number of calls to:
% ==============================
% PTUnify() = 10
% ConstructUnitClause() = 5
% Profile 1: Time spent in:
% =========================
% ConstructUnitClause() : 0.00 secs
% --------------------------------------------------------
% | |
% Inferences per sec: inf
% | |
% --------------------------------------------------------
% Elapsed time: 0 secs
% CPU time: 0.15 secs
%
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------