TSTP Solution File: FLD017-1 by CARINE---0.734
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : CARINE---0.734
% Problem : FLD017-1 : 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 18:21:33 EST 2010
% Result : Unsatisfiable 0.61s
% Output : Refutation 0.61s
% 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/SystemOnTPTP22958/FLD/FLD017-1+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 = 1 secs [nr = 320] [nf = 0] [nu = 216] [ut = 134]
% Looking for a proof at depth = 2 ...
% +================================================+
% | |
% | Congratulations!!! ........ A proof was found. |
% | |
% +================================================+
% Base Clauses and Unit Clauses used in proof:
% ============================================
% Base Clauses:
% -------------
% B0: equalish_2(a_0(),x_0())
% B1: equalish_2(add_2(a_0(),b_0()),c_0())
% B6: defined_1(b_0())
% B10: ~equalish_2(x1,x0) | equalish_2(x0,x1)
% B17: ~equalish_2(x2,x1) | ~equalish_2(x0,x2) | equalish_2(x0,x1)
% B19: ~defined_1(x1) | ~equalish_2(x0,x2) | equalish_2(add_2(x0,x1),add_2(x2,x1))
% Unit Clauses:
% --------------
% U2: < d0 v0 dv0 f1 c3 t4 td2 b nc > ~equalish_2(add_2(x_0(),b_0()),c_0())
% U10: < d1 v0 dv0 f0 c2 t2 td1 > equalish_2(x_0(),a_0())
% U186: < d2 v0 dv0 f2 c4 t6 td2 > ~equalish_2(add_2(x_0(),b_0()),add_2(a_0(),b_0()))
% U28539: < d2 v0 dv0 f2 c4 t6 td2 > equalish_2(add_2(x_0(),b_0()),add_2(a_0(),b_0()))
% --------------- Start of Proof ---------------
% Derivation of unit clause U2:
% ~equalish_2(add_2(x_0(),b_0()),c_0()) ....... U2
% Derivation of unit clause U10:
% equalish_2(a_0(),x_0()) ....... B0
% ~equalish_2(x1,x0) | equalish_2(x0,x1) ....... B10
% equalish_2(x_0(), a_0()) ....... R1 [B0:L0, B10:L0]
% Derivation of unit clause U186:
% equalish_2(add_2(a_0(),b_0()),c_0()) ....... B1
% ~equalish_2(x2,x1) | ~equalish_2(x0,x2) | equalish_2(x0,x1) ....... B17
% ~equalish_2(x0, add_2(a_0(), b_0())) | equalish_2(x0, c_0()) ....... R1 [B1:L0, B17:L0]
% ~equalish_2(add_2(x_0(),b_0()),c_0()) ....... U2
% ~equalish_2(add_2(x_0(), b_0()), add_2(a_0(), b_0())) ....... R2 [R1:L1, U2:L0]
% Derivation of unit clause U28539:
% defined_1(b_0()) ....... B6
% ~defined_1(x1) | ~equalish_2(x0,x2) | equalish_2(add_2(x0,x1),add_2(x2,x1)) ....... B19
% ~equalish_2(x0, x1) | equalish_2(add_2(x0, b_0()), add_2(x1, b_0())) ....... R1 [B6:L0, B19:L0]
% equalish_2(x_0(),a_0()) ....... U10
% equalish_2(add_2(x_0(), b_0()), add_2(a_0(), b_0())) ....... R2 [R1:L0, U10:L0]
% Derivation of the empty clause:
% equalish_2(add_2(x_0(),b_0()),add_2(a_0(),b_0())) ....... U28539
% ~equalish_2(add_2(x_0(),b_0()),add_2(a_0(),b_0())) ....... U186
% [] ....... R1 [U28539:L0, U186:L0]
% --------------- End of Proof ---------------
% PROOF FOUND!
% ---------------------------------------------
% | Statistics |
% ---------------------------------------------
% Profile 3: Performance Statistics:
% ==================================
% Total number of generated clauses: 147581
% resolvents: 147515 factors: 66
% Number of unit clauses generated: 147140
% % unit clauses generated to total clauses generated: 99.70
% Number of unit clauses constructed and retained at depth [x]:
% =============================================================
% [0] = 10 [1] = 124 [2] = 28406
% Total = 28540
% Number of generated clauses having [x] literals:
% ------------------------------------------------
% [1] = 147140 [2] = 408 [3] = 33
% Average size of a generated clause: 2.0
% Number of unit clauses per predicate list:
% ==========================================
% [0] defined_1 (+)12968 (-)0
% [1] equalish_2 (+)15565 (-)7
% [2] less_or_equal_2 (+)0 (-)0
% ------------------
% Total: (+)28533 (-)7
% Total number of unit clauses retained: 28540
% Number of clauses skipped because of their length: 871
% N base clauses skippped in resolve-with-all-base-clauses
% because of the shortest resolvents table: 0
% Number of successful unifications: 147586
% Number of unification failures: 1086
% Number of unit to unit unification failures: 108952
% N literal unification failure due to lookup root_id table: 972
% N base clause resolution failure due to lookup table: 291
% N UC-BCL resolution dropped due to lookup table: 0
% Max entries in substitution set: 4
% N unit clauses dropped because they exceeded max values: 118587
% N unit clauses dropped because too much nesting: 101663
% 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: 16
% Max term depth in a unit clause: 5
% Number of states in UCFA table: 113291
% Total number of terms of all unit clauses in table: 324845
% Max allowed number of states in UCFA: 144000
% Ratio n states used/total allowed states: 0.79
% Ratio n states used/total unit clauses terms: 0.35
% Number of symbols (columns) in UCFA: 47
% Profile 2: Number of calls to:
% ==============================
% PTUnify() = 148672
% ConstructUnitClause() = 147117
% Profile 1: Time spent in:
% =========================
% ConstructUnitClause() : 0.19 secs
% --------------------------------------------------------
% | |
% Inferences per sec: inf
% | |
% --------------------------------------------------------
% Elapsed time: 1 secs
% CPU time: 0.61 secs
%
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------