%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File     : CARINE---0.734
% Problem  : FLD058-3 : TPTP v5.0.0. Bugfixed v2.1.0.
% Transfm  : add_equality
% Format   : carine
% Command  : carine %s t=%d xo=off uct=32000

% Computer : art04.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 19:09:35 EST 2010

% Result   : Unsatisfiable 0.46s
% Output   : Refutation 0.46s
% 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/SystemOnTPTP22649/FLD/FLD058-3+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 = 158] [nf = 0] [nu = 94] [ut = 61]
% Looking for a proof at depth = 2 ...
% 	t = 0 secs [nr = 158305] [nf = 76] [nu = 120654] [ut = 4027]
% 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(additive_identity_0(),a_0(),additive_identity_0())
% B1: less_or_equal_2(a_0(),b_0())
% B3: sum_3(additive_identity_0(),b_0(),additive_identity_0())
% B6: defined_1(a_0())
% B10: ~sum_3(x1,x0,x2) | sum_3(x0,x1,x2)
% B12: ~defined_1(x0) | sum_3(additive_identity_0(),x0,x0)
% B16: ~less_or_equal_2(x1,x0) | ~less_or_equal_2(x0,x1) | sum_3(additive_identity_0(),x0,x1)
% B27: ~less_or_equal_2(x2,x3) | ~sum_3(x3,x4,x1) | ~sum_3(x2,x4,x0) | less_or_equal_2(x0,x1)
% Unit Clauses:
% --------------
% U2: < d0 v0 dv0 f0 c2 t2 td1 b nc > less_or_equal_2(additive_identity_0(),a_0())
% U10: < d1 v0 dv0 f0 c3 t3 td1 > sum_3(b_0(),additive_identity_0(),additive_identity_0())
% U20: < d1 v0 dv0 f0 c3 t3 td1 > sum_3(additive_identity_0(),a_0(),a_0())
% U33: < d1 v0 dv0 f0 c3 t3 td1 > sum_3(a_0(),additive_identity_0(),a_0())
% U61: < d2 v0 dv0 f0 c2 t2 td1 > ~less_or_equal_2(a_0(),additive_identity_0())
% U4127: < d3 v0 dv0 f0 c2 t2 td1 > less_or_equal_2(a_0(),additive_identity_0())
% --------------- Start of Proof ---------------
% Derivation of unit clause U2:
% less_or_equal_2(additive_identity_0(),a_0()) ....... U2
% Derivation of unit clause U10:
% sum_3(additive_identity_0(),b_0(),additive_identity_0()) ....... B3
% ~sum_3(x1,x0,x2) | sum_3(x0,x1,x2) ....... B10
%  sum_3(b_0(), additive_identity_0(), additive_identity_0()) ....... R1 [B3:L0, B10:L0]
% Derivation of unit clause U20:
% defined_1(a_0()) ....... B6
% ~defined_1(x0) | sum_3(additive_identity_0(),x0,x0) ....... B12
%  sum_3(additive_identity_0(), a_0(), a_0()) ....... R1 [B6:L0, B12:L0]
% Derivation of unit clause U33:
% ~sum_3(x1,x0,x2) | sum_3(x0,x1,x2) ....... B10
% sum_3(additive_identity_0(),a_0(),a_0()) ....... U20
%  sum_3(a_0(), additive_identity_0(), a_0()) ....... R1 [B10:L0, U20:L0]
% Derivation of unit clause U61:
% ~sum_3(additive_identity_0(),a_0(),additive_identity_0()) ....... B0
% ~less_or_equal_2(x1,x0) | ~less_or_equal_2(x0,x1) | sum_3(additive_identity_0(),x0,x1) ....... B16
%  ~less_or_equal_2(additive_identity_0(), a_0()) | ~less_or_equal_2(a_0(), additive_identity_0()) ....... R1 [B0:L0, B16:L2]
%  less_or_equal_2(additive_identity_0(),a_0()) ....... U2
%   ~less_or_equal_2(a_0(), additive_identity_0()) ....... R2 [R1:L0, U2:L0]
% Derivation of unit clause U4127:
% less_or_equal_2(a_0(),b_0()) ....... B1
% ~less_or_equal_2(x2,x3) | ~sum_3(x3,x4,x1) | ~sum_3(x2,x4,x0) | less_or_equal_2(x0,x1) ....... B27
%  ~sum_3(b_0(), x0, x1) | ~sum_3(a_0(), x0, x2) | less_or_equal_2(x2, x1) ....... R1 [B1:L0, B27:L0]
%  sum_3(b_0(),additive_identity_0(),additive_identity_0()) ....... U10
%   ~sum_3(a_0(), additive_identity_0(), x0) | less_or_equal_2(x0, additive_identity_0()) ....... R2 [R1:L0, U10:L0]
%   sum_3(a_0(),additive_identity_0(),a_0()) ....... U33
%    less_or_equal_2(a_0(), additive_identity_0()) ....... R3 [R2:L0, U33:L0]
% Derivation of the empty clause:
% less_or_equal_2(a_0(),additive_identity_0()) ....... U4127
% ~less_or_equal_2(a_0(),additive_identity_0()) ....... U61
%  [] ....... R1 [U4127:L0, U61:L0]
% --------------- End of Proof ---------------
% PROOF FOUND!
% ---------------------------------------------
% |                Statistics                 |
% ---------------------------------------------
% Profile 3: Performance Statistics:
% ==================================
% Total number of generated clauses: 159796
% 	resolvents: 159686	factors: 110
% Number of unit clauses generated: 121107
% % unit clauses generated to total clauses generated: 75.79
% Number of unit clauses constructed and retained at depth [x]:
% =============================================================
% [0] = 9		[1] = 52	[2] = 3966	[3] = 101	
% Total = 4128
% Number of generated clauses having [x] literals:
% ------------------------------------------------
% [1] = 121107	[2] = 38594	[3] = 95	
% Average size of a generated clause: 2.0
% Number of unit clauses per predicate list:
% ==========================================
% [0] defined_1		(+)3733	(-)0
% [1] less_or_equal_2	(+)4	(-)3
% [2] product_3		(+)116	(-)0
% [3] sum_3		(+)175	(-)97
% 			------------------
% 		Total:	(+)4028	(-)100
% Total number of unit clauses retained: 4128
% Number of clauses skipped because of their length: 2723
% N base clauses skippped in resolve-with-all-base-clauses
% 	because of the shortest resolvents table: 0
% Number of successful unifications: 159804
% Number of unification failures: 109103
% Number of unit to unit unification failures: 16984
% N literal unification failure due to lookup root_id table: 2541
% N base clause resolution failure due to lookup table: 1387
% 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: 102304
% N unit clauses dropped because too much nesting: 46557
% 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: 3628
% Total number of terms of all unit clauses in table: 26475
% Max allowed number of states in UCFA: 80000
% Ratio n states used/total allowed states: 0.05
% Ratio n states used/total unit clauses terms: 0.14
% Number of symbols (columns) in UCFA: 46
% Profile 2: Number of calls to:
% ==============================
% PTUnify() = 268907
% ConstructUnitClause() = 106423
% Profile 1: Time spent in:
% =========================
% ConstructUnitClause() : 0.12 secs
% --------------------------------------------------------
% |                                                      |
%   Inferences per sec: inf
% |                                                      |
% --------------------------------------------------------
% Elapsed time: 0 secs
% CPU time: 0.45 secs
% 
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------