TSTP Solution File: FLD067-1 by CARINE---0.734
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : CARINE---0.734
% Problem : FLD067-1 : TPTP v5.0.0. Bugfixed v2.1.0.
% Transfm : add_equality
% Format : carine
% Command : carine %s t=%d xo=off uct=32000
% Computer : art05.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 19:20:03 EST 2010
% Result : Unsatisfiable 0.18s
% Output : Refutation 0.18s
% 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/SystemOnTPTP28265/FLD/FLD067-1+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 = 213] [nf = 0] [nu = 139] [ut = 88]
% Looking for a proof at depth = 2 ...
% +================================================+
% | |
% | Congratulations!!! ........ A proof was found. |
% | |
% +================================================+
% Base Clauses and Unit Clauses used in proof:
% ============================================
% Base Clauses:
% -------------
% B0: less_or_equal_2(a_0(),b_0())
% B1: ~less_or_equal_2(additive_identity_0(),add_2(b_0(),additive_inverse_1(a_0())))
% B4: defined_1(a_0())
% B9: ~defined_1(x0) | defined_1(additive_inverse_1(x0))
% B12: ~defined_1(x0) | equalish_2(add_2(x0,additive_inverse_1(x0)),additive_identity_0())
% B13: ~equalish_2(x2,x0) | ~less_or_equal_2(x2,x1) | less_or_equal_2(x0,x1)
% B18: ~defined_1(x1) | ~less_or_equal_2(x0,x2) | less_or_equal_2(add_2(x0,x1),add_2(x2,x1))
% Unit Clauses:
% --------------
% U18: < d1 v0 dv0 f1 c1 t2 td2 > defined_1(additive_inverse_1(a_0()))
% U21: < d1 v0 dv0 f2 c3 t5 td3 > equalish_2(add_2(a_0(),additive_inverse_1(a_0())),additive_identity_0())
% U96: < d2 v0 dv0 f4 c4 t8 td3 > less_or_equal_2(add_2(a_0(),additive_inverse_1(a_0())),add_2(b_0(),additive_inverse_1(a_0())))
% U110: < d2 v0 dv0 f4 c4 t8 td3 > ~less_or_equal_2(add_2(a_0(),additive_inverse_1(a_0())),add_2(b_0(),additive_inverse_1(a_0())))
% --------------- Start of Proof ---------------
% Derivation of unit clause U18:
% defined_1(a_0()) ....... B4
% ~defined_1(x0) | defined_1(additive_inverse_1(x0)) ....... B9
% defined_1(additive_inverse_1(a_0())) ....... R1 [B4:L0, B9:L0]
% Derivation of unit clause U21:
% defined_1(a_0()) ....... B4
% ~defined_1(x0) | equalish_2(add_2(x0,additive_inverse_1(x0)),additive_identity_0()) ....... B12
% equalish_2(add_2(a_0(), additive_inverse_1(a_0())), additive_identity_0()) ....... R1 [B4:L0, B12:L0]
% Derivation of unit clause U96:
% less_or_equal_2(a_0(),b_0()) ....... B0
% ~defined_1(x1) | ~less_or_equal_2(x0,x2) | less_or_equal_2(add_2(x0,x1),add_2(x2,x1)) ....... B18
% ~defined_1(x0) | less_or_equal_2(add_2(a_0(), x0), add_2(b_0(), x0)) ....... R1 [B0:L0, B18:L1]
% defined_1(additive_inverse_1(a_0())) ....... U18
% less_or_equal_2(add_2(a_0(), additive_inverse_1(a_0())), add_2(b_0(), additive_inverse_1(a_0()))) ....... R2 [R1:L0, U18:L0]
% Derivation of unit clause U110:
% ~less_or_equal_2(additive_identity_0(),add_2(b_0(),additive_inverse_1(a_0()))) ....... B1
% ~equalish_2(x2,x0) | ~less_or_equal_2(x2,x1) | less_or_equal_2(x0,x1) ....... B13
% ~equalish_2(x0, additive_identity_0()) | ~less_or_equal_2(x0, add_2(b_0(), additive_inverse_1(a_0()))) ....... R1 [B1:L0, B13:L2]
% equalish_2(add_2(a_0(),additive_inverse_1(a_0())),additive_identity_0()) ....... U21
% ~less_or_equal_2(add_2(a_0(), additive_inverse_1(a_0())), add_2(b_0(), additive_inverse_1(a_0()))) ....... R2 [R1:L0, U21:L0]
% Derivation of the empty clause:
% ~less_or_equal_2(add_2(a_0(),additive_inverse_1(a_0())),add_2(b_0(),additive_inverse_1(a_0()))) ....... U110
% less_or_equal_2(add_2(a_0(),additive_inverse_1(a_0())),add_2(b_0(),additive_inverse_1(a_0()))) ....... U96
% [] ....... R1 [U110:L0, U96:L0]
% --------------- End of Proof ---------------
% PROOF FOUND!
% ---------------------------------------------
% | Statistics |
% ---------------------------------------------
% Profile 3: Performance Statistics:
% ==================================
% Total number of generated clauses: 254
% resolvents: 254 factors: 0
% Number of unit clauses generated: 168
% % unit clauses generated to total clauses generated: 66.14
% Number of unit clauses constructed and retained at depth [x]:
% =============================================================
% [0] = 7 [1] = 81 [2] = 23
% Total = 111
% Number of generated clauses having [x] literals:
% ------------------------------------------------
% [1] = 168 [2] = 86
% Average size of a generated clause: 2.0
% Number of unit clauses per predicate list:
% ==========================================
% [0] defined_1 (+)20 (-)0
% [1] equalish_2 (+)64 (-)2
% [2] less_or_equal_2 (+)19 (-)6
% ------------------
% Total: (+)103 (-)8
% Total number of unit clauses retained: 111
% Number of clauses skipped because of their length: 196
% N base clauses skippped in resolve-with-all-base-clauses
% because of the shortest resolvents table: 0
% Number of successful unifications: 260
% Number of unification failures: 125
% Number of unit to unit unification failures: 232
% N literal unification failure due to lookup root_id table: 156
% N base clause resolution failure due to lookup table: 140
% 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: 64
% N unit clauses dropped because too much nesting: 24
% 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: 12
% Max term depth in a unit clause: 5
% Number of states in UCFA table: 303
% Total number of terms of all unit clauses in table: 645
% Max allowed number of states in UCFA: 144000
% Ratio n states used/total allowed states: 0.00
% Ratio n states used/total unit clauses terms: 0.47
% Number of symbols (columns) in UCFA: 45
% Profile 2: Number of calls to:
% ==============================
% PTUnify() = 385
% ConstructUnitClause() = 168
% Profile 1: Time spent in:
% =========================
% ConstructUnitClause() : 0.00 secs
% --------------------------------------------------------
% | |
% Inferences per sec: inf
% | |
% --------------------------------------------------------
% Elapsed time: 1 secs
% CPU time: 0.18 secs
%
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------