TSTP Solution File: FLD067-4 by CARINE---0.734
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : CARINE---0.734
% Problem : FLD067-4 : 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 19:20:28 EST 2010
% Result : Unsatisfiable 0.78s
% Output : Refutation 0.78s
% 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/SystemOnTPTP23401/FLD/FLD067-4+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 = 181] [nf = 0] [nu = 113] [ut = 73]
% Looking for a proof at depth = 2 ...
% t = 1 secs [nr = 349419] [nf = 72] [nu = 270651] [ut = 8238]
% 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(b_0(),additive_inverse_1(a_0()),u_0())
% B5: defined_1(a_0())
% B10: ~sum_3(x1,x0,x2) | sum_3(x0,x1,x2)
% B14: ~defined_1(x0) | sum_3(additive_inverse_1(x0),x0,additive_identity_0())
% 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:
% --------------
% U1: < d0 v0 dv0 f0 c2 t2 td1 b nc > less_or_equal_2(a_0(),b_0())
% U2: < d0 v0 dv0 f0 c2 t2 td1 b nc > ~less_or_equal_2(additive_identity_0(),u_0())
% U21: < d1 v0 dv0 f1 c3 t4 td2 > sum_3(additive_inverse_1(a_0()),a_0(),additive_identity_0())
% U38: < d1 v0 dv0 f1 c3 t4 td2 > sum_3(a_0(),additive_inverse_1(a_0()),additive_identity_0())
% U8280: < d3 v0 dv0 f0 c2 t2 td1 > less_or_equal_2(additive_identity_0(),u_0())
% --------------- Start of Proof ---------------
% Derivation of unit clause U1:
% less_or_equal_2(a_0(),b_0()) ....... U1
% Derivation of unit clause U2:
% ~less_or_equal_2(additive_identity_0(),u_0()) ....... U2
% Derivation of unit clause U21:
% defined_1(a_0()) ....... B5
% ~defined_1(x0) | sum_3(additive_inverse_1(x0),x0,additive_identity_0()) ....... B14
% sum_3(additive_inverse_1(a_0()), a_0(), additive_identity_0()) ....... R1 [B5:L0, B14:L0]
% Derivation of unit clause U38:
% ~sum_3(x1,x0,x2) | sum_3(x0,x1,x2) ....... B10
% sum_3(additive_inverse_1(a_0()),a_0(),additive_identity_0()) ....... U21
% sum_3(a_0(), additive_inverse_1(a_0()), additive_identity_0()) ....... R1 [B10:L0, U21:L0]
% Derivation of unit clause U8280:
% sum_3(b_0(),additive_inverse_1(a_0()),u_0()) ....... B0
% ~less_or_equal_2(x2,x3) | ~sum_3(x3,x4,x1) | ~sum_3(x2,x4,x0) | less_or_equal_2(x0,x1) ....... B27
% ~less_or_equal_2(x0, b_0()) | ~sum_3(x0, additive_inverse_1(a_0()), x1) | less_or_equal_2(x1, u_0()) ....... R1 [B0:L0, B27:L1]
% less_or_equal_2(a_0(),b_0()) ....... U1
% ~sum_3(a_0(), additive_inverse_1(a_0()), x0) | less_or_equal_2(x0, u_0()) ....... R2 [R1:L0, U1:L0]
% sum_3(a_0(),additive_inverse_1(a_0()),additive_identity_0()) ....... U38
% less_or_equal_2(additive_identity_0(), u_0()) ....... R3 [R2:L0, U38:L0]
% Derivation of the empty clause:
% less_or_equal_2(additive_identity_0(),u_0()) ....... U8280
% ~less_or_equal_2(additive_identity_0(),u_0()) ....... U2
% [] ....... R1 [U8280:L0, U2:L0]
% --------------- End of Proof ---------------
% PROOF FOUND!
% ---------------------------------------------
% | Statistics |
% ---------------------------------------------
% Profile 3: Performance Statistics:
% ==================================
% Total number of generated clauses: 350184
% resolvents: 350100 factors: 84
% Number of unit clauses generated: 270803
% % unit clauses generated to total clauses generated: 77.33
% Number of unit clauses constructed and retained at depth [x]:
% =============================================================
% [0] = 9 [1] = 64 [2] = 8165 [3] = 43
% Total = 8281
% Number of generated clauses having [x] literals:
% ------------------------------------------------
% [1] = 270803 [2] = 79289 [3] = 92
% Average size of a generated clause: 2.0
% Number of unit clauses per predicate list:
% ==========================================
% [0] defined_1 (+)7845 (-)0
% [1] less_or_equal_2 (+)2 (-)1
% [2] product_3 (+)154 (-)0
% [3] sum_3 (+)278 (-)1
% ------------------
% Total: (+)8279 (-)2
% Total number of unit clauses retained: 8281
% Number of clauses skipped because of their length: 2084
% N base clauses skippped in resolve-with-all-base-clauses
% because of the shortest resolvents table: 0
% Number of successful unifications: 350189
% Number of unification failures: 43522
% Number of unit to unit unification failures: 279
% N literal unification failure due to lookup root_id table: 2312
% N base clause resolution failure due to lookup table: 1036
% 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: 231557
% N unit clauses dropped because too much nesting: 107664
% 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: 5445
% Total number of terms of all unit clauses in table: 54391
% Max allowed number of states in UCFA: 80000
% Ratio n states used/total allowed states: 0.07
% Ratio n states used/total unit clauses terms: 0.10
% Number of symbols (columns) in UCFA: 47
% Profile 2: Number of calls to:
% ==============================
% PTUnify() = 393711
% ConstructUnitClause() = 239829
% Profile 1: Time spent in:
% =========================
% ConstructUnitClause() : 0.22 secs
% --------------------------------------------------------
% | |
% Inferences per sec: inf
% | |
% --------------------------------------------------------
% Elapsed time: 1 secs
% CPU time: 0.78 secs
%
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------