TSTP Solution File: FLD070-3 by CARINE---0.734
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : CARINE---0.734
% Problem : FLD070-3 : 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 19:23:32 EST 2010
% Result : Unsatisfiable 0.42s
% Output : Refutation 0.42s
% 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/SystemOnTPTP26046/FLD/FLD070-3+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 = 1 secs [nr = 150] [nf = 0] [nu = 88] [ut = 58]
% Looking for a proof at depth = 2 ...
% t = 1 secs [nr = 151382] [nf = 64] [nu = 115308] [ut = 3844]
% Looking for a proof at depth = 3 ...
% +================================================+
% | |
% | Congratulations!!! ........ A proof was found. |
% | |
% +================================================+
% Base Clauses and Unit Clauses used in proof:
% ============================================
% Base Clauses:
% -------------
% B0: less_or_equal_2(additive_identity_0(),b_0())
% B1: less_or_equal_2(additive_identity_0(),a_0())
% B5: defined_1(a_0())
% B6: defined_1(b_0())
% B11: ~defined_1(x0) | sum_3(additive_identity_0(),x0,x0)
% B14: ~less_or_equal_2(x2,x1) | ~less_or_equal_2(x0,x2) | less_or_equal_2(x0,x1)
% B19: ~defined_1(x1) | ~defined_1(x0) | sum_3(x0,x1,add_2(x0,x1))
% B26: ~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 f1 c3 t4 td2 b nc > ~less_or_equal_2(additive_identity_0(),add_2(a_0(),b_0()))
% U6: < d0 v0 dv0 f0 c1 t1 td1 b > defined_1(b_0())
% U21: < d1 v0 dv0 f0 c3 t3 td1 > sum_3(additive_identity_0(),b_0(),b_0())
% U58: < d2 v0 dv0 f1 c3 t4 td2 > ~less_or_equal_2(b_0(),add_2(a_0(),b_0()))
% U1956: < d2 v0 dv0 f1 c4 t5 td2 > sum_3(a_0(),b_0(),add_2(a_0(),b_0()))
% U3892: < d3 v0 dv0 f1 c3 t4 td2 > less_or_equal_2(b_0(),add_2(a_0(),b_0()))
% --------------- Start of Proof ---------------
% Derivation of unit clause U2:
% ~less_or_equal_2(additive_identity_0(),add_2(a_0(),b_0())) ....... U2
% Derivation of unit clause U6:
% defined_1(b_0()) ....... U6
% Derivation of unit clause U21:
% defined_1(b_0()) ....... B6
% ~defined_1(x0) | sum_3(additive_identity_0(),x0,x0) ....... B11
% sum_3(additive_identity_0(), b_0(), b_0()) ....... R1 [B6:L0, B11:L0]
% Derivation of unit clause U58:
% less_or_equal_2(additive_identity_0(),b_0()) ....... B0
% ~less_or_equal_2(x2,x1) | ~less_or_equal_2(x0,x2) | less_or_equal_2(x0,x1) ....... B14
% ~less_or_equal_2(b_0(), x0) | less_or_equal_2(additive_identity_0(), x0) ....... R1 [B0:L0, B14:L1]
% ~less_or_equal_2(additive_identity_0(),add_2(a_0(),b_0())) ....... U2
% ~less_or_equal_2(b_0(), add_2(a_0(), b_0())) ....... R2 [R1:L1, U2:L0]
% Derivation of unit clause U1956:
% defined_1(a_0()) ....... B5
% ~defined_1(x1) | ~defined_1(x0) | sum_3(x0,x1,add_2(x0,x1)) ....... B19
% ~defined_1(x0) | sum_3(a_0(), x0, add_2(a_0(), x0)) ....... R1 [B5:L0, B19:L1]
% defined_1(b_0()) ....... U6
% sum_3(a_0(), b_0(), add_2(a_0(), b_0())) ....... R2 [R1:L0, U6:L0]
% Derivation of unit clause U3892:
% less_or_equal_2(additive_identity_0(),a_0()) ....... B1
% ~less_or_equal_2(x2,x3) | ~sum_3(x3,x4,x1) | ~sum_3(x2,x4,x0) | less_or_equal_2(x0,x1) ....... B26
% ~sum_3(a_0(), x0, x1) | ~sum_3(additive_identity_0(), x0, x2) | less_or_equal_2(x2, x1) ....... R1 [B1:L0, B26:L0]
% sum_3(a_0(),b_0(),add_2(a_0(),b_0())) ....... U1956
% ~sum_3(additive_identity_0(), b_0(), x0) | less_or_equal_2(x0, add_2(a_0(), b_0())) ....... R2 [R1:L0, U1956:L0]
% sum_3(additive_identity_0(),b_0(),b_0()) ....... U21
% less_or_equal_2(b_0(), add_2(a_0(), b_0())) ....... R3 [R2:L0, U21:L0]
% Derivation of the empty clause:
% less_or_equal_2(b_0(),add_2(a_0(),b_0())) ....... U3892
% ~less_or_equal_2(b_0(),add_2(a_0(),b_0())) ....... U58
% [] ....... R1 [U3892:L0, U58:L0]
% --------------- End of Proof ---------------
% PROOF FOUND!
% ---------------------------------------------
% | Statistics |
% ---------------------------------------------
% Profile 3: Performance Statistics:
% ==================================
% Total number of generated clauses: 151760
% resolvents: 151680 factors: 80
% Number of unit clauses generated: 115408
% % unit clauses generated to total clauses generated: 76.05
% Number of unit clauses constructed and retained at depth [x]:
% =============================================================
% [0] = 8 [1] = 50 [2] = 3786 [3] = 49
% Total = 3893
% Number of generated clauses having [x] literals:
% ------------------------------------------------
% [1] = 115408 [2] = 36270 [3] = 82
% Average size of a generated clause: 2.0
% Number of unit clauses per predicate list:
% ==========================================
% [0] defined_1 (+)3576 (-)0
% [1] less_or_equal_2 (+)35 (-)3
% [2] product_3 (+)103 (-)12
% [3] sum_3 (+)159 (-)5
% ------------------
% Total: (+)3873 (-)20
% Total number of unit clauses retained: 3893
% Number of clauses skipped because of their length: 1382
% N base clauses skippped in resolve-with-all-base-clauses
% because of the shortest resolvents table: 0
% Number of successful unifications: 151768
% Number of unification failures: 9770
% Number of unit to unit unification failures: 2134
% N literal unification failure due to lookup root_id table: 1587
% N base clause resolution failure due to lookup table: 934
% N UC-BCL resolution dropped due to lookup table: 0
% Max entries in substitution set: 8
% N unit clauses dropped because they exceeded max values: 97478
% N unit clauses dropped because too much nesting: 44462
% 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: 3333
% Total number of terms of all unit clauses in table: 25157
% Max allowed number of states in UCFA: 80000
% Ratio n states used/total allowed states: 0.04
% Ratio n states used/total unit clauses terms: 0.13
% Number of symbols (columns) in UCFA: 46
% Profile 2: Number of calls to:
% ==============================
% PTUnify() = 161538
% ConstructUnitClause() = 101363
% Profile 1: Time spent in:
% =========================
% ConstructUnitClause() : 0.12 secs
% --------------------------------------------------------
% | |
% Inferences per sec: inf
% | |
% --------------------------------------------------------
% Elapsed time: 1 secs
% CPU time: 0.42 secs
%
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------