TSTP Solution File: LCL008-1 by CARINE---0.734
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : CARINE---0.734
% Problem : LCL008-1 : TPTP v5.0.0. Released v1.0.0.
% Transfm : add_equality
% Format : carine
% Command : carine %s t=%d xo=off uct=32000
% Computer : art02.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 23:16:28 EST 2010
% Result : Unsatisfiable 0.36s
% Output : Refutation 0.36s
% 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/SystemOnTPTP30682/LCL/LCL008-1+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 = 3] [nf = 0] [nu = 0] [ut = 2]
% Looking for a proof at depth = 2 ...
% +================================================+
% | |
% | Congratulations!!! ........ A proof was found. |
% | |
% +================================================+
% Base Clauses and Unit Clauses used in proof:
% ============================================
% Base Clauses:
% -------------
% B0: ~is_a_theorem_1(equivalent_2(equivalent_2(a_0(),b_0()),equivalent_2(b_0(),a_0())))
% B1: is_a_theorem_1(equivalent_2(equivalent_2(x0,x1),equivalent_2(equivalent_2(x2,x1),equivalent_2(x0,x2))))
% B2: ~is_a_theorem_1(x0) | ~is_a_theorem_1(equivalent_2(x0,x1)) | is_a_theorem_1(x1)
% Unit Clauses:
% --------------
% U1: < d0 v6 dv3 f5 c0 t11 td4 b > is_a_theorem_1(equivalent_2(equivalent_2(x0,x1),equivalent_2(equivalent_2(x2,x1),equivalent_2(x0,x2))))
% U3: < d2 v0 dv0 f1 c2 t3 td2 > ~is_a_theorem_1(equivalent_2(b_0(),b_0()))
% U4: < d2 v8 dv4 f7 c0 t15 td5 > is_a_theorem_1(equivalent_2(equivalent_2(x0,equivalent_2(equivalent_2(x1,x2),equivalent_2(x3,x1))),equivalent_2(equivalent_2(x3,x2),x0)))
% U7: < d2 v6 dv3 f7 c2 t15 td5 > ~is_a_theorem_1(equivalent_2(equivalent_2(equivalent_2(x0,x1),equivalent_2(equivalent_2(x2,x1),equivalent_2(x0,x2))),equivalent_2(b_0(),b_0())))
% U9: < d2 v12 dv6 f13 c2 t27 td6 > ~is_a_theorem_1(equivalent_2(equivalent_2(equivalent_2(x0,x1),equivalent_2(equivalent_2(x2,x1),equivalent_2(x0,x2))),equivalent_2(equivalent_2(equivalent_2(x3,x4),equivalent_2(equivalent_2(x5,x4),equivalent_2(x3,x5))),equivalent_2(b_0(),b_0()))))
% U13: < d2 v10 dv5 f9 c0 t19 td6 > is_a_theorem_1(equivalent_2(equivalent_2(x0,equivalent_2(equivalent_2(x1,x2),x3)),equivalent_2(equivalent_2(x3,equivalent_2(equivalent_2(x4,x2),equivalent_2(x1,x4))),x0)))
% --------------- Start of Proof ---------------
% Derivation of unit clause U1:
% is_a_theorem_1(equivalent_2(equivalent_2(x0,x1),equivalent_2(equivalent_2(x2,x1),equivalent_2(x0,x2)))) ....... U1
% Derivation of unit clause U3:
% ~is_a_theorem_1(equivalent_2(equivalent_2(a_0(),b_0()),equivalent_2(b_0(),a_0()))) ....... B0
% ~is_a_theorem_1(x0) | ~is_a_theorem_1(equivalent_2(x0,x1)) | is_a_theorem_1(x1) ....... B2
% ~is_a_theorem_1(x0) | ~is_a_theorem_1(equivalent_2(x0, equivalent_2(equivalent_2(a_0(), b_0()), equivalent_2(b_0(), a_0())))) ....... R1 [B0:L0, B2:L2]
% is_a_theorem_1(equivalent_2(equivalent_2(x0,x1),equivalent_2(equivalent_2(x2,x1),equivalent_2(x0,x2)))) ....... U1
% ~is_a_theorem_1(equivalent_2(b_0(), b_0())) ....... R2 [R1:L1, U1:L0]
% Derivation of unit clause U4:
% is_a_theorem_1(equivalent_2(equivalent_2(x0,x1),equivalent_2(equivalent_2(x2,x1),equivalent_2(x0,x2)))) ....... B1
% ~is_a_theorem_1(x0) | ~is_a_theorem_1(equivalent_2(x0,x1)) | is_a_theorem_1(x1) ....... B2
% ~is_a_theorem_1(equivalent_2(equivalent_2(equivalent_2(x0, x1), equivalent_2(equivalent_2(x2, x1), equivalent_2(x0, x2))), x3)) | is_a_theorem_1(x3) ....... R1 [B1:L0, B2:L0]
% is_a_theorem_1(equivalent_2(equivalent_2(x0,x1),equivalent_2(equivalent_2(x2,x1),equivalent_2(x0,x2)))) ....... U1
% is_a_theorem_1(equivalent_2(equivalent_2(x0, equivalent_2(equivalent_2(x1, x2), equivalent_2(x3, x1))), equivalent_2(equivalent_2(x3, x2), x0))) ....... R2 [R1:L0, U1:L0]
% Derivation of unit clause U7:
% is_a_theorem_1(equivalent_2(equivalent_2(x0,x1),equivalent_2(equivalent_2(x2,x1),equivalent_2(x0,x2)))) ....... B1
% ~is_a_theorem_1(x0) | ~is_a_theorem_1(equivalent_2(x0,x1)) | is_a_theorem_1(x1) ....... B2
% ~is_a_theorem_1(equivalent_2(equivalent_2(equivalent_2(x0, x1), equivalent_2(equivalent_2(x2, x1), equivalent_2(x0, x2))), x3)) | is_a_theorem_1(x3) ....... R1 [B1:L0, B2:L0]
% ~is_a_theorem_1(equivalent_2(b_0(),b_0())) ....... U3
% ~is_a_theorem_1(equivalent_2(equivalent_2(equivalent_2(x0, x1), equivalent_2(equivalent_2(x2, x1), equivalent_2(x0, x2))), equivalent_2(b_0(), b_0()))) ....... R2 [R1:L1, U3:L0]
% Derivation of unit clause U9:
% is_a_theorem_1(equivalent_2(equivalent_2(x0,x1),equivalent_2(equivalent_2(x2,x1),equivalent_2(x0,x2)))) ....... B1
% ~is_a_theorem_1(x0) | ~is_a_theorem_1(equivalent_2(x0,x1)) | is_a_theorem_1(x1) ....... B2
% ~is_a_theorem_1(equivalent_2(equivalent_2(equivalent_2(x0, x1), equivalent_2(equivalent_2(x2, x1), equivalent_2(x0, x2))), x3)) | is_a_theorem_1(x3) ....... R1 [B1:L0, B2:L0]
% ~is_a_theorem_1(equivalent_2(equivalent_2(equivalent_2(x0,x1),equivalent_2(equivalent_2(x2,x1),equivalent_2(x0,x2))),equivalent_2(b_0(),b_0()))) ....... U7
% ~is_a_theorem_1(equivalent_2(equivalent_2(equivalent_2(x0, x1), equivalent_2(equivalent_2(x2, x1), equivalent_2(x0, x2))), equivalent_2(equivalent_2(equivalent_2(x3, x4), equivalent_2(equivalent_2(x5, x4), equivalent_2(x3, x5))), equivalent_2(b_0(), b_0())))) ....... R2 [R1:L1, U7:L0]
% Derivation of unit clause U13:
% is_a_theorem_1(equivalent_2(equivalent_2(x0,x1),equivalent_2(equivalent_2(x2,x1),equivalent_2(x0,x2)))) ....... B1
% ~is_a_theorem_1(x0) | ~is_a_theorem_1(equivalent_2(x0,x1)) | is_a_theorem_1(x1) ....... B2
% ~is_a_theorem_1(equivalent_2(x0, x1)) | is_a_theorem_1(equivalent_2(equivalent_2(x2, x1), equivalent_2(x0, x2))) ....... R1 [B1:L0, B2:L1]
% is_a_theorem_1(equivalent_2(equivalent_2(x0,equivalent_2(equivalent_2(x1,x2),equivalent_2(x3,x1))),equivalent_2(equivalent_2(x3,x2),x0))) ....... U4
% is_a_theorem_1(equivalent_2(equivalent_2(x0, equivalent_2(equivalent_2(x1, x2), x3)), equivalent_2(equivalent_2(x3, equivalent_2(equivalent_2(x4, x2), equivalent_2(x1, x4))), x0))) ....... R2 [R1:L0, U4:L0]
% Derivation of the empty clause:
% is_a_theorem_1(equivalent_2(equivalent_2(x0,equivalent_2(equivalent_2(x1,x2),x3)),equivalent_2(equivalent_2(x3,equivalent_2(equivalent_2(x4,x2),equivalent_2(x1,x4))),x0))) ....... U13
% ~is_a_theorem_1(equivalent_2(equivalent_2(equivalent_2(x0,x1),equivalent_2(equivalent_2(x2,x1),equivalent_2(x0,x2))),equivalent_2(equivalent_2(equivalent_2(x3,x4),equivalent_2(equivalent_2(x5,x4),equivalent_2(x3,x5))),equivalent_2(b_0(),b_0())))) ....... U9
% [] ....... R1 [U13:L0, U9:L0]
% --------------- End of Proof ---------------
% PROOF FOUND!
% ---------------------------------------------
% | Statistics |
% ---------------------------------------------
% Profile 3: Performance Statistics:
% ==================================
% Total number of generated clauses: 21
% resolvents: 21 factors: 0
% Number of unit clauses generated: 15
% % unit clauses generated to total clauses generated: 71.43
% Number of unit clauses constructed and retained at depth [x]:
% =============================================================
% [0] = 2 [2] = 12
% Total = 14
% Number of generated clauses having [x] literals:
% ------------------------------------------------
% [1] = 15 [2] = 6
% Average size of a generated clause: 2.0
% Number of unit clauses per predicate list:
% ==========================================
% [0] is_a_theorem_1 (+)4 (-)10
% ------------------
% Total: (+)4 (-)10
% Total number of unit clauses retained: 14
% Number of clauses skipped because of their length: 2
% N base clauses skippped in resolve-with-all-base-clauses
% because of the shortest resolvents table: 0
% Number of successful unifications: 31
% Number of unification failures: 4
% Number of unit to unit unification failures: 36
% N literal unification failure due to lookup root_id table: 5
% N base clause resolution failure due to lookup table: 0
% N UC-BCL resolution dropped due to lookup table: 0
% Max entries in substitution set: 6
% N unit clauses dropped because they exceeded max values: 3
% N unit clauses dropped because too much nesting: 0
% 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: 55
% Max term depth in a unit clause: 8
% Number of states in UCFA table: 113
% Total number of terms of all unit clauses in table: 342
% Max allowed number of states in UCFA: 528000
% Ratio n states used/total allowed states: 0.00
% Ratio n states used/total unit clauses terms: 0.33
% Number of symbols (columns) in UCFA: 38
% Profile 2: Number of calls to:
% ==============================
% PTUnify() = 35
% ConstructUnitClause() = 15
% Profile 1: Time spent in:
% =========================
% ConstructUnitClause() : 0.00 secs
% --------------------------------------------------------
% | |
% Inferences per sec: inf
% | |
% --------------------------------------------------------
% Elapsed time: 1 secs
% CPU time: 0.35 secs
%
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------