TSTP Solution File: LCL041-1 by CARINE---0.734
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : CARINE---0.734
% Problem : LCL041-1 : TPTP v5.0.0. Released v1.0.0.
% Transfm : add_equality
% Format : carine
% Command : carine %s t=%d xo=off uct=32000
% Computer : art06.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 23:28:58 EST 2010
% Result : Unsatisfiable 1.85s
% Output : Refutation 1.85s
% 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/SystemOnTPTP20016/LCL/LCL041-1+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 = 11] [nf = 0] [nu = 0] [ut = 6]
% Looking for a proof at depth = 2 ...
% t = 2 secs [nr = 8079] [nf = 0] [nu = 4721] [ut = 3272]
% Looking for a proof at depth = 3 ...
% t = 2 secs [nr = 26017] [nf = 8] [nu = 19280] [ut = 3272]
% Looking for a proof at depth = 4 ...
% +================================================+
% | |
% | Congratulations!!! ........ A proof was found. |
% | |
% +================================================+
% Base Clauses and Unit Clauses used in proof:
% ============================================
% Base Clauses:
% -------------
% B0: ~is_a_theorem_1(implies_2(implies_2(a_0(),implies_2(a_0(),b_0())),implies_2(a_0(),b_0())))
% B2: is_a_theorem_1(implies_2(implies_2(x0,implies_2(x1,x2)),implies_2(x1,implies_2(x0,x2))))
% B3: is_a_theorem_1(implies_2(x0,implies_2(x1,x0)))
% B6: ~is_a_theorem_1(x0) | ~is_a_theorem_1(implies_2(x0,x1)) | is_a_theorem_1(x1)
% Unit Clauses:
% --------------
% U4: < d0 v3 dv2 f3 c0 t6 td4 b > is_a_theorem_1(implies_2(x0,implies_2(not_1(x0),x1)))
% U5: < d0 v5 dv2 f5 c0 t10 td5 b > is_a_theorem_1(implies_2(implies_2(x0,x1),implies_2(implies_2(not_1(x0),x1),x1)))
% U115: < d2 v3 dv2 f3 c0 t6 td3 > is_a_theorem_1(implies_2(not_1(x0),implies_2(x0,x1)))
% U116: < d2 v5 dv2 f5 c0 t10 td4 > is_a_theorem_1(implies_2(implies_2(not_1(x0),x1),implies_2(implies_2(x0,x1),x1)))
% U438: < d2 v4 dv3 f4 c0 t8 td4 > is_a_theorem_1(implies_2(x0,implies_2(not_1(x1),implies_2(x1,x2))))
% U3278: < d4 v0 dv0 f12 c11 t23 td6 > ~is_a_theorem_1(implies_2(implies_2(implies_2(not_1(a_0()),implies_2(a_0(),b_0())),implies_2(implies_2(a_0(),implies_2(a_0(),b_0())),implies_2(a_0(),b_0()))),implies_2(not_1(a_0()),implies_2(a_0(),b_0()))))
% --------------- Start of Proof ---------------
% Derivation of unit clause U4:
% is_a_theorem_1(implies_2(x0,implies_2(not_1(x0),x1))) ....... U4
% Derivation of unit clause U5:
% is_a_theorem_1(implies_2(implies_2(x0,x1),implies_2(implies_2(not_1(x0),x1),x1))) ....... U5
% Derivation of unit clause U115:
% is_a_theorem_1(implies_2(implies_2(x0,implies_2(x1,x2)),implies_2(x1,implies_2(x0,x2)))) ....... B2
% ~is_a_theorem_1(x0) | ~is_a_theorem_1(implies_2(x0,x1)) | is_a_theorem_1(x1) ....... B6
% ~is_a_theorem_1(implies_2(x0, implies_2(x1, x2))) | is_a_theorem_1(implies_2(x1, implies_2(x0, x2))) ....... R1 [B2:L0, B6:L1]
% is_a_theorem_1(implies_2(x0,implies_2(not_1(x0),x1))) ....... U4
% is_a_theorem_1(implies_2(not_1(x0), implies_2(x0, x1))) ....... R2 [R1:L0, U4:L0]
% Derivation of unit clause U116:
% is_a_theorem_1(implies_2(implies_2(x0,implies_2(x1,x2)),implies_2(x1,implies_2(x0,x2)))) ....... B2
% ~is_a_theorem_1(x0) | ~is_a_theorem_1(implies_2(x0,x1)) | is_a_theorem_1(x1) ....... B6
% ~is_a_theorem_1(implies_2(x0, implies_2(x1, x2))) | is_a_theorem_1(implies_2(x1, implies_2(x0, x2))) ....... R1 [B2:L0, B6:L1]
% is_a_theorem_1(implies_2(implies_2(x0,x1),implies_2(implies_2(not_1(x0),x1),x1))) ....... U5
% is_a_theorem_1(implies_2(implies_2(not_1(x0), x1), implies_2(implies_2(x0, x1), x1))) ....... R2 [R1:L0, U5:L0]
% Derivation of unit clause U438:
% is_a_theorem_1(implies_2(x0,implies_2(x1,x0))) ....... B3
% ~is_a_theorem_1(x0) | ~is_a_theorem_1(implies_2(x0,x1)) | is_a_theorem_1(x1) ....... B6
% ~is_a_theorem_1(x0) | is_a_theorem_1(implies_2(x1, x0)) ....... R1 [B3:L0, B6:L1]
% is_a_theorem_1(implies_2(not_1(x0),implies_2(x0,x1))) ....... U115
% is_a_theorem_1(implies_2(x0, implies_2(not_1(x1), implies_2(x1, x2)))) ....... R2 [R1:L0, U115:L0]
% Derivation of unit clause U3278:
% ~is_a_theorem_1(implies_2(implies_2(a_0(),implies_2(a_0(),b_0())),implies_2(a_0(),b_0()))) ....... B0
% ~is_a_theorem_1(x0) | ~is_a_theorem_1(implies_2(x0,x1)) | is_a_theorem_1(x1) ....... B6
% ~is_a_theorem_1(x0) | ~is_a_theorem_1(implies_2(x0, implies_2(implies_2(a_0(), implies_2(a_0(), b_0())), implies_2(a_0(), b_0())))) ....... R1 [B0:L0, B6:L2]
% ~is_a_theorem_1(x0) | ~is_a_theorem_1(implies_2(x0,x1)) | is_a_theorem_1(x1) ....... B6
% ~is_a_theorem_1(implies_2(x0, implies_2(implies_2(a_0(), implies_2(a_0(), b_0())), implies_2(a_0(), b_0())))) | ~is_a_theorem_1(x1) | ~is_a_theorem_1(implies_2(x1, x0)) ....... R2 [R1:L0, B6:L2]
% ~is_a_theorem_1(implies_2(x0, implies_2(implies_2(a_0(), implies_2(a_0(), b_0())), implies_2(a_0(), b_0())))) | ~is_a_theorem_1(implies_2(implies_2(x0, implies_2(implies_2(a_0(), implies_2(a_0(), b_0())), implies_2(a_0(), b_0()))), x0)) ....... R3 [R2:L0, R2:L1]
% is_a_theorem_1(implies_2(implies_2(not_1(x0),x1),implies_2(implies_2(x0,x1),x1))) ....... U116
% ~is_a_theorem_1(implies_2(implies_2(implies_2(not_1(a_0()), implies_2(a_0(), b_0())), implies_2(implies_2(a_0(), implies_2(a_0(), b_0())), implies_2(a_0(), b_0()))), implies_2(not_1(a_0()), implies_2(a_0(), b_0())))) ....... R4 [R3:L0, U116:L0]
% Derivation of the empty clause:
% ~is_a_theorem_1(implies_2(implies_2(implies_2(not_1(a_0()),implies_2(a_0(),b_0())),implies_2(implies_2(a_0(),implies_2(a_0(),b_0())),implies_2(a_0(),b_0()))),implies_2(not_1(a_0()),implies_2(a_0(),b_0())))) ....... U3278
% is_a_theorem_1(implies_2(x0,implies_2(not_1(x1),implies_2(x1,x2)))) ....... U438
% [] ....... R1 [U3278:L0, U438:L0]
% --------------- End of Proof ---------------
% PROOF FOUND!
% ---------------------------------------------
% | Statistics |
% ---------------------------------------------
% Profile 3: Performance Statistics:
% ==================================
% Total number of generated clauses: 28373
% resolvents: 28364 factors: 9
% Number of unit clauses generated: 21625
% % unit clauses generated to total clauses generated: 76.22
% Number of unit clauses constructed and retained at depth [x]:
% =============================================================
% [0] = 6 [2] = 3266 [4] = 7
% Total = 3279
% Number of generated clauses having [x] literals:
% ------------------------------------------------
% [1] = 21625 [2] = 6715 [3] = 33
% Average size of a generated clause: 2.0
% Number of unit clauses per predicate list:
% ==========================================
% [0] is_a_theorem_1 (+)1804 (-)1475
% ------------------
% Total: (+)1804 (-)1475
% Total number of unit clauses retained: 3279
% Number of clauses skipped because of their length: 43
% N base clauses skippped in resolve-with-all-base-clauses
% because of the shortest resolvents table: 0
% Number of successful unifications: 28383
% Number of unification failures: 29883
% Number of unit to unit unification failures: 2659192
% N literal unification failure due to lookup root_id table: 61
% N base clause resolution failure due to lookup table: 0
% N UC-BCL resolution dropped due to lookup table: 2262
% Max entries in substitution set: 8
% N unit clauses dropped because they exceeded max values: 1455
% N unit clauses dropped because too much nesting: 881
% 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: 50
% Max term depth in a unit clause: 11
% Number of states in UCFA table: 24245
% Total number of terms of all unit clauses in table: 85725
% Max allowed number of states in UCFA: 528000
% Ratio n states used/total allowed states: 0.05
% Ratio n states used/total unit clauses terms: 0.28
% Number of symbols (columns) in UCFA: 39
% Profile 2: Number of calls to:
% ==============================
% PTUnify() = 58266
% ConstructUnitClause() = 4728
% Profile 1: Time spent in:
% =========================
% ConstructUnitClause() : 0.00 secs
% --------------------------------------------------------
% | |
% Inferences per sec: 28373
% | |
% --------------------------------------------------------
% Elapsed time: 2 secs
% CPU time: 1.84 secs
%
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------