TSTP Solution File: LCL076-2 by CARINE---0.734
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : CARINE---0.734
% Problem : LCL076-2 : TPTP v5.0.0. Released v1.0.0.
% 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 23:49:33 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/SystemOnTPTP27569/LCL/LCL076-2+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 = 7] [nf = 0] [nu = 0] [ut = 5]
% 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(implies_2(a_0(),not_1(not_1(a_0()))))
% B5: ~is_a_theorem_1(x0) | ~is_a_theorem_1(implies_2(x0,x1)) | is_a_theorem_1(x1)
% Unit Clauses:
% --------------
% U3: < d0 v4 dv2 f5 c0 t9 td4 b > is_a_theorem_1(implies_2(implies_2(not_1(x0),not_1(x1)),implies_2(x1,x0)))
% U4: < d0 v2 dv1 f3 c0 t5 td4 b > is_a_theorem_1(implies_2(not_1(not_1(x0)),x0))
% U8: < d2 v2 dv1 f7 c2 t11 td5 > ~is_a_theorem_1(implies_2(implies_2(not_1(not_1(x0)),x0),implies_2(a_0(),not_1(not_1(a_0())))))
% --------------- Start of Proof ---------------
% Derivation of unit clause U3:
% is_a_theorem_1(implies_2(implies_2(not_1(x0),not_1(x1)),implies_2(x1,x0))) ....... U3
% Derivation of unit clause U4:
% is_a_theorem_1(implies_2(not_1(not_1(x0)),x0)) ....... U4
% Derivation of unit clause U8:
% ~is_a_theorem_1(implies_2(a_0(),not_1(not_1(a_0())))) ....... B0
% ~is_a_theorem_1(x0) | ~is_a_theorem_1(implies_2(x0,x1)) | is_a_theorem_1(x1) ....... B5
% ~is_a_theorem_1(x0) | ~is_a_theorem_1(implies_2(x0, implies_2(a_0(), not_1(not_1(a_0()))))) ....... R1 [B0:L0, B5:L2]
% is_a_theorem_1(implies_2(not_1(not_1(x0)),x0)) ....... U4
% ~is_a_theorem_1(implies_2(implies_2(not_1(not_1(x0)), x0), implies_2(a_0(), not_1(not_1(a_0()))))) ....... R2 [R1:L0, U4:L0]
% Derivation of the empty clause:
% ~is_a_theorem_1(implies_2(implies_2(not_1(not_1(x0)),x0),implies_2(a_0(),not_1(not_1(a_0()))))) ....... U8
% is_a_theorem_1(implies_2(implies_2(not_1(x0),not_1(x1)),implies_2(x1,x0))) ....... U3
% [] ....... R1 [U8:L0, U3:L0]
% --------------- End of Proof ---------------
% PROOF FOUND!
% ---------------------------------------------
% | Statistics |
% ---------------------------------------------
% Profile 3: Performance Statistics:
% ==================================
% Total number of generated clauses: 12
% resolvents: 12 factors: 0
% Number of unit clauses generated: 4
% % unit clauses generated to total clauses generated: 33.33
% Number of unit clauses constructed and retained at depth [x]:
% =============================================================
% [0] = 5 [2] = 4
% Total = 9
% Number of generated clauses having [x] literals:
% ------------------------------------------------
% [1] = 4 [2] = 8
% Average size of a generated clause: 2.0
% Number of unit clauses per predicate list:
% ==========================================
% [0] is_a_theorem_1 (+)4 (-)5
% ------------------
% Total: (+)4 (-)5
% Total number of unit clauses retained: 9
% Number of clauses skipped because of their length: 0
% N base clauses skippped in resolve-with-all-base-clauses
% because of the shortest resolvents table: 0
% Number of successful unifications: 14
% Number of unification failures: 2
% Number of unit to unit unification failures: 18
% N literal unification failure due to lookup root_id table: 7
% 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: 2
% N unit clauses dropped because they exceeded max values: 0
% 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: 19
% Max term depth in a unit clause: 5
% Number of states in UCFA table: 77
% Total number of terms of all unit clauses in table: 93
% 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: 0.83
% Number of symbols (columns) in UCFA: 38
% Profile 2: Number of calls to:
% ==============================
% PTUnify() = 16
% ConstructUnitClause() = 4
% Profile 1: Time spent in:
% =========================
% ConstructUnitClause() : 0.00 secs
% --------------------------------------------------------
% | |
% Inferences per sec: inf
% | |
% --------------------------------------------------------
% Elapsed time: 1 secs
% CPU time: 0.35 secs
%
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------