TSTP Solution File: LCL190-1 by CARINE---0.734
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : CARINE---0.734
% Problem : LCL190-1 : TPTP v5.0.0. Released v1.1.0.
% 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 : Sun Nov 28 00:19:15 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/SystemOnTPTP3916/LCL/LCL190-1+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 = 18] [nf = 0] [nu = 10] [ut = 12]
% Looking for a proof at depth = 2 ...
% +================================================+
% | |
% | Congratulations!!! ........ A proof was found. |
% | |
% +================================================+
% Base Clauses and Unit Clauses used in proof:
% ============================================
% Base Clauses:
% -------------
% B0: ~theorem_1(or_2(not_1(or_2(p_0(),or_2(q_0(),r_0()))),or_2(p_0(),or_2(r_0(),q_0()))))
% B4: axiom_1(or_2(not_1(or_2(x0,x1)),or_2(x1,x0)))
% B6: ~axiom_1(x0) | theorem_1(x0)
% B8: ~axiom_1(or_2(not_1(x1),x0)) | ~theorem_1(x1) | theorem_1(x0)
% Unit Clauses:
% --------------
% U2: < d0 v6 dv3 f8 c0 t14 td5 b > axiom_1(or_2(not_1(or_2(not_1(x0),x1)),or_2(not_1(or_2(x2,x0)),or_2(x2,x1))))
% U8: < d1 v4 dv2 f4 c0 t8 td4 > theorem_1(or_2(not_1(or_2(x0,x1)),or_2(x1,x0)))
% U20: < d2 v0 dv0 f4 c4 t8 td4 > ~theorem_1(or_2(not_1(or_2(q_0(),r_0())),or_2(r_0(),q_0())))
% --------------- Start of Proof ---------------
% Derivation of unit clause U2:
% axiom_1(or_2(not_1(or_2(not_1(x0),x1)),or_2(not_1(or_2(x2,x0)),or_2(x2,x1)))) ....... U2
% Derivation of unit clause U8:
% axiom_1(or_2(not_1(or_2(x0,x1)),or_2(x1,x0))) ....... B4
% ~axiom_1(x0) | theorem_1(x0) ....... B6
% theorem_1(or_2(not_1(or_2(x0, x1)), or_2(x1, x0))) ....... R1 [B4:L0, B6:L0]
% Derivation of unit clause U20:
% ~theorem_1(or_2(not_1(or_2(p_0(),or_2(q_0(),r_0()))),or_2(p_0(),or_2(r_0(),q_0())))) ....... B0
% ~axiom_1(or_2(not_1(x1),x0)) | ~theorem_1(x1) | theorem_1(x0) ....... B8
% ~axiom_1(or_2(not_1(x0), or_2(not_1(or_2(p_0(), or_2(q_0(), r_0()))), or_2(p_0(), or_2(r_0(), q_0()))))) | ~theorem_1(x0) ....... R1 [B0:L0, B8:L2]
% axiom_1(or_2(not_1(or_2(not_1(x0),x1)),or_2(not_1(or_2(x2,x0)),or_2(x2,x1)))) ....... U2
% ~theorem_1(or_2(not_1(or_2(q_0(), r_0())), or_2(r_0(), q_0()))) ....... R2 [R1:L0, U2:L0]
% Derivation of the empty clause:
% ~theorem_1(or_2(not_1(or_2(q_0(),r_0())),or_2(r_0(),q_0()))) ....... U20
% theorem_1(or_2(not_1(or_2(x0,x1)),or_2(x1,x0))) ....... U8
% [] ....... R1 [U20:L0, U8:L0]
% --------------- End of Proof ---------------
% PROOF FOUND!
% ---------------------------------------------
% | Statistics |
% ---------------------------------------------
% Profile 3: Performance Statistics:
% ==================================
% Total number of generated clauses: 31
% resolvents: 31 factors: 0
% Number of unit clauses generated: 20
% % unit clauses generated to total clauses generated: 64.52
% Number of unit clauses constructed and retained at depth [x]:
% =============================================================
% [0] = 6 [1] = 6 [2] = 9
% Total = 21
% Number of generated clauses having [x] literals:
% ------------------------------------------------
% [1] = 20 [2] = 11
% Average size of a generated clause: 2.0
% Number of unit clauses per predicate list:
% ==========================================
% [0] axiom_1 (+)5 (-)5
% [1] theorem_1 (+)5 (-)6
% ------------------
% Total: (+)10 (-)11
% Total number of unit clauses retained: 21
% Number of clauses skipped because of their length: 4
% N base clauses skippped in resolve-with-all-base-clauses
% because of the shortest resolvents table: 0
% Number of successful unifications: 34
% Number of unification failures: 3
% Number of unit to unit unification failures: 51
% N literal unification failure due to lookup root_id table: 28
% N base clause resolution failure due to lookup table: 1
% 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: 4
% 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: 18
% Max term depth in a unit clause: 6
% Number of states in UCFA table: 138
% Total number of terms of all unit clauses in table: 226
% 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: 0.61
% Number of symbols (columns) in UCFA: 41
% Profile 2: Number of calls to:
% ==============================
% PTUnify() = 37
% ConstructUnitClause() = 19
% Profile 1: Time spent in:
% =========================
% ConstructUnitClause() : 0.01 secs
% --------------------------------------------------------
% | |
% Inferences per sec: inf
% | |
% --------------------------------------------------------
% Elapsed time: 1 secs
% CPU time: 0.36 secs
%
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------