TSTP Solution File: LCL193-1 by CARINE---0.734
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : CARINE---0.734
% Problem : LCL193-1 : TPTP v5.0.0. Released v1.1.0.
% 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 : Sun Nov 28 00:20:04 EST 2010
% Result : Unsatisfiable 0.57s
% Output : Refutation 0.57s
% 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/SystemOnTPTP25741/LCL/LCL193-1+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 ...
% t = 1 secs [nr = 4769] [nf = 1] [nu = 2829] [ut = 1573]
% Looking for a proof at depth = 3 ...
% +================================================+
% | |
% | Congratulations!!! ........ A proof was found. |
% | |
% +================================================+
% Base Clauses and Unit Clauses used in proof:
% ============================================
% Base Clauses:
% -------------
% B0: ~theorem_1(or_2(not_1(or_2(not_1(q_0()),r_0())),or_2(not_1(or_2(p_0(),q_0())),or_2(r_0(),p_0()))))
% B6: ~axiom_1(x0) | theorem_1(x0)
% B7: ~axiom_1(or_2(not_1(x0),x2)) | ~theorem_1(or_2(not_1(x2),x1)) | theorem_1(or_2(not_1(x0),x1))
% 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))))
% U4: < d0 v4 dv2 f4 c0 t8 td4 b > axiom_1(or_2(not_1(or_2(x0,x1)),or_2(x1,x0)))
% U12: < d2 v2 dv1 f10 c6 t18 td6 > ~theorem_1(or_2(not_1(or_2(not_1(or_2(x0,q_0())),or_2(x0,r_0()))),or_2(not_1(or_2(p_0(),q_0())),or_2(r_0(),p_0()))))
% U2949: < d3 v6 dv3 f6 c0 t12 td5 > theorem_1(or_2(not_1(or_2(x0,or_2(x1,x2))),or_2(x0,or_2(x2,x1))))
% --------------- 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 U4:
% axiom_1(or_2(not_1(or_2(x0,x1)),or_2(x1,x0))) ....... U4
% Derivation of unit clause U12:
% ~theorem_1(or_2(not_1(or_2(not_1(q_0()),r_0())),or_2(not_1(or_2(p_0(),q_0())),or_2(r_0(),p_0())))) ....... B0
% ~axiom_1(or_2(not_1(x0),x2)) | ~theorem_1(or_2(not_1(x2),x1)) | theorem_1(or_2(not_1(x0),x1)) ....... B7
% ~axiom_1(or_2(not_1(or_2(not_1(q_0()), r_0())), x0)) | ~theorem_1(or_2(not_1(x0), or_2(not_1(or_2(p_0(), q_0())), or_2(r_0(), p_0())))) ....... R1 [B0:L0, B7: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(not_1(or_2(x0, q_0())), or_2(x0, r_0()))), or_2(not_1(or_2(p_0(), q_0())), or_2(r_0(), p_0())))) ....... R2 [R1:L0, U2:L0]
% Derivation of unit clause U2949:
% ~axiom_1(x0) | theorem_1(x0) ....... B6
% ~axiom_1(or_2(not_1(x1),x0)) | ~theorem_1(x1) | theorem_1(x0) ....... B8
% ~axiom_1(x0) | ~axiom_1(or_2(not_1(x0), x1)) | theorem_1(x1) ....... R1 [B6:L1, B8:L1]
% axiom_1(or_2(not_1(or_2(x0,x1)),or_2(x1,x0))) ....... U4
% ~axiom_1(or_2(not_1(or_2(not_1(or_2(x0, x1)), or_2(x1, x0))), x2)) | theorem_1(x2) ....... R2 [R1:L0, U4:L0]
% 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(x0, or_2(x1, x2))), or_2(x0, or_2(x2, x1)))) ....... R3 [R2:L0, U2:L0]
% Derivation of the empty clause:
% theorem_1(or_2(not_1(or_2(x0,or_2(x1,x2))),or_2(x0,or_2(x2,x1)))) ....... U2949
% ~theorem_1(or_2(not_1(or_2(not_1(or_2(x0,q_0())),or_2(x0,r_0()))),or_2(not_1(or_2(p_0(),q_0())),or_2(r_0(),p_0())))) ....... U12
% [] ....... R1 [U2949:L0, U12:L0]
% --------------- End of Proof ---------------
% PROOF FOUND!
% ---------------------------------------------
% | Statistics |
% ---------------------------------------------
% Profile 3: Performance Statistics:
% ==================================
% Total number of generated clauses: 14136
% resolvents: 14132 factors: 4
% Number of unit clauses generated: 12060
% % unit clauses generated to total clauses generated: 85.31
% Number of unit clauses constructed and retained at depth [x]:
% =============================================================
% [0] = 6 [1] = 6 [2] = 1561 [3] = 1377
% Total = 2950
% Number of generated clauses having [x] literals:
% ------------------------------------------------
% [1] = 12060 [2] = 2044 [3] = 32
% Average size of a generated clause: 2.0
% Number of unit clauses per predicate list:
% ==========================================
% [0] axiom_1 (+)5 (-)1374
% [1] theorem_1 (+)1263 (-)308
% ------------------
% Total: (+)1268 (-)1682
% Total number of unit clauses retained: 2950
% Number of clauses skipped because of their length: 236
% N base clauses skippped in resolve-with-all-base-clauses
% because of the shortest resolvents table: 0
% Number of successful unifications: 14141
% Number of unification failures: 12189
% Number of unit to unit unification failures: 395567
% N literal unification failure due to lookup root_id table: 404
% N base clause resolution failure due to lookup table: 89
% N UC-BCL resolution dropped due to lookup table: 1121
% Max entries in substitution set: 7
% N unit clauses dropped because they exceeded max values: 2683
% N unit clauses dropped because too much nesting: 195
% 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: 63
% Max term depth in a unit clause: 11
% Number of states in UCFA table: 25589
% Total number of terms of all unit clauses in table: 76513
% 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: 0.33
% Number of symbols (columns) in UCFA: 41
% Profile 2: Number of calls to:
% ==============================
% PTUnify() = 26330
% ConstructUnitClause() = 5627
% Profile 1: Time spent in:
% =========================
% ConstructUnitClause() : 0.01 secs
% --------------------------------------------------------
% | |
% Inferences per sec: inf
% | |
% --------------------------------------------------------
% Elapsed time: 1 secs
% CPU time: 0.56 secs
%
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------