TSTP Solution File: NUM001-1 by CARINE---0.734
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : CARINE---0.734
% Problem : NUM001-1 : 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 : Sun Nov 28 03:04:37 EST 2010
% Result : Unsatisfiable 0.21s
% Output : Refutation 0.21s
% 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/SystemOnTPTP11630/NUM/NUM001-1+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 = 0 secs [nr = 63] [nf = 0] [nu = 0] [ut = 8]
% Looking for a proof at depth = 2 ...
% +================================================+
% | |
% | Congratulations!!! ........ A proof was found. |
% | |
% +================================================+
% Base Clauses and Unit Clauses used in proof:
% ============================================
% Base Clauses:
% -------------
% B0: ~equalish_2(add_2(add_2(a_0(),b_0()),c_0()),add_2(a_0(),add_2(b_0(),c_0())))
% B4: equalish_2(x0,subtract_2(add_2(x0,x1),x1))
% B6: equalish_2(add_2(x0,add_2(x1,x2)),add_2(add_2(x0,x1),x2))
% B10: ~equalish_2(x2,subtract_2(x0,x3)) | ~equalish_2(x0,x1) | equalish_2(x2,subtract_2(x1,x3))
% B11: ~equalish_2(x2,subtract_2(x3,x0)) | ~equalish_2(x0,x1) | equalish_2(x2,subtract_2(x3,x1))
% B12: ~equalish_2(x1,x2) | ~equalish_2(x0,x1) | equalish_2(x0,x2)
% Unit Clauses:
% --------------
% U5: < d0 v4 dv2 f2 c0 t6 td3 b > equalish_2(subtract_2(add_2(x0,x1),x1),x0)
% U7: < d0 v4 dv2 f2 c0 t6 td2 b > equalish_2(add_2(x0,x1),add_2(x1,x0))
% U11: < d2 v2 dv1 f6 c6 t14 td5 > ~equalish_2(add_2(add_2(a_0(),b_0()),c_0()),subtract_2(add_2(add_2(a_0(),add_2(b_0(),c_0())),x0),x0))
% U301: < d2 v4 dv2 f2 c0 t6 td3 > equalish_2(x0,subtract_2(add_2(x1,x0),x1))
% U1123: < d2 v8 dv4 f6 c0 t14 td5 > equalish_2(x0,subtract_2(add_2(add_2(x1,add_2(x2,x3)),x0),add_2(add_2(x1,x2),x3)))
% --------------- Start of Proof ---------------
% Derivation of unit clause U5:
% equalish_2(subtract_2(add_2(x0,x1),x1),x0) ....... U5
% Derivation of unit clause U7:
% equalish_2(add_2(x0,x1),add_2(x1,x0)) ....... U7
% Derivation of unit clause U11:
% ~equalish_2(add_2(add_2(a_0(),b_0()),c_0()),add_2(a_0(),add_2(b_0(),c_0()))) ....... B0
% ~equalish_2(x1,x2) | ~equalish_2(x0,x1) | equalish_2(x0,x2) ....... B12
% ~equalish_2(x0, add_2(a_0(), add_2(b_0(), c_0()))) | ~equalish_2(add_2(add_2(a_0(), b_0()), c_0()), x0) ....... R1 [B0:L0, B12:L2]
% equalish_2(subtract_2(add_2(x0,x1),x1),x0) ....... U5
% ~equalish_2(add_2(add_2(a_0(), b_0()), c_0()), subtract_2(add_2(add_2(a_0(), add_2(b_0(), c_0())), x0), x0)) ....... R2 [R1:L0, U5:L0]
% Derivation of unit clause U301:
% equalish_2(x0,subtract_2(add_2(x0,x1),x1)) ....... B4
% ~equalish_2(x2,subtract_2(x0,x3)) | ~equalish_2(x0,x1) | equalish_2(x2,subtract_2(x1,x3)) ....... B10
% ~equalish_2(add_2(x0, x1), x2) | equalish_2(x0, subtract_2(x2, x1)) ....... R1 [B4:L0, B10:L0]
% equalish_2(add_2(x0,x1),add_2(x1,x0)) ....... U7
% equalish_2(x0, subtract_2(add_2(x1, x0), x1)) ....... R2 [R1:L0, U7:L0]
% Derivation of unit clause U1123:
% equalish_2(add_2(x0,add_2(x1,x2)),add_2(add_2(x0,x1),x2)) ....... B6
% ~equalish_2(x2,subtract_2(x3,x0)) | ~equalish_2(x0,x1) | equalish_2(x2,subtract_2(x3,x1)) ....... B11
% ~equalish_2(x0, subtract_2(x1, add_2(x2, add_2(x3, x4)))) | equalish_2(x0, subtract_2(x1, add_2(add_2(x2, x3), x4))) ....... R1 [B6:L0, B11:L1]
% equalish_2(x0,subtract_2(add_2(x1,x0),x1)) ....... U301
% equalish_2(x0, subtract_2(add_2(add_2(x1, add_2(x2, x3)), x0), add_2(add_2(x1, x2), x3))) ....... R2 [R1:L0, U301:L0]
% Derivation of the empty clause:
% equalish_2(x0,subtract_2(add_2(add_2(x1,add_2(x2,x3)),x0),add_2(add_2(x1,x2),x3))) ....... U1123
% ~equalish_2(add_2(add_2(a_0(),b_0()),c_0()),subtract_2(add_2(add_2(a_0(),add_2(b_0(),c_0())),x0),x0)) ....... U11
% [] ....... R1 [U1123:L0, U11:L0]
% --------------- End of Proof ---------------
% PROOF FOUND!
% ---------------------------------------------
% | Statistics |
% ---------------------------------------------
% Profile 3: Performance Statistics:
% ==================================
% Total number of generated clauses: 11535
% resolvents: 11535 factors: 0
% Number of unit clauses generated: 11419
% % unit clauses generated to total clauses generated: 98.99
% Number of unit clauses constructed and retained at depth [x]:
% =============================================================
% [0] = 8 [2] = 1116
% Total = 1124
% Number of generated clauses having [x] literals:
% ------------------------------------------------
% [1] = 11419 [2] = 116
% Average size of a generated clause: 2.0
% Number of unit clauses per predicate list:
% ==========================================
% [0] equalish_2 (+)1085 (-)39
% ------------------
% Total: (+)1085 (-)39
% Total number of unit clauses retained: 1124
% Number of clauses skipped because of their length: 260
% N base clauses skippped in resolve-with-all-base-clauses
% because of the shortest resolvents table: 0
% Number of successful unifications: 11541
% Number of unification failures: 4736
% Number of unit to unit unification failures: 42280
% N literal unification failure due to lookup root_id table: 3300
% N base clause resolution failure due to lookup table: 4
% N UC-BCL resolution dropped due to lookup table: 0
% Max entries in substitution set: 8
% N unit clauses dropped because they exceeded max values: 10303
% N unit clauses dropped because too much nesting: 5733
% 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: 14
% Max term depth in a unit clause: 5
% Number of states in UCFA table: 5014
% Total number of terms of all unit clauses in table: 14712
% Max allowed number of states in UCFA: 128000
% Ratio n states used/total allowed states: 0.04
% Ratio n states used/total unit clauses terms: 0.34
% Number of symbols (columns) in UCFA: 40
% Profile 2: Number of calls to:
% ==============================
% PTUnify() = 16277
% ConstructUnitClause() = 11419
% Profile 1: Time spent in:
% =========================
% ConstructUnitClause() : 0.01 secs
% --------------------------------------------------------
% | |
% Inferences per sec: inf
% | |
% --------------------------------------------------------
% Elapsed time: 0 secs
% CPU time: 0.21 secs
%
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------