TSTP Solution File: NUM020-1 by CARINE---0.734
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : CARINE---0.734
% Problem : NUM020-1 : TPTP v5.0.0. Bugfixed v4.0.0.
% Transfm : add_equality
% Format : carine
% Command : carine %s t=%d xo=off uct=32000
% Computer : art01.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 03:06:38 EST 2010
% Result : Unsatisfiable 0.16s
% Output : Refutation 0.16s
% 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/SystemOnTPTP31821/NUM/NUM020-1+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 = 162] [nf = 0] [nu = 136] [ut = 55]
% 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(a_0(),successor_1(n0_0())),successor_1(a_0()))
% B3: equalish_2(add_2(x0,n0_0()),x0)
% B9: ~equalish_2(x0,x1) | equalish_2(successor_1(x0),successor_1(x1))
% B11: ~equalish_2(x1,x2) | ~equalish_2(x0,x1) | equalish_2(x0,x2)
% Unit Clauses:
% --------------
% U2: < d0 v4 dv2 f4 c0 t8 td3 b > equalish_2(add_2(x0,successor_1(x1)),successor_1(add_2(x0,x1)))
% U15: < d1 v2 dv1 f3 c1 t6 td3 > equalish_2(successor_1(add_2(x0,n0_0())),successor_1(x0))
% U56: < d2 v0 dv0 f4 c4 t8 td3 > ~equalish_2(add_2(a_0(),successor_1(n0_0())),successor_1(add_2(a_0(),n0_0())))
% --------------- Start of Proof ---------------
% Derivation of unit clause U2:
% equalish_2(add_2(x0,successor_1(x1)),successor_1(add_2(x0,x1))) ....... U2
% Derivation of unit clause U15:
% equalish_2(add_2(x0,n0_0()),x0) ....... B3
% ~equalish_2(x0,x1) | equalish_2(successor_1(x0),successor_1(x1)) ....... B9
% equalish_2(successor_1(add_2(x0, n0_0())), successor_1(x0)) ....... R1 [B3:L0, B9:L0]
% Derivation of unit clause U56:
% ~equalish_2(add_2(a_0(),successor_1(n0_0())),successor_1(a_0())) ....... B0
% ~equalish_2(x1,x2) | ~equalish_2(x0,x1) | equalish_2(x0,x2) ....... B11
% ~equalish_2(x0, successor_1(a_0())) | ~equalish_2(add_2(a_0(), successor_1(n0_0())), x0) ....... R1 [B0:L0, B11:L2]
% equalish_2(successor_1(add_2(x0,n0_0())),successor_1(x0)) ....... U15
% ~equalish_2(add_2(a_0(), successor_1(n0_0())), successor_1(add_2(a_0(), n0_0()))) ....... R2 [R1:L0, U15:L0]
% Derivation of the empty clause:
% ~equalish_2(add_2(a_0(),successor_1(n0_0())),successor_1(add_2(a_0(),n0_0()))) ....... U56
% equalish_2(add_2(x0,successor_1(x1)),successor_1(add_2(x0,x1))) ....... U2
% [] ....... R1 [U56:L0, U2:L0]
% --------------- End of Proof ---------------
% PROOF FOUND!
% ---------------------------------------------
% | Statistics |
% ---------------------------------------------
% Profile 3: Performance Statistics:
% ==================================
% Total number of generated clauses: 168
% resolvents: 168 factors: 0
% Number of unit clauses generated: 141
% % unit clauses generated to total clauses generated: 83.93
% Number of unit clauses constructed and retained at depth [x]:
% =============================================================
% [0] = 8 [1] = 47 [2] = 2
% Total = 57
% Number of generated clauses having [x] literals:
% ------------------------------------------------
% [1] = 141 [2] = 27
% Average size of a generated clause: 2.0
% Number of unit clauses per predicate list:
% ==========================================
% [0] equalish_2 (+)41 (-)16
% ------------------
% Total: (+)41 (-)16
% Total number of unit clauses retained: 57
% Number of clauses skipped because of their length: 3
% N base clauses skippped in resolve-with-all-base-clauses
% because of the shortest resolvents table: 0
% Number of successful unifications: 171
% Number of unification failures: 16
% Number of unit to unit unification failures: 615
% N literal unification failure due to lookup root_id table: 50
% N base clause resolution failure due to lookup table: 8
% N UC-BCL resolution dropped due to lookup table: 1
% Max entries in substitution set: 4
% N unit clauses dropped because they exceeded max values: 90
% N unit clauses dropped because too much nesting: 15
% 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: 13
% Max term depth in a unit clause: 5
% Number of states in UCFA table: 248
% Total number of terms of all unit clauses in table: 428
% Max allowed number of states in UCFA: 120000
% Ratio n states used/total allowed states: 0.00
% Ratio n states used/total unit clauses terms: 0.58
% Number of symbols (columns) in UCFA: 41
% Profile 2: Number of calls to:
% ==============================
% PTUnify() = 187
% ConstructUnitClause() = 139
% Profile 1: Time spent in:
% =========================
% ConstructUnitClause() : 0.00 secs
% --------------------------------------------------------
% | |
% Inferences per sec: inf
% | |
% --------------------------------------------------------
% Elapsed time: 1 secs
% CPU time: 0.16 secs
%
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------