TSTP Solution File: NUM024-1 by CARINE---0.734
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : CARINE---0.734
% Problem : NUM024-1 : 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 03:06:59 EST 2010
% Result : Unsatisfiable 0.80s
% Output : Refutation 0.80s
% 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/SystemOnTPTP31949/NUM/NUM024-1+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 = 468] [nf = 0] [nu = 426] [ut = 244]
% 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(successor_1(x0),n0_0())
% B1: less_2(a_0(),a_0())
% B2: equalish_2(add_2(x0,n0_0()),x0)
% B3: equalish_2(add_2(x0,x1),add_2(x1,x0))
% B8: ~equalish_2(add_2(x0,x1),add_2(x2,x1)) | equalish_2(x0,x2)
% B10: ~equalish_2(x0,x1) | equalish_2(x1,x0)
% B13: ~less_2(x0,x1) | equalish_2(add_2(successor_1(predecessor_of_1st_minus_2nd_2(x1,x0)),x0),x1)
% B14: ~equalish_2(x1,x2) | ~equalish_2(x0,x1) | equalish_2(x0,x2)
% Unit Clauses:
% --------------
% U9: < d1 v1 dv1 f1 c1 t3 td2 > ~equalish_2(n0_0(),successor_1(x0))
% U11: < d1 v0 dv0 f3 c4 t7 td4 > equalish_2(add_2(successor_1(predecessor_of_1st_minus_2nd_2(a_0(),a_0())),a_0()),a_0())
% U27: < d1 v3 dv2 f3 c1 t7 td3 > ~equalish_2(add_2(n0_0(),x0),add_2(successor_1(x1),x0))
% U44: < d1 v0 dv0 f3 c4 t7 td4 > equalish_2(a_0(),add_2(successor_1(predecessor_of_1st_minus_2nd_2(a_0(),a_0())),a_0()))
% U1449: < d2 v0 dv0 f4 c5 t9 td4 > equalish_2(add_2(a_0(),n0_0()),add_2(successor_1(predecessor_of_1st_minus_2nd_2(a_0(),a_0())),a_0()))
% U3100: < d2 v0 dv0 f4 c5 t9 td4 > equalish_2(add_2(n0_0(),a_0()),add_2(successor_1(predecessor_of_1st_minus_2nd_2(a_0(),a_0())),a_0()))
% --------------- Start of Proof ---------------
% Derivation of unit clause U9:
% ~equalish_2(successor_1(x0),n0_0()) ....... B0
% ~equalish_2(x0,x1) | equalish_2(x1,x0) ....... B10
% ~equalish_2(n0_0(), successor_1(x0)) ....... R1 [B0:L0, B10:L1]
% Derivation of unit clause U11:
% less_2(a_0(),a_0()) ....... B1
% ~less_2(x0,x1) | equalish_2(add_2(successor_1(predecessor_of_1st_minus_2nd_2(x1,x0)),x0),x1) ....... B13
% equalish_2(add_2(successor_1(predecessor_of_1st_minus_2nd_2(a_0(), a_0())), a_0()), a_0()) ....... R1 [B1:L0, B13:L0]
% Derivation of unit clause U27:
% ~equalish_2(add_2(x0,x1),add_2(x2,x1)) | equalish_2(x0,x2) ....... B8
% ~equalish_2(n0_0(),successor_1(x0)) ....... U9
% ~equalish_2(add_2(n0_0(), x0), add_2(successor_1(x1), x0)) ....... R1 [B8:L1, U9:L0]
% Derivation of unit clause U44:
% ~equalish_2(x0,x1) | equalish_2(x1,x0) ....... B10
% equalish_2(add_2(successor_1(predecessor_of_1st_minus_2nd_2(a_0(),a_0())),a_0()),a_0()) ....... U11
% equalish_2(a_0(), add_2(successor_1(predecessor_of_1st_minus_2nd_2(a_0(), a_0())), a_0())) ....... R1 [B10:L0, U11:L0]
% Derivation of unit clause U1449:
% equalish_2(add_2(x0,n0_0()),x0) ....... B2
% ~equalish_2(x1,x2) | ~equalish_2(x0,x1) | equalish_2(x0,x2) ....... B14
% ~equalish_2(x0, x1) | equalish_2(add_2(x0, n0_0()), x1) ....... R1 [B2:L0, B14:L1]
% equalish_2(a_0(),add_2(successor_1(predecessor_of_1st_minus_2nd_2(a_0(),a_0())),a_0())) ....... U44
% equalish_2(add_2(a_0(), n0_0()), add_2(successor_1(predecessor_of_1st_minus_2nd_2(a_0(), a_0())), a_0())) ....... R2 [R1:L0, U44:L0]
% Derivation of unit clause U3100:
% equalish_2(add_2(x0,x1),add_2(x1,x0)) ....... B3
% ~equalish_2(x1,x2) | ~equalish_2(x0,x1) | equalish_2(x0,x2) ....... B14
% ~equalish_2(add_2(x0, x1), x2) | equalish_2(add_2(x1, x0), x2) ....... R1 [B3:L0, B14:L1]
% equalish_2(add_2(a_0(),n0_0()),add_2(successor_1(predecessor_of_1st_minus_2nd_2(a_0(),a_0())),a_0())) ....... U1449
% equalish_2(add_2(n0_0(), a_0()), add_2(successor_1(predecessor_of_1st_minus_2nd_2(a_0(), a_0())), a_0())) ....... R2 [R1:L0, U1449:L0]
% Derivation of the empty clause:
% equalish_2(add_2(n0_0(),a_0()),add_2(successor_1(predecessor_of_1st_minus_2nd_2(a_0(),a_0())),a_0())) ....... U3100
% ~equalish_2(add_2(n0_0(),x0),add_2(successor_1(x1),x0)) ....... U27
% [] ....... R1 [U3100:L0, U27:L0]
% --------------- End of Proof ---------------
% PROOF FOUND!
% ---------------------------------------------
% | Statistics |
% ---------------------------------------------
% Profile 3: Performance Statistics:
% ==================================
% Total number of generated clauses: 5124
% resolvents: 5124 factors: 0
% Number of unit clauses generated: 5037
% % unit clauses generated to total clauses generated: 98.30
% Number of unit clauses constructed and retained at depth [x]:
% =============================================================
% [0] = 8 [1] = 236 [2] = 2857
% Total = 3101
% Number of generated clauses having [x] literals:
% ------------------------------------------------
% [1] = 5037 [2] = 87
% Average size of a generated clause: 2.0
% Number of unit clauses per predicate list:
% ==========================================
% [0] equalish_2 (+)761 (-)2329
% [1] less_2 (+)9 (-)2
% ------------------
% Total: (+)770 (-)2331
% Total number of unit clauses retained: 3101
% Number of clauses skipped because of their length: 24
% N base clauses skippped in resolve-with-all-base-clauses
% because of the shortest resolvents table: 0
% Number of successful unifications: 5132
% Number of unification failures: 2219
% Number of unit to unit unification failures: 1770063
% N literal unification failure due to lookup root_id table: 306
% N base clause resolution failure due to lookup table: 59
% N UC-BCL resolution dropped due to lookup table: 1
% Max entries in substitution set: 5
% N unit clauses dropped because they exceeded max values: 1932
% N unit clauses dropped because too much nesting: 368
% 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: 31
% Max term depth in a unit clause: 10
% Number of states in UCFA table: 21997
% Total number of terms of all unit clauses in table: 56194
% Max allowed number of states in UCFA: 528000
% Ratio n states used/total allowed states: 0.04
% Ratio n states used/total unit clauses terms: 0.39
% Number of symbols (columns) in UCFA: 42
% Profile 2: Number of calls to:
% ==============================
% PTUnify() = 7351
% ConstructUnitClause() = 5025
% Profile 1: Time spent in:
% =========================
% ConstructUnitClause() : 0.01 secs
% --------------------------------------------------------
% | |
% Inferences per sec: inf
% | |
% --------------------------------------------------------
% Elapsed time: 1 secs
% CPU time: 0.79 secs
%
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------