TSTP Solution File: NUM025-1 by CARINE---0.734
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : CARINE---0.734
% Problem : NUM025-1 : TPTP v5.0.0. Bugfixed v4.0.0.
% Transfm : add_equality
% Format : carine
% Command : carine %s t=%d xo=off uct=32000
% Computer : art04.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 03:07:06 EST 2010
% Result : Unsatisfiable 0.38s
% Output : Refutation 0.38s
% 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/SystemOnTPTP16366/NUM/NUM025-1+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 = 330] [nf = 0] [nu = 296] [ut = 151]
% Looking for a proof at depth = 2 ...
% +================================================+
% | |
% | Congratulations!!! ........ A proof was found. |
% | |
% +================================================+
% Base Clauses and Unit Clauses used in proof:
% ============================================
% Base Clauses:
% -------------
% B0: less_2(b_0(),a_0())
% B15: ~less_2(x2,x0) | ~less_2(x0,x1) | less_2(x2,x1)
% Unit Clauses:
% --------------
% U1: < d0 v2 dv1 f0 c0 t2 td1 b > ~less_2(x0,x0)
% U2: < d0 v0 dv0 f0 c2 t2 td1 b > less_2(a_0(),b_0())
% U151: < d2 v0 dv0 f0 c2 t2 td1 > less_2(b_0(),b_0())
% --------------- Start of Proof ---------------
% Derivation of unit clause U1:
% ~less_2(x0,x0) ....... U1
% Derivation of unit clause U2:
% less_2(a_0(),b_0()) ....... U2
% Derivation of unit clause U151:
% less_2(b_0(),a_0()) ....... B0
% ~less_2(x2,x0) | ~less_2(x0,x1) | less_2(x2,x1) ....... B15
% ~less_2(a_0(), x0) | less_2(b_0(), x0) ....... R1 [B0:L0, B15:L0]
% less_2(a_0(),b_0()) ....... U2
% less_2(b_0(), b_0()) ....... R2 [R1:L0, U2:L0]
% Derivation of the empty clause:
% less_2(b_0(),b_0()) ....... U151
% ~less_2(x0,x0) ....... U1
% [] ....... R1 [U151:L0, U1:L0]
% --------------- End of Proof ---------------
% PROOF FOUND!
% ---------------------------------------------
% | Statistics |
% ---------------------------------------------
% Profile 3: Performance Statistics:
% ==================================
% Total number of generated clauses: 333
% resolvents: 333 factors: 0
% Number of unit clauses generated: 298
% % unit clauses generated to total clauses generated: 89.49
% Number of unit clauses constructed and retained at depth [x]:
% =============================================================
% [0] = 9 [1] = 142 [2] = 1
% Total = 152
% Number of generated clauses having [x] literals:
% ------------------------------------------------
% [1] = 298 [2] = 35
% Average size of a generated clause: 2.0
% Number of unit clauses per predicate list:
% ==========================================
% [0] equalish_2 (+)110 (-)34
% [1] less_2 (+)7 (-)1
% ------------------
% Total: (+)117 (-)35
% Total number of unit clauses retained: 152
% Number of clauses skipped because of their length: 10
% N base clauses skippped in resolve-with-all-base-clauses
% because of the shortest resolvents table: 0
% Number of successful unifications: 335
% Number of unification failures: 15
% Number of unit to unit unification failures: 3746
% N literal unification failure due to lookup root_id table: 102
% N base clause resolution failure due to lookup table: 44
% N UC-BCL resolution dropped due to lookup table: 1
% Max entries in substitution set: 3
% N unit clauses dropped because they exceeded max values: 154
% N unit clauses dropped because too much nesting: 17
% 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: 23
% Max term depth in a unit clause: 10
% Number of states in UCFA table: 1047
% Total number of terms of all unit clauses in table: 1878
% 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: 0.56
% Number of symbols (columns) in UCFA: 43
% Profile 2: Number of calls to:
% ==============================
% PTUnify() = 350
% ConstructUnitClause() = 297
% Profile 1: Time spent in:
% =========================
% ConstructUnitClause() : 0.01 secs
% --------------------------------------------------------
% | |
% Inferences per sec: inf
% | |
% --------------------------------------------------------
% Elapsed time: 0 secs
% CPU time: 0.37 secs
%
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------