TSTP Solution File: PUZ001-1 by CARINE---0.734
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : CARINE---0.734
% Problem : PUZ001-1 : TPTP v5.0.0. Released v1.0.0.
% Transfm : add_equality
% Format : carine
% Command : carine %s t=%d xo=off uct=32000
% Computer : art09.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 03:49:51 EST 2010
% Result : Unsatisfiable 0.15s
% Output : Refutation 0.15s
% 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/SystemOnTPTP22402/PUZ/PUZ001-1+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 = 22] [nf = 0] [nu = 10] [ut = 11]
% Looking for a proof at depth = 2 ...
% t = 1 secs [nr = 91] [nf = 0] [nu = 32] [ut = 15]
% Looking for a proof at depth = 3 ...
% +================================================+
% | |
% | Congratulations!!! ........ A proof was found. |
% | |
% +================================================+
% Base Clauses and Unit Clauses used in proof:
% ============================================
% Base Clauses:
% -------------
% B0: killed_2(butler_0(),agatha_0()) | killed_2(charles_0(),agatha_0())
% B2: lives_1(butler_0())
% B4: hates_2(agatha_0(),agatha_0())
% B5: hates_2(agatha_0(),charles_0())
% B6: ~killed_2(x0,x1) | hates_2(x0,x1)
% B7: ~killed_2(x0,x1) | ~richer_2(x0,x1)
% B8: ~hates_2(agatha_0(),x0) | hates_2(butler_0(),x0)
% B9: ~hates_2(charles_0(),x0) | ~hates_2(agatha_0(),x0)
% B10: ~lives_1(x0) | hates_2(butler_0(),x0) | richer_2(x0,agatha_0())
% B11: ~hates_2(x0,charles_0()) | ~hates_2(x0,butler_0()) | ~hates_2(x0,agatha_0())
% Unit Clauses:
% --------------
% U6: < d1 v0 dv0 f0 c2 t2 td1 > ~hates_2(charles_0(),agatha_0())
% U7: < d1 v0 dv0 f0 c2 t2 td1 > hates_2(butler_0(),charles_0())
% U9: < d1 v0 dv0 f0 c2 t2 td1 > ~killed_2(charles_0(),agatha_0())
% U11: < d2 v0 dv0 f0 c2 t2 td1 > killed_2(butler_0(),agatha_0())
% U12: < d2 v0 dv0 f0 c2 t2 td1 > ~richer_2(butler_0(),agatha_0())
% U13: < d2 v0 dv0 f0 c2 t2 td1 > hates_2(butler_0(),butler_0())
% U18: < d3 v0 dv0 f0 c2 t2 td1 > ~hates_2(butler_0(),butler_0())
% --------------- Start of Proof ---------------
% Derivation of unit clause U6:
% hates_2(agatha_0(),agatha_0()) ....... B4
% ~hates_2(charles_0(),x0) | ~hates_2(agatha_0(),x0) ....... B9
% ~hates_2(charles_0(), agatha_0()) ....... R1 [B4:L0, B9:L1]
% Derivation of unit clause U7:
% hates_2(agatha_0(),charles_0()) ....... B5
% ~hates_2(agatha_0(),x0) | hates_2(butler_0(),x0) ....... B8
% hates_2(butler_0(), charles_0()) ....... R1 [B5:L0, B8:L0]
% Derivation of unit clause U9:
% ~killed_2(x0,x1) | hates_2(x0,x1) ....... B6
% ~hates_2(charles_0(),agatha_0()) ....... U6
% ~killed_2(charles_0(), agatha_0()) ....... R1 [B6:L1, U6:L0]
% Derivation of unit clause U11:
% killed_2(butler_0(),agatha_0()) | killed_2(charles_0(),agatha_0()) ....... B0
% ~killed_2(x0,x1) | hates_2(x0,x1) ....... B6
% killed_2(butler_0(), agatha_0()) | hates_2(charles_0(), agatha_0()) ....... R1 [B0:L1, B6:L0]
% ~hates_2(charles_0(),agatha_0()) ....... U6
% killed_2(butler_0(), agatha_0()) ....... R2 [R1:L1, U6:L0]
% Derivation of unit clause U12:
% killed_2(butler_0(),agatha_0()) | killed_2(charles_0(),agatha_0()) ....... B0
% ~killed_2(x0,x1) | ~richer_2(x0,x1) ....... B7
% killed_2(charles_0(), agatha_0()) | ~richer_2(butler_0(), agatha_0()) ....... R1 [B0:L0, B7:L0]
% ~killed_2(charles_0(),agatha_0()) ....... U9
% ~richer_2(butler_0(), agatha_0()) ....... R2 [R1:L0, U9:L0]
% Derivation of unit clause U13:
% lives_1(butler_0()) ....... B2
% ~lives_1(x0) | hates_2(butler_0(),x0) | richer_2(x0,agatha_0()) ....... B10
% hates_2(butler_0(), butler_0()) | richer_2(butler_0(), agatha_0()) ....... R1 [B2:L0, B10:L0]
% ~richer_2(butler_0(),agatha_0()) ....... U12
% hates_2(butler_0(), butler_0()) ....... R2 [R1:L1, U12:L0]
% Derivation of unit clause U18:
% ~killed_2(x0,x1) | hates_2(x0,x1) ....... B6
% ~hates_2(x0,charles_0()) | ~hates_2(x0,butler_0()) | ~hates_2(x0,agatha_0()) ....... B11
% ~killed_2(x0, agatha_0()) | ~hates_2(x0, charles_0()) | ~hates_2(x0, butler_0()) ....... R1 [B6:L1, B11:L2]
% killed_2(butler_0(),agatha_0()) ....... U11
% ~hates_2(butler_0(), charles_0()) | ~hates_2(butler_0(), butler_0()) ....... R2 [R1:L0, U11:L0]
% hates_2(butler_0(),charles_0()) ....... U7
% ~hates_2(butler_0(), butler_0()) ....... R3 [R2:L0, U7:L0]
% Derivation of the empty clause:
% ~hates_2(butler_0(),butler_0()) ....... U18
% hates_2(butler_0(),butler_0()) ....... U13
% [] ....... R1 [U18:L0, U13:L0]
% --------------- End of Proof ---------------
% PROOF FOUND!
% ---------------------------------------------
% | Statistics |
% ---------------------------------------------
% Profile 3: Performance Statistics:
% ==================================
% Total number of generated clauses: 213
% resolvents: 213 factors: 0
% Number of unit clauses generated: 65
% % unit clauses generated to total clauses generated: 30.52
% Number of unit clauses constructed and retained at depth [x]:
% =============================================================
% [0] = 5 [1] = 6 [2] = 4 [3] = 4
% Total = 19
% Number of generated clauses having [x] literals:
% ------------------------------------------------
% [1] = 65 [2] = 120 [3] = 28
% Average size of a generated clause: 2.0
% Number of unit clauses per predicate list:
% ==========================================
% [0] lives_1 (+)3 (-)0
% [1] hates_2 (+)5 (-)4
% [2] killed_2 (+)1 (-)5
% [3] richer_2 (+)0 (-)1
% ------------------
% Total: (+)9 (-)10
% Total number of unit clauses retained: 19
% Number of clauses skipped because of their length: 111
% N base clauses skippped in resolve-with-all-base-clauses
% because of the shortest resolvents table: 0
% Number of successful unifications: 225
% Number of unification failures: 289
% Number of unit to unit unification failures: 24
% N literal unification failure due to lookup root_id table: 529
% N base clause resolution failure due to lookup table: 404
% N UC-BCL resolution dropped due to lookup table: 0
% Max entries in substitution set: 5
% N unit clauses dropped because they exceeded max values: 20
% N unit clauses dropped because too much nesting: 0
% 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: 2
% Max term depth in a unit clause: 1
% Number of states in UCFA table: 19
% Total number of terms of all unit clauses in table: 35
% Max allowed number of states in UCFA: 80000
% Ratio n states used/total allowed states: 0.00
% Ratio n states used/total unit clauses terms: 0.54
% Number of symbols (columns) in UCFA: 41
% Profile 2: Number of calls to:
% ==============================
% PTUnify() = 514
% ConstructUnitClause() = 34
% Profile 1: Time spent in:
% =========================
% ConstructUnitClause() : 0.00 secs
% --------------------------------------------------------
% | |
% Inferences per sec: inf
% | |
% --------------------------------------------------------
% Elapsed time: 1 secs
% CPU time: 0.14 secs
%
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------