TSTP Solution File: PUZ002-1 by CARINE---0.734
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : CARINE---0.734
% Problem : PUZ002-1 : TPTP v5.0.0. Released v1.0.0.
% 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 03:50:28 EST 2010
% Result : Unsatisfiable 0.14s
% Output : Refutation 0.14s
% 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/SystemOnTPTP22266/PUZ/PUZ002-1+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 = 17] [nf = 0] [nu = 8] [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: ~avoided_1(the_kangaroo_0())
% B1: kangaroo_1(the_kangaroo_0())
% B2: ~carnivore_1(x0) | prowler_1(x0)
% B3: ~cat_1(x0) | mouse_killer_1(x0)
% B4: ~detested_1(x0) | avoided_1(x0)
% B5: detested_1(x0) | takes_to_me_1(x0)
% B6: ~gazer_1(x0) | suitable_pet_1(x0)
% B7: ~in_house_1(x0) | cat_1(x0)
% B8: ~kangaroo_1(x0) | ~suitable_pet_1(x0)
% B9: ~mouse_killer_1(x0) | carnivore_1(x0)
% B10: ~prowler_1(x0) | gazer_1(x0)
% B11: ~takes_to_me_1(x0) | in_house_1(x0)
% Unit Clauses:
% --------------
% U2: < d1 v0 dv0 f0 c1 t1 td1 > ~detested_1(the_kangaroo_0())
% U3: < d1 v0 dv0 f0 c1 t1 td1 > ~suitable_pet_1(the_kangaroo_0())
% U4: < d1 v0 dv0 f0 c1 t1 td1 > takes_to_me_1(the_kangaroo_0())
% U5: < d1 v0 dv0 f0 c1 t1 td1 > ~gazer_1(the_kangaroo_0())
% U6: < d1 v0 dv0 f0 c1 t1 td1 > ~prowler_1(the_kangaroo_0())
% U7: < d1 v0 dv0 f0 c1 t1 td1 > in_house_1(the_kangaroo_0())
% U8: < d2 v0 dv0 f0 c1 t1 td1 > ~mouse_killer_1(the_kangaroo_0())
% U10: < d2 v0 dv0 f0 c1 t1 td1 > ~in_house_1(the_kangaroo_0())
% --------------- Start of Proof ---------------
% Derivation of unit clause U2:
% ~avoided_1(the_kangaroo_0()) ....... B0
% ~detested_1(x0) | avoided_1(x0) ....... B4
% ~detested_1(the_kangaroo_0()) ....... R1 [B0:L0, B4:L1]
% Derivation of unit clause U3:
% kangaroo_1(the_kangaroo_0()) ....... B1
% ~kangaroo_1(x0) | ~suitable_pet_1(x0) ....... B8
% ~suitable_pet_1(the_kangaroo_0()) ....... R1 [B1:L0, B8:L0]
% Derivation of unit clause U4:
% detested_1(x0) | takes_to_me_1(x0) ....... B5
% ~detested_1(the_kangaroo_0()) ....... U2
% takes_to_me_1(the_kangaroo_0()) ....... R1 [B5:L0, U2:L0]
% Derivation of unit clause U5:
% ~gazer_1(x0) | suitable_pet_1(x0) ....... B6
% ~suitable_pet_1(the_kangaroo_0()) ....... U3
% ~gazer_1(the_kangaroo_0()) ....... R1 [B6:L1, U3:L0]
% Derivation of unit clause U6:
% ~prowler_1(x0) | gazer_1(x0) ....... B10
% ~gazer_1(the_kangaroo_0()) ....... U5
% ~prowler_1(the_kangaroo_0()) ....... R1 [B10:L1, U5:L0]
% Derivation of unit clause U7:
% ~takes_to_me_1(x0) | in_house_1(x0) ....... B11
% takes_to_me_1(the_kangaroo_0()) ....... U4
% in_house_1(the_kangaroo_0()) ....... R1 [B11:L0, U4:L0]
% Derivation of unit clause U8:
% ~carnivore_1(x0) | prowler_1(x0) ....... B2
% ~mouse_killer_1(x0) | carnivore_1(x0) ....... B9
% prowler_1(x0) | ~mouse_killer_1(x0) ....... R1 [B2:L0, B9:L1]
% ~prowler_1(the_kangaroo_0()) ....... U6
% ~mouse_killer_1(the_kangaroo_0()) ....... R2 [R1:L0, U6:L0]
% Derivation of unit clause U10:
% ~cat_1(x0) | mouse_killer_1(x0) ....... B3
% ~in_house_1(x0) | cat_1(x0) ....... B7
% mouse_killer_1(x0) | ~in_house_1(x0) ....... R1 [B3:L0, B7:L1]
% ~mouse_killer_1(the_kangaroo_0()) ....... U8
% ~in_house_1(the_kangaroo_0()) ....... R2 [R1:L0, U8:L0]
% Derivation of the empty clause:
% ~in_house_1(the_kangaroo_0()) ....... U10
% in_house_1(the_kangaroo_0()) ....... U7
% [] ....... R1 [U10:L0, U7:L0]
% --------------- End of Proof ---------------
% PROOF FOUND!
% ---------------------------------------------
% | Statistics |
% ---------------------------------------------
% Profile 3: Performance Statistics:
% ==================================
% Total number of generated clauses: 31
% resolvents: 31 factors: 0
% Number of unit clauses generated: 15
% % unit clauses generated to total clauses generated: 48.39
% Number of unit clauses constructed and retained at depth [x]:
% =============================================================
% [0] = 2 [1] = 6 [2] = 3
% Total = 11
% Number of generated clauses having [x] literals:
% ------------------------------------------------
% [1] = 15 [2] = 16
% Average size of a generated clause: 2.0
% Number of unit clauses per predicate list:
% ==========================================
% [0] avoided_1 (+)0 (-)1
% [1] carnivore_1 (+)0 (-)1
% [2] cat_1 (+)0 (-)0
% [3] detested_1 (+)0 (-)1
% [4] gazer_1 (+)0 (-)1
% [5] in_house_1 (+)1 (-)1
% [6] kangaroo_1 (+)1 (-)0
% [7] mouse_killer_1 (+)0 (-)1
% [8] prowler_1 (+)0 (-)1
% [9] suitable_pet_1 (+)0 (-)1
% [10] takes_to_me_1 (+)1 (-)0
% ------------------
% Total: (+)3 (-)8
% Total number of unit clauses retained: 11
% Number of clauses skipped because of their length: 0
% N base clauses skippped in resolve-with-all-base-clauses
% because of the shortest resolvents table: 0
% Number of successful unifications: 41
% Number of unification failures: 0
% Number of unit to unit unification failures: 0
% N literal unification failure due to lookup root_id table: 51
% N base clause resolution failure due to lookup table: 126
% N UC-BCL resolution dropped due to lookup table: 0
% Max entries in substitution set: 2
% N unit clauses dropped because they exceeded max values: 2
% 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: 1
% Max term depth in a unit clause: 1
% Number of states in UCFA table: 14
% Total number of terms of all unit clauses in table: 11
% 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: 1.27
% Number of symbols (columns) in UCFA: 46
% Profile 2: Number of calls to:
% ==============================
% PTUnify() = 41
% ConstructUnitClause() = 11
% Profile 1: Time spent in:
% =========================
% ConstructUnitClause() : 0.00 secs
% --------------------------------------------------------
% | |
% Inferences per sec: inf
% | |
% --------------------------------------------------------
% Elapsed time: 0 secs
% CPU time: 0.14 secs
%
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------