TSTP Solution File: PUZ003-1 by CARINE---0.734
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : CARINE---0.734
% Problem : PUZ003-1 : 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 03:50:40 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/SystemOnTPTP22394/PUZ/PUZ003-1+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 = 5] [nf = 0] [nu = 0] [ut = 6]
% Looking for a proof at depth = 2 ...
% t = 0 secs [nr = 27] [nf = 0] [nu = 2] [ut = 7]
% Looking for a proof at depth = 3 ...
% t = 0 secs [nr = 151] [nf = 2] [nu = 34] [ut = 12]
% Looking for a proof at depth = 4 ...
% t = 0 secs [nr = 384] [nf = 16] [nu = 72] [ut = 13]
% Looking for a proof at depth = 5 ...
% +================================================+
% | |
% | Congratulations!!! ........ A proof was found. |
% | |
% +================================================+
% Base Clauses and Unit Clauses used in proof:
% ============================================
% Base Clauses:
% -------------
% B0: ~shaved_2(petruchio_0(),lorenzo_0())
% B1: member_1(guido_0())
% B6: ~member_1(x1) | ~shaved_2(members_0(),x0) | shaved_2(x1,x0)
% B7: ~member_1(x1) | ~member_1(x0) | ~shaved_2(x0,x1) | shaved_2(members_0(),x0)
% Unit Clauses:
% --------------
% U2: < d0 v0 dv0 f0 c1 t1 td1 b > member_1(lorenzo_0())
% U3: < d0 v0 dv0 f0 c1 t1 td1 b > member_1(petruchio_0())
% U4: < d0 v0 dv0 f0 c1 t1 td1 b > member_1(cesare_0())
% U5: < d0 v0 dv0 f0 c2 t2 td1 b > shaved_2(guido_0(),cesare_0())
% U6: < d2 v0 dv0 f0 c2 t2 td1 > ~shaved_2(members_0(),lorenzo_0())
% U8: < d3 v0 dv0 f0 c2 t2 td1 > shaved_2(members_0(),guido_0())
% U14: < d5 v0 dv0 f0 c2 t2 td1 > ~shaved_2(members_0(),guido_0())
% --------------- Start of Proof ---------------
% Derivation of unit clause U2:
% member_1(lorenzo_0()) ....... U2
% Derivation of unit clause U3:
% member_1(petruchio_0()) ....... U3
% Derivation of unit clause U4:
% member_1(cesare_0()) ....... U4
% Derivation of unit clause U5:
% shaved_2(guido_0(),cesare_0()) ....... U5
% Derivation of unit clause U6:
% ~shaved_2(petruchio_0(),lorenzo_0()) ....... B0
% ~member_1(x1) | ~shaved_2(members_0(),x0) | shaved_2(x1,x0) ....... B6
% ~member_1(petruchio_0()) | ~shaved_2(members_0(), lorenzo_0()) ....... R1 [B0:L0, B6:L2]
% member_1(petruchio_0()) ....... U3
% ~shaved_2(members_0(), lorenzo_0()) ....... R2 [R1:L0, U3:L0]
% Derivation of unit clause U8:
% member_1(guido_0()) ....... B1
% ~member_1(x1) | ~member_1(x0) | ~shaved_2(x0,x1) | shaved_2(members_0(),x0) ....... B7
% ~member_1(x0) | ~shaved_2(guido_0(), x0) | shaved_2(members_0(), guido_0()) ....... R1 [B1:L0, B7:L1]
% member_1(cesare_0()) ....... U4
% ~shaved_2(guido_0(), cesare_0()) | shaved_2(members_0(), guido_0()) ....... R2 [R1:L0, U4:L0]
% shaved_2(guido_0(),cesare_0()) ....... U5
% shaved_2(members_0(), guido_0()) ....... R3 [R2:L0, U5:L0]
% Derivation of unit clause U14:
% member_1(guido_0()) ....... B1
% ~member_1(x1) | ~member_1(x0) | ~shaved_2(x0,x1) | shaved_2(members_0(),x0) ....... B7
% ~member_1(x0) | ~shaved_2(x0, guido_0()) | shaved_2(members_0(), x0) ....... R1 [B1:L0, B7:L0]
% member_1(lorenzo_0()) ....... U2
% ~shaved_2(lorenzo_0(), guido_0()) | shaved_2(members_0(), lorenzo_0()) ....... R2 [R1:L0, U2:L0]
% ~member_1(x1) | ~shaved_2(members_0(),x0) | shaved_2(x1,x0) ....... B6
% shaved_2(members_0(), lorenzo_0()) | ~member_1(lorenzo_0()) | ~shaved_2(members_0(), guido_0()) ....... R3 [R2:L0, B6:L2]
% ~shaved_2(members_0(),lorenzo_0()) ....... U6
% ~member_1(lorenzo_0()) | ~shaved_2(members_0(), guido_0()) ....... R4 [R3:L0, U6:L0]
% member_1(lorenzo_0()) ....... U2
% ~shaved_2(members_0(), guido_0()) ....... R5 [R4:L0, U2:L0]
% Derivation of the empty clause:
% ~shaved_2(members_0(),guido_0()) ....... U14
% shaved_2(members_0(),guido_0()) ....... U8
% [] ....... R1 [U14:L0, U8:L0]
% --------------- End of Proof ---------------
% PROOF FOUND!
% ---------------------------------------------
% | Statistics |
% ---------------------------------------------
% Profile 3: Performance Statistics:
% ==================================
% Total number of generated clauses: 444
% resolvents: 427 factors: 17
% Number of unit clauses generated: 85
% % unit clauses generated to total clauses generated: 19.14
% Number of unit clauses constructed and retained at depth [x]:
% =============================================================
% [0] = 6 [2] = 1 [3] = 5
% [4] = 1 [5] = 2
% Total = 15
% Number of generated clauses having [x] literals:
% ------------------------------------------------
% [1] = 85 [2] = 196 [3] = 163
% Average size of a generated clause: 3.0
% Number of unit clauses per predicate list:
% ==========================================
% [0] member_1 (+)4 (-)1
% [1] shaved_2 (+)2 (-)8
% ------------------
% Total: (+)6 (-)9
% Total number of unit clauses retained: 15
% Number of clauses skipped because of their length: 194
% N base clauses skippped in resolve-with-all-base-clauses
% because of the shortest resolvents table: 0
% Number of successful unifications: 454
% Number of unification failures: 1135
% Number of unit to unit unification failures: 19
% N literal unification failure due to lookup root_id table: 520
% N base clause resolution failure due to lookup table: 8
% N UC-BCL resolution dropped due to lookup table: 0
% Max entries in substitution set: 6
% N unit clauses dropped because they exceeded max values: 31
% 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: 13
% Total number of terms of all unit clauses in table: 25
% 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: 0.52
% Number of symbols (columns) in UCFA: 41
% Profile 2: Number of calls to:
% ==============================
% PTUnify() = 1589
% ConstructUnitClause() = 40
% Profile 1: Time spent in:
% =========================
% ConstructUnitClause() : 0.00 secs
% --------------------------------------------------------
% | |
% Inferences per sec: inf
% | |
% --------------------------------------------------------
% Elapsed time: 0 secs
% CPU time: 0.14 secs
%
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------