TSTP Solution File: PUZ035-5 by CARINE---0.734

View Problem - Process Solution

%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File     : CARINE---0.734
% Problem  : PUZ035-5 : TPTP v5.0.0. Released v2.0.0.
% Transfm  : add_equality
% Format   : carine
% Command  : carine %s t=%d xo=off uct=32000

% Computer : art02.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 04:04:21 EST 2010

% Result   : Unsatisfiable 0.16s
% Output   : Refutation 0.16s
% 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/SystemOnTPTP27694/PUZ/PUZ035-5+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 = 18] [nf = 0] [nu = 0] [ut = 1]
% Looking for a proof at depth = 2 ...
% 	t = 0 secs [nr = 177] [nf = 8] [nu = 0] [ut = 1]
% Looking for a proof at depth = 3 ...
% +================================================+
% |                                                |
% | Congratulations!!! ........ A proof was found. |
% |                                                |
% +================================================+
% Base Clauses and Unit Clauses used in proof:
% ============================================
% Base Clauses:
% -------------
% B0: ~truth_1(isa_2(other_0(),x1)) | ~truth_1(isa_2(asked_0(),x0))
% B4: truth_1(isa_2(x0,knight_0())) | truth_1(isa_2(x0,knave_0()))
% Unit Clauses:
% --------------
% U1: < d3 v1 dv1 f1 c1 t3 td2 > ~truth_1(isa_2(asked_0(),x0))
% U2: < d3 v0 dv0 f1 c2 t3 td2 > truth_1(isa_2(other_0(),knave_0()))
% U3: < d3 v1 dv1 f1 c1 t3 td2 > ~truth_1(isa_2(other_0(),x0))
% --------------- Start of Proof ---------------
% Derivation of unit clause U1:
% ~truth_1(isa_2(other_0(),x1)) | ~truth_1(isa_2(asked_0(),x0)) ....... B0
% truth_1(isa_2(x0,knight_0())) | truth_1(isa_2(x0,knave_0())) ....... B4
%  ~truth_1(isa_2(asked_0(), x0)) | truth_1(isa_2(other_0(), knave_0())) ....... R1 [B0:L0, B4:L0]
%  ~truth_1(isa_2(other_0(),x1)) | ~truth_1(isa_2(asked_0(),x0)) ....... B0
%   ~truth_1(isa_2(asked_0(), x0)) | ~truth_1(isa_2(asked_0(), x1)) ....... R2 [R1:L1, B0:L0]
%    ~truth_1(isa_2(asked_0(), x0)) ....... R3 [R2:L0, R2:L1]
% Derivation of unit clause U2:
% ~truth_1(isa_2(other_0(),x1)) | ~truth_1(isa_2(asked_0(),x0)) ....... B0
% truth_1(isa_2(x0,knight_0())) | truth_1(isa_2(x0,knave_0())) ....... B4
%  ~truth_1(isa_2(asked_0(), x0)) | truth_1(isa_2(other_0(), knave_0())) ....... R1 [B0:L0, B4:L0]
%  truth_1(isa_2(x0,knight_0())) | truth_1(isa_2(x0,knave_0())) ....... B4
%   truth_1(isa_2(other_0(), knave_0())) | truth_1(isa_2(asked_0(), knave_0())) ....... R2 [R1:L0, B4:L0]
%   ~truth_1(isa_2(asked_0(),x0)) ....... U1
%    truth_1(isa_2(other_0(), knave_0())) ....... R3 [R2:L1, U1:L0]
% Derivation of unit clause U3:
% ~truth_1(isa_2(other_0(),x1)) | ~truth_1(isa_2(asked_0(),x0)) ....... B0
% truth_1(isa_2(x0,knight_0())) | truth_1(isa_2(x0,knave_0())) ....... B4
%  ~truth_1(isa_2(other_0(), x0)) | truth_1(isa_2(asked_0(), knave_0())) ....... R1 [B0:L1, B4:L0]
%  ~truth_1(isa_2(other_0(),x1)) | ~truth_1(isa_2(asked_0(),x0)) ....... B0
%   ~truth_1(isa_2(other_0(), x0)) | ~truth_1(isa_2(other_0(), x1)) ....... R2 [R1:L1, B0:L1]
%    ~truth_1(isa_2(other_0(), x0)) ....... R3 [R2:L0, R2:L1]
% Derivation of the empty clause:
% ~truth_1(isa_2(other_0(),x0)) ....... U3
% truth_1(isa_2(other_0(),knave_0())) ....... U2
%  [] ....... R1 [U3:L0, U2:L0]
% --------------- End of Proof ---------------
% PROOF FOUND!
% ---------------------------------------------
% |                Statistics                 |
% ---------------------------------------------
% Profile 3: Performance Statistics:
% ==================================
% Total number of generated clauses: 238
% 	resolvents: 226	factors: 12
% Number of unit clauses generated: 6
% % unit clauses generated to total clauses generated: 2.52
% Number of unit clauses constructed and retained at depth [x]:
% =============================================================
% [0] = 1		[3] = 3		
% Total = 4
% Number of generated clauses having [x] literals:
% ------------------------------------------------
% [1] = 6	[2] = 197	[3] = 35	
% Average size of a generated clause: 3.0
% Number of unit clauses per predicate list:
% ==========================================
% [0] truth_1		(+)1	(-)2
% [1] says_2		(+)1	(-)0
% 			------------------
% 		Total:	(+)2	(-)2
% Total number of unit clauses retained: 4
% Number of clauses skipped because of their length: 122
% N base clauses skippped in resolve-with-all-base-clauses
% 	because of the shortest resolvents table: 0
% Number of successful unifications: 247
% Number of unification failures: 22
% Number of unit to unit unification failures: 1
% N literal unification failure due to lookup root_id table: 248
% N base clause resolution failure due to lookup table: 135
% 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: 1
% 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: 8
% Max term depth in a unit clause: 3
% Number of states in UCFA table: 18
% Total number of terms of all unit clauses in table: 17
% Max allowed number of states in UCFA: 112000
% Ratio n states used/total allowed states: 0.00
% Ratio n states used/total unit clauses terms: 1.06
% Number of symbols (columns) in UCFA: 42
% Profile 2: Number of calls to:
% ==============================
% PTUnify() = 269
% ConstructUnitClause() = 4
% Profile 1: Time spent in:
% =========================
% ConstructUnitClause() : 0.00 secs
% --------------------------------------------------------
% |                                                      |
%   Inferences per sec: inf
% |                                                      |
% --------------------------------------------------------
% Elapsed time: 0 secs
% CPU time: 0.15 secs
% 
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------