TSTP Solution File: RNG038-2 by CARINE---0.734
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : CARINE---0.734
% Problem : RNG038-2 : TPTP v5.0.0. Released v1.0.0.
% Transfm : add_equality
% Format : carine
% Command : carine %s t=%d xo=off uct=32000
% Computer : art05.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 04:32:23 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/SystemOnTPTP31335/RNG/RNG038-2+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 = 62] [nf = 0] [nu = 9] [ut = 12]
% Looking for a proof at depth = 2 ...
% t = 0 secs [nr = 5174] [nf = 86] [nu = 2915] [ut = 421]
% Looking for a proof at depth = 3 ...
% +================================================+
% | |
% | Congratulations!!! ........ A proof was found. |
% | |
% +================================================+
% Base Clauses and Unit Clauses used in proof:
% ============================================
% Base Clauses:
% -------------
% B0: ~equalish_2(a_0(),additive_identity_0())
% B4: product_3(x0,additive_identity_0(),additive_identity_0())
% B20: ~product_3(x0,x1,x3) | ~product_3(x0,x1,x2) | equalish_2(x2,x3)
% Unit Clauses:
% --------------
% U4: < d0 v1 dv1 f0 c2 t3 td1 b > product_3(x0,additive_identity_0(),additive_identity_0())
% U5: < d0 v1 dv1 f0 c2 t3 td1 b > product_3(additive_identity_0(),x0,additive_identity_0())
% U115: < d2 v0 dv0 f0 c2 t2 td1 > equalish_2(additive_identity_0(),additive_identity_0())
% U423: < d3 v0 dv0 f0 c2 t2 td1 > ~equalish_2(additive_identity_0(),additive_identity_0())
% --------------- Start of Proof ---------------
% Derivation of unit clause U4:
% product_3(x0,additive_identity_0(),additive_identity_0()) ....... U4
% Derivation of unit clause U5:
% product_3(additive_identity_0(),x0,additive_identity_0()) ....... U5
% Derivation of unit clause U115:
% product_3(x0,additive_identity_0(),additive_identity_0()) ....... B4
% ~product_3(x0,x1,x3) | ~product_3(x0,x1,x2) | equalish_2(x2,x3) ....... B20
% ~product_3(x0, additive_identity_0(), x1) | equalish_2(x1, additive_identity_0()) ....... R1 [B4:L0, B20:L0]
% product_3(x0,additive_identity_0(),additive_identity_0()) ....... U4
% equalish_2(additive_identity_0(), additive_identity_0()) ....... R2 [R1:L0, U4:L0]
% Derivation of unit clause U423:
% ~equalish_2(a_0(),additive_identity_0()) ....... B0
% ~product_3(x0,x1,x3) | ~product_3(x0,x1,x2) | equalish_2(x2,x3) ....... B20
% ~product_3(x0, x1, additive_identity_0()) | ~product_3(x0, x1, a_0()) ....... R1 [B0:L0, B20:L2]
% ~equalish_2(x0,additive_identity_0()) | product_3(x0,h_2(x0,x1),x1) ....... B13
% ~product_3(x0, h_2(x0, a_0()), additive_identity_0()) | ~equalish_2(x0, additive_identity_0()) ....... R2 [R1:L1, B13:L1]
% product_3(additive_identity_0(),x0,additive_identity_0()) ....... U5
% ~equalish_2(additive_identity_0(), additive_identity_0()) ....... R3 [R2:L0, U5:L0]
% Derivation of the empty clause:
% ~equalish_2(additive_identity_0(),additive_identity_0()) ....... U423
% equalish_2(additive_identity_0(),additive_identity_0()) ....... U115
% [] ....... R1 [U423:L0, U115:L0]
% --------------- End of Proof ---------------
% PROOF FOUND!
% ---------------------------------------------
% | Statistics |
% ---------------------------------------------
% Profile 3: Performance Statistics:
% ==================================
% Total number of generated clauses: 5346
% resolvents: 5260 factors: 86
% Number of unit clauses generated: 2998
% % unit clauses generated to total clauses generated: 56.08
% Number of unit clauses constructed and retained at depth [x]:
% =============================================================
% [0] = 9 [1] = 3 [2] = 409 [3] = 3
% Total = 424
% Number of generated clauses having [x] literals:
% ------------------------------------------------
% [1] = 2998 [2] = 2267 [3] = 81
% Average size of a generated clause: 2.0
% Number of unit clauses per predicate list:
% ==========================================
% [0] equalish_2 (+)104 (-)39
% [1] product_3 (+)89 (-)28
% [2] sum_3 (+)102 (-)62
% ------------------
% Total: (+)295 (-)129
% Total number of unit clauses retained: 424
% Number of clauses skipped because of their length: 621
% N base clauses skippped in resolve-with-all-base-clauses
% because of the shortest resolvents table: 0
% Number of successful unifications: 5351
% Number of unification failures: 2314
% Number of unit to unit unification failures: 12797
% N literal unification failure due to lookup root_id table: 1062
% N base clause resolution failure due to lookup table: 324
% N UC-BCL resolution dropped due to lookup table: 19
% Max entries in substitution set: 7
% N unit clauses dropped because they exceeded max values: 2103
% N unit clauses dropped because too much nesting: 414
% 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: 4
% Number of states in UCFA table: 877
% Total number of terms of all unit clauses in table: 2421
% Max allowed number of states in UCFA: 80000
% Ratio n states used/total allowed states: 0.01
% Ratio n states used/total unit clauses terms: 0.36
% Number of symbols (columns) in UCFA: 44
% Profile 2: Number of calls to:
% ==============================
% PTUnify() = 7665
% ConstructUnitClause() = 2518
% Profile 1: Time spent in:
% =========================
% ConstructUnitClause() : 0.00 secs
% --------------------------------------------------------
% | |
% Inferences per sec: inf
% | |
% --------------------------------------------------------
% Elapsed time: 1 secs
% CPU time: 0.15 secs
%
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------