TSTP Solution File: SET002-1 by CARINE---0.734
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : CARINE---0.734
% Problem : SET002-1 : TPTP v5.0.0. Released v1.0.0.
% Transfm : add_equality
% Format : carine
% Command : carine %s t=%d xo=off uct=32000
% Computer : art01.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 04:46:20 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/SystemOnTPTP14579/SET/SET002-1+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 = 4] [nf = 0] [nu = 0] [ut = 2]
% Looking for a proof at depth = 2 ...
% t = 0 secs [nr = 61] [nf = 15] [nu = 3] [ut = 4]
% Looking for a proof at depth = 3 ...
% t = 0 secs [nr = 492] [nf = 66] [nu = 32] [ut = 4]
% Looking for a proof at depth = 4 ...
% t = 0 secs [nr = 2377] [nf = 329] [nu = 229] [ut = 6]
% Looking for a proof at depth = 5 ...
% +================================================+
% | |
% | Congratulations!!! ........ A proof was found. |
% | |
% +================================================+
% Base Clauses and Unit Clauses used in proof:
% ============================================
% Base Clauses:
% -------------
% B0: ~equal_sets_2(aUa_0(),a_0())
% B1: union_3(a_0(),a_0(),aUa_0())
% B6: ~member_2(x3,x0) | ~union_3(x0,x1,x2) | member_2(x3,x2)
% B11: ~subset_2(x1,x0) | ~subset_2(x0,x1) | equal_sets_2(x1,x0)
% B12: ~member_2(x3,x2) | ~union_3(x0,x1,x2) | member_2(x3,x0) | member_2(x3,x1)
% Unit Clauses:
% --------------
% U5: < d4 v0 dv0 f0 c2 t2 td1 > subset_2(a_0(),aUa_0())
% U6: < d5 v0 dv0 f0 c2 t2 td1 > ~subset_2(aUa_0(),a_0())
% U11: < d5 v0 dv0 f0 c2 t2 td1 > subset_2(aUa_0(),a_0())
% --------------- Start of Proof ---------------
% Derivation of unit clause U5:
% union_3(a_0(),a_0(),aUa_0()) ....... B1
% ~member_2(x3,x0) | ~union_3(x0,x1,x2) | member_2(x3,x2) ....... B6
% ~member_2(x0, a_0()) | member_2(x0, aUa_0()) ....... R1 [B1:L0, B6:L1]
% member_2(member_of_1_not_of_2_2(x0,x1),x0) | subset_2(x0,x1) ....... B4
% member_2(member_of_1_not_of_2_2(a_0(), x0), aUa_0()) | subset_2(a_0(), x0) ....... R2 [R1:L0, B4:L0]
% ~member_2(member_of_1_not_of_2_2(x0,x1),x1) | subset_2(x0,x1) ....... B5
% subset_2(a_0(), aUa_0()) | subset_2(a_0(), aUa_0()) ....... R3 [R2:L0, B5:L0]
% subset_2(a_0(), aUa_0()) ....... R4 [R3:L0, R3:L1]
% Derivation of unit clause U6:
% ~equal_sets_2(aUa_0(),a_0()) ....... B0
% ~subset_2(x1,x0) | ~subset_2(x0,x1) | equal_sets_2(x1,x0) ....... B11
% ~subset_2(aUa_0(), a_0()) | ~subset_2(a_0(), aUa_0()) ....... R1 [B0:L0, B11:L2]
% ~equal_sets_2(x0,x1) | subset_2(x0,x1) ....... B2
% ~subset_2(a_0(), aUa_0()) | ~equal_sets_2(aUa_0(), a_0()) ....... R2 [R1:L0, B2:L1]
% ~subset_2(x1,x0) | ~subset_2(x0,x1) | equal_sets_2(x1,x0) ....... B11
% ~subset_2(a_0(), aUa_0()) | ~subset_2(aUa_0(), a_0()) | ~subset_2(a_0(), aUa_0()) ....... R3 [R2:L1, B11:L2]
% ~subset_2(aUa_0(), a_0()) | ~subset_2(a_0(), aUa_0()) ....... R4 [R3:L0, R3:L2]
% subset_2(a_0(),aUa_0()) ....... U5
% ~subset_2(aUa_0(), a_0()) ....... R5 [R4:L1, U5:L0]
% Derivation of unit clause U11:
% union_3(a_0(),a_0(),aUa_0()) ....... B1
% ~member_2(x3,x2) | ~union_3(x0,x1,x2) | member_2(x3,x0) | member_2(x3,x1) ....... B12
% ~member_2(x0, aUa_0()) | member_2(x0, a_0()) | member_2(x0, a_0()) ....... R1 [B1:L0, B12:L1]
% ~member_2(x0, aUa_0()) | member_2(x0, a_0()) ....... R2 [R1:L2, R1:L1]
% member_2(member_of_1_not_of_2_2(x0,x1),x0) | subset_2(x0,x1) ....... B4
% member_2(member_of_1_not_of_2_2(aUa_0(), x0), a_0()) | subset_2(aUa_0(), x0) ....... R3 [R2:L0, B4:L0]
% ~member_2(member_of_1_not_of_2_2(x0,x1),x1) | subset_2(x0,x1) ....... B5
% subset_2(aUa_0(), a_0()) | subset_2(aUa_0(), a_0()) ....... R4 [R3:L0, B5:L0]
% subset_2(aUa_0(), a_0()) ....... R5 [R4:L0, R4:L1]
% Derivation of the empty clause:
% subset_2(aUa_0(),a_0()) ....... U11
% ~subset_2(aUa_0(),a_0()) ....... U6
% [] ....... R1 [U11:L0, U6:L0]
% --------------- End of Proof ---------------
% PROOF FOUND!
% ---------------------------------------------
% | Statistics |
% ---------------------------------------------
% Profile 3: Performance Statistics:
% ==================================
% Total number of generated clauses: 4036
% resolvents: 3537 factors: 499
% Number of unit clauses generated: 281
% % unit clauses generated to total clauses generated: 6.96
% Number of unit clauses constructed and retained at depth [x]:
% =============================================================
% [0] = 2 [2] = 2 [4] = 2 [5] = 6
% Total = 12
% Number of generated clauses having [x] literals:
% ------------------------------------------------
% [1] = 281 [2] = 2189 [3] = 1566
% Average size of a generated clause: 3.0
% Number of unit clauses per predicate list:
% ==========================================
% [0] equal_sets_2 (+)1 (-)2
% [1] member_2 (+)1 (-)1
% [2] subset_2 (+)3 (-)1
% [3] union_3 (+)1 (-)2
% ------------------
% Total: (+)6 (-)6
% Total number of unit clauses retained: 12
% Number of clauses skipped because of their length: 5710
% N base clauses skippped in resolve-with-all-base-clauses
% because of the shortest resolvents table: 260
% Number of successful unifications: 4050
% Number of unification failures: 2004
% Number of unit to unit unification failures: 7
% N literal unification failure due to lookup root_id table: 7968
% N base clause resolution failure due to lookup table: 7172
% N UC-BCL resolution dropped due to lookup table: 0
% Max entries in substitution set: 12
% N unit clauses dropped because they exceeded max values: 196
% 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: 4
% Max term depth in a unit clause: 2
% Number of states in UCFA table: 30
% Total number of terms of all unit clauses in table: 31
% 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: 0.97
% Number of symbols (columns) in UCFA: 42
% Profile 2: Number of calls to:
% ==============================
% PTUnify() = 6054
% ConstructUnitClause() = 206
% Profile 1: Time spent in:
% =========================
% ConstructUnitClause() : 0.00 secs
% --------------------------------------------------------
% | |
% Inferences per sec: inf
% | |
% --------------------------------------------------------
% Elapsed time: 0 secs
% CPU time: 0.15 secs
%
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------