TSTP Solution File: SET009-1 by CARINE---0.734
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : CARINE---0.734
% Problem : SET009-1 : TPTP v5.0.0. Released v1.0.0.
% 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 04:46:57 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/SystemOnTPTP1594/SET/SET009-1+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 = 1 secs [nr = 16] [nf = 0] [nu = 8] [ut = 8]
% Looking for a proof at depth = 2 ...
% t = 1 secs [nr = 135] [nf = 13] [nu = 30] [ut = 17]
% Looking for a proof at depth = 3 ...
% +================================================+
% | |
% | Congratulations!!! ........ A proof was found. |
% | |
% +================================================+
% Base Clauses and Unit Clauses used in proof:
% ============================================
% Base Clauses:
% -------------
% B0: ~subset_2(bDa_0(),bDd_0())
% B1: difference_3(b_0(),d_0(),bDd_0())
% B2: difference_3(b_0(),a_0(),bDa_0())
% B3: subset_2(d_0(),a_0())
% B6: member_2(member_of_1_not_of_2_2(x0,x1),x0) | subset_2(x0,x1)
% B7: ~member_2(member_of_1_not_of_2_2(x0,x1),x1) | subset_2(x0,x1)
% B8: ~member_2(x0,x2) | ~member_2(x0,x1) | ~difference_3(x3,x1,x2)
% B9: ~member_2(x3,x2) | ~difference_3(x0,x1,x2) | member_2(x3,x0)
% B10: ~member_2(x0,x1) | ~subset_2(x1,x2) | member_2(x0,x2)
% B14: ~member_2(x0,x1) | ~difference_3(x1,x2,x3) | member_2(x0,x3) | member_2(x0,x2)
% Unit Clauses:
% --------------
% U6: < d1 v0 dv0 f1 c3 t4 td2 > member_2(member_of_1_not_of_2_2(bDa_0(),bDd_0()),bDa_0())
% U7: < d1 v0 dv0 f1 c3 t4 td2 > ~member_2(member_of_1_not_of_2_2(bDa_0(),bDd_0()),bDd_0())
% U8: < d2 v0 dv0 f1 c3 t4 td2 > ~member_2(member_of_1_not_of_2_2(bDa_0(),bDd_0()),a_0())
% U9: < d2 v0 dv0 f1 c3 t4 td2 > member_2(member_of_1_not_of_2_2(bDa_0(),bDd_0()),b_0())
% U10: < d2 v0 dv0 f1 c3 t4 td2 > ~member_2(member_of_1_not_of_2_2(bDa_0(),bDd_0()),d_0())
% U17: < d3 v0 dv0 f1 c3 t4 td2 > member_2(member_of_1_not_of_2_2(bDa_0(),bDd_0()),d_0())
% --------------- Start of Proof ---------------
% Derivation of unit clause U6:
% ~subset_2(bDa_0(),bDd_0()) ....... B0
% member_2(member_of_1_not_of_2_2(x0,x1),x0) | subset_2(x0,x1) ....... B6
% member_2(member_of_1_not_of_2_2(bDa_0(), bDd_0()), bDa_0()) ....... R1 [B0:L0, B6:L1]
% Derivation of unit clause U7:
% ~subset_2(bDa_0(),bDd_0()) ....... B0
% ~member_2(member_of_1_not_of_2_2(x0,x1),x1) | subset_2(x0,x1) ....... B7
% ~member_2(member_of_1_not_of_2_2(bDa_0(), bDd_0()), bDd_0()) ....... R1 [B0:L0, B7:L1]
% Derivation of unit clause U8:
% difference_3(b_0(),a_0(),bDa_0()) ....... B2
% ~member_2(x0,x2) | ~member_2(x0,x1) | ~difference_3(x3,x1,x2) ....... B8
% ~member_2(x0, bDa_0()) | ~member_2(x0, a_0()) ....... R1 [B2:L0, B8:L2]
% member_2(member_of_1_not_of_2_2(bDa_0(),bDd_0()),bDa_0()) ....... U6
% ~member_2(member_of_1_not_of_2_2(bDa_0(), bDd_0()), a_0()) ....... R2 [R1:L0, U6:L0]
% Derivation of unit clause U9:
% difference_3(b_0(),a_0(),bDa_0()) ....... B2
% ~member_2(x3,x2) | ~difference_3(x0,x1,x2) | member_2(x3,x0) ....... B9
% ~member_2(x0, bDa_0()) | member_2(x0, b_0()) ....... R1 [B2:L0, B9:L1]
% member_2(member_of_1_not_of_2_2(bDa_0(),bDd_0()),bDa_0()) ....... U6
% member_2(member_of_1_not_of_2_2(bDa_0(), bDd_0()), b_0()) ....... R2 [R1:L0, U6:L0]
% Derivation of unit clause U10:
% subset_2(d_0(),a_0()) ....... B3
% ~member_2(x0,x1) | ~subset_2(x1,x2) | member_2(x0,x2) ....... B10
% ~member_2(x0, d_0()) | member_2(x0, a_0()) ....... R1 [B3:L0, B10:L1]
% ~member_2(member_of_1_not_of_2_2(bDa_0(),bDd_0()),a_0()) ....... U8
% ~member_2(member_of_1_not_of_2_2(bDa_0(), bDd_0()), d_0()) ....... R2 [R1:L1, U8:L0]
% Derivation of unit clause U17:
% difference_3(b_0(),d_0(),bDd_0()) ....... B1
% ~member_2(x0,x1) | ~difference_3(x1,x2,x3) | member_2(x0,x3) | member_2(x0,x2) ....... B14
% ~member_2(x0, b_0()) | member_2(x0, bDd_0()) | member_2(x0, d_0()) ....... R1 [B1:L0, B14:L1]
% member_2(member_of_1_not_of_2_2(bDa_0(),bDd_0()),b_0()) ....... U9
% member_2(member_of_1_not_of_2_2(bDa_0(), bDd_0()), bDd_0()) | member_2(member_of_1_not_of_2_2(bDa_0(), bDd_0()), d_0()) ....... R2 [R1:L0, U9:L0]
% ~member_2(member_of_1_not_of_2_2(bDa_0(),bDd_0()),bDd_0()) ....... U7
% member_2(member_of_1_not_of_2_2(bDa_0(), bDd_0()), d_0()) ....... R3 [R2:L0, U7:L0]
% Derivation of the empty clause:
% member_2(member_of_1_not_of_2_2(bDa_0(),bDd_0()),d_0()) ....... U17
% ~member_2(member_of_1_not_of_2_2(bDa_0(),bDd_0()),d_0()) ....... U10
% [] ....... R1 [U17:L0, U10:L0]
% --------------- End of Proof ---------------
% PROOF FOUND!
% ---------------------------------------------
% | Statistics |
% ---------------------------------------------
% Profile 3: Performance Statistics:
% ==================================
% Total number of generated clauses: 193
% resolvents: 170 factors: 23
% Number of unit clauses generated: 35
% % unit clauses generated to total clauses generated: 18.13
% Number of unit clauses constructed and retained at depth [x]:
% =============================================================
% [0] = 4 [1] = 4 [2] = 9 [3] = 1
% Total = 18
% Number of generated clauses having [x] literals:
% ------------------------------------------------
% [1] = 35 [2] = 115 [3] = 43
% Average size of a generated clause: 3.0
% Number of unit clauses per predicate list:
% ==========================================
% [0] equal_sets_2 (+)1 (-)2
% [1] member_2 (+)5 (-)3
% [2] subset_2 (+)2 (-)1
% [3] difference_3 (+)2 (-)2
% ------------------
% Total: (+)10 (-)8
% Total number of unit clauses retained: 18
% Number of clauses skipped because of their length: 182
% N base clauses skippped in resolve-with-all-base-clauses
% because of the shortest resolvents table: 0
% Number of successful unifications: 204
% Number of unification failures: 97
% Number of unit to unit unification failures: 22
% N literal unification failure due to lookup root_id table: 241
% N base clause resolution failure due to lookup table: 173
% N UC-BCL resolution dropped due to lookup table: 0
% Max entries in substitution set: 8
% N unit clauses dropped because they exceeded max values: 9
% 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: 5
% Max term depth in a unit clause: 2
% Number of states in UCFA table: 36
% Total number of terms of all unit clauses in table: 58
% 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: 0.62
% Number of symbols (columns) in UCFA: 45
% Profile 2: Number of calls to:
% ==============================
% PTUnify() = 301
% ConstructUnitClause() = 23
% Profile 1: Time spent in:
% =========================
% ConstructUnitClause() : 0.00 secs
% --------------------------------------------------------
% | |
% Inferences per sec: inf
% | |
% --------------------------------------------------------
% Elapsed time: 1 secs
% CPU time: 0.14 secs
%
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------