TSTP Solution File: SYN006-1 by CARINE---0.734
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : CARINE---0.734
% Problem : SYN006-1 : 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 08:21:55 EST 2010
% Result : Unsatisfiable 0.38s
% Output : Refutation 0.38s
% 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/SystemOnTPTP11146/SYN/SYN006-1+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 = 4] [nf = 0] [nu = 0] [ut = 4]
% Looking for a proof at depth = 2 ...
% t = 1 secs [nr = 24] [nf = 0] [nu = 6] [ut = 6]
% Looking for a proof at depth = 3 ...
% +================================================+
% | |
% | Congratulations!!! ........ A proof was found. |
% | |
% +================================================+
% Base Clauses and Unit Clauses used in proof:
% ============================================
% Base Clauses:
% -------------
% B0: ~q2_2(x0,f_1(x1))
% B1: ~q3_2(x0,g_1(x1))
% B4: ~p1_2(x0,f_1(x1)) | q1_2(f_1(x0),x1) | q2_2(x0,f_1(x1))
% B5: ~p2_2(x0,f_1(x1)) | q3_2(f_1(x0),x1) | q4_2(x0,f_1(x1))
% Unit Clauses:
% --------------
% U2: < d0 v2 dv2 f5 c0 t7 td4 b nc > ~q4_2(f_1(f_1(x0)),f_1(g_1(f_1(x1))))
% U3: < d0 v1 dv1 f0 c1 t2 td1 b nc > p1_2(a_0(),x0)
% U5: < d2 v2 dv2 f5 c0 t7 td4 > ~p2_2(f_1(f_1(x0)),f_1(g_1(f_1(x1))))
% U6: < d3 v1 dv1 f2 c1 t4 td3 > p2_2(f_1(f_1(a_0())),x0)
% --------------- Start of Proof ---------------
% Derivation of unit clause U2:
% ~q4_2(f_1(f_1(x0)),f_1(g_1(f_1(x1)))) ....... U2
% Derivation of unit clause U3:
% p1_2(a_0(),x0) ....... U3
% Derivation of unit clause U5:
% ~q3_2(x0,g_1(x1)) ....... B1
% ~p2_2(x0,f_1(x1)) | q3_2(f_1(x0),x1) | q4_2(x0,f_1(x1)) ....... B5
% ~p2_2(x0, f_1(g_1(x1))) | q4_2(x0, f_1(g_1(x1))) ....... R1 [B1:L0, B5:L1]
% ~q4_2(f_1(f_1(x0)),f_1(g_1(f_1(x1)))) ....... U2
% ~p2_2(f_1(f_1(x0)), f_1(g_1(f_1(x1)))) ....... R2 [R1:L1, U2:L0]
% Derivation of unit clause U6:
% ~q2_2(x0,f_1(x1)) ....... B0
% ~p1_2(x0,f_1(x1)) | q1_2(f_1(x0),x1) | q2_2(x0,f_1(x1)) ....... B4
% ~p1_2(x0, f_1(x1)) | q1_2(f_1(x0), x1) ....... R1 [B0:L0, B4:L2]
% ~q1_2(x0,f_1(x1)) | p2_2(f_1(x0),x1) ....... B6
% ~p1_2(x0, f_1(f_1(x1))) | p2_2(f_1(f_1(x0)), x1) ....... R2 [R1:L1, B6:L0]
% p1_2(a_0(),x0) ....... U3
% p2_2(f_1(f_1(a_0())), x0) ....... R3 [R2:L0, U3:L0]
% Derivation of the empty clause:
% p2_2(f_1(f_1(a_0())),x0) ....... U6
% ~p2_2(f_1(f_1(x0)),f_1(g_1(f_1(x1)))) ....... U5
% [] ....... R1 [U6:L0, U5:L0]
% --------------- End of Proof ---------------
% PROOF FOUND!
% ---------------------------------------------
% | Statistics |
% ---------------------------------------------
% Profile 3: Performance Statistics:
% ==================================
% Total number of generated clauses: 28
% resolvents: 28 factors: 0
% Number of unit clauses generated: 8
% % unit clauses generated to total clauses generated: 28.57
% Number of unit clauses constructed and retained at depth [x]:
% =============================================================
% [0] = 4 [2] = 2 [3] = 1
% Total = 7
% Number of generated clauses having [x] literals:
% ------------------------------------------------
% [1] = 8 [2] = 18 [3] = 2
% Average size of a generated clause: 2.0
% Number of unit clauses per predicate list:
% ==========================================
% [0] p1_2 (+)1 (-)0
% [1] p2_2 (+)1 (-)1
% [2] q1_2 (+)1 (-)0
% [3] q2_2 (+)0 (-)1
% [4] q3_2 (+)0 (-)1
% [5] q4_2 (+)0 (-)1
% ------------------
% Total: (+)3 (-)4
% Total number of unit clauses retained: 7
% Number of clauses skipped because of their length: 10
% N base clauses skippped in resolve-with-all-base-clauses
% because of the shortest resolvents table: 0
% Number of successful unifications: 33
% Number of unification failures: 0
% Number of unit to unit unification failures: 0
% N literal unification failure due to lookup root_id table: 41
% N base clause resolution failure due to lookup table: 20
% N UC-BCL resolution dropped due to lookup table: 0
% Max entries in substitution set: 4
% N unit clauses dropped because they exceeded max values: 2
% 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: 7
% Max term depth in a unit clause: 4
% Number of states in UCFA table: 32
% Total number of terms of all unit clauses in table: 29
% Max allowed number of states in UCFA: 528000
% Ratio n states used/total allowed states: 0.00
% Ratio n states used/total unit clauses terms: 1.10
% Number of symbols (columns) in UCFA: 43
% Profile 2: Number of calls to:
% ==============================
% PTUnify() = 33
% ConstructUnitClause() = 5
% Profile 1: Time spent in:
% =========================
% ConstructUnitClause() : 0.00 secs
% --------------------------------------------------------
% | |
% Inferences per sec: inf
% | |
% --------------------------------------------------------
% Elapsed time: 1 secs
% CPU time: 0.37 secs
%
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------