TSTP Solution File: SYN009-1 by CARINE---0.734
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : CARINE---0.734
% Problem : SYN009-1 : 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 08:22:03 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/SystemOnTPTP30983/SYN/SYN009-1+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 = 0] [nf = 0] [nu = 0] [ut = 6]
% Looking for a proof at depth = 2 ...
% t = 0 secs [nr = 0] [nf = 0] [nu = 0] [ut = 6]
% Looking for a proof at depth = 3 ...
% t = 0 secs [nr = 0] [nf = 0] [nu = 0] [ut = 6]
% Looking for a proof at depth = 4 ...
% t = 0 secs [nr = 0] [nf = 0] [nu = 0] [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: ~p_3(c_0(),x0,x1)
% B6: ~s_1(x2) | ~s_1(x1) | ~s_1(x0) | p_3(x0,x1,x2) | q_3(x0,x1,x2) | r_3(x0,x1,x2)
% Unit Clauses:
% --------------
% U0: < d0 v2 dv2 f0 c1 t3 td1 b nc > ~p_3(c_0(),x0,x1)
% U1: < d0 v2 dv2 f0 c1 t3 td1 b nc > ~q_3(x0,c_0(),x1)
% U2: < d0 v2 dv2 f0 c1 t3 td1 b nc > ~r_3(x0,x1,c_0())
% U3: < d0 v0 dv0 f0 c1 t1 td1 b nc > s_1(c_0())
% U6: < d5 v0 dv0 f0 c3 t3 td1 > r_3(c_0(),c_0(),c_0())
% --------------- Start of Proof ---------------
% Derivation of unit clause U0:
% ~p_3(c_0(),x0,x1) ....... U0
% Derivation of unit clause U1:
% ~q_3(x0,c_0(),x1) ....... U1
% Derivation of unit clause U2:
% ~r_3(x0,x1,c_0()) ....... U2
% Derivation of unit clause U3:
% s_1(c_0()) ....... U3
% Derivation of unit clause U6:
% ~s_1(x2) | ~s_1(x1) | ~s_1(x0) | p_3(x0,x1,x2) | q_3(x0,x1,x2) | r_3(x0,x1,x2) ....... B6
% ~s_1(x0) | ~s_1(x1) | p_3(x1, x0, x0) | q_3(x1, x0, x0) | r_3(x1, x0, x0) ....... R1 [B6:L0, B6:L1]
% s_1(c_0()) ....... U3
% ~s_1(x0) | p_3(x0, c_0(), c_0()) | q_3(x0, c_0(), c_0()) | r_3(x0, c_0(), c_0()) ....... R2 [R1:L0, U3:L0]
% s_1(c_0()) ....... U3
% p_3(c_0(), c_0(), c_0()) | q_3(c_0(), c_0(), c_0()) | r_3(c_0(), c_0(), c_0()) ....... R3 [R2:L0, U3:L0]
% ~p_3(c_0(),x0,x1) ....... U0
% q_3(c_0(), c_0(), c_0()) | r_3(c_0(), c_0(), c_0()) ....... R4 [R3:L0, U0:L0]
% ~q_3(x0,c_0(),x1) ....... U1
% r_3(c_0(), c_0(), c_0()) ....... R5 [R4:L0, U1:L0]
% Derivation of the empty clause:
% r_3(c_0(),c_0(),c_0()) ....... U6
% ~r_3(x0,x1,c_0()) ....... U2
% [] ....... R1 [U6:L0, U2:L0]
% --------------- End of Proof ---------------
% PROOF FOUND!
% ---------------------------------------------
% | Statistics |
% ---------------------------------------------
% Profile 3: Performance Statistics:
% ==================================
% Total number of generated clauses: 5
% resolvents: 4 factors: 1
% Number of unit clauses generated: 1
% % unit clauses generated to total clauses generated: 20.00
% Number of unit clauses constructed and retained at depth [x]:
% =============================================================
% [0] = 6 [5] = 1
% Total = 7
% Number of generated clauses having [x] literals:
% ------------------------------------------------
% [1] = 1 [2] = 1 [3] = 1 [4] = 1 [5] = 1
% Average size of a generated clause: 3.0
% Number of unit clauses per predicate list:
% ==========================================
% [0] s_1 (+)3 (-)0
% [1] p_3 (+)0 (-)1
% [2] q_3 (+)0 (-)1
% [3] r_3 (+)1 (-)1
% ------------------
% Total: (+)4 (-)3
% Total number of unit clauses retained: 7
% Number of clauses skipped because of their length: 0
% N base clauses skippped in resolve-with-all-base-clauses
% because of the shortest resolvents table: 0
% Number of successful unifications: 10
% Number of unification failures: 0
% Number of unit to unit unification failures: 0
% N literal unification failure due to lookup root_id table: 0
% N base clause resolution failure due to lookup table: 0
% N UC-BCL resolution dropped due to lookup table: 0
% Max entries in substitution set: 0
% N unit clauses dropped because they exceeded max values: 0
% 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: 3
% Max term depth in a unit clause: 1
% Number of states in UCFA table: 16
% Total number of terms of all unit clauses in table: 15
% 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: 1.07
% Number of symbols (columns) in UCFA: 41
% Profile 2: Number of calls to:
% ==============================
% PTUnify() = 10
% ConstructUnitClause() = 1
% Profile 1: Time spent in:
% =========================
% ConstructUnitClause() : 0.00 secs
% --------------------------------------------------------
% | |
% Inferences per sec: inf
% | |
% --------------------------------------------------------
% Elapsed time: 0 secs
% CPU time: 0.14 secs
%
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------