TSTP Solution File: SYN028-1 by CARINE---0.734
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : CARINE---0.734
% Problem : SYN028-1 : 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 08:23:01 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/SystemOnTPTP27286/SYN/SYN028-1+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 = 8] [nf = 0] [nu = 6] [ut = 5]
% Looking for a proof at depth = 2 ...
% t = 1 secs [nr = 26] [nf = 1] [nu = 14] [ut = 5]
% Looking for a proof at depth = 3 ...
% +================================================+
% | |
% | Congratulations!!! ........ A proof was found. |
% | |
% +================================================+
% Base Clauses and Unit Clauses used in proof:
% ============================================
% Base Clauses:
% -------------
% B0: ~p
% B1: p | q
% B2: ~q | r
% B3: ~r | s
% B4: ~t | p
% B5: ~r | ~s | t
% Unit Clauses:
% --------------
% U1: < d1 v0 dv0 f0 c0 t0 td0 > q
% U2: < d1 v0 dv0 f0 c0 t0 td0 > ~t
% U3: < d1 v0 dv0 f0 c0 t0 td0 > r
% U4: < d1 v0 dv0 f0 c0 t0 td0 > s
% U5: < d3 v0 dv0 f0 c0 t0 td0 > t
% --------------- Start of Proof ---------------
% Derivation of unit clause U1:
% ~p ....... B0
% p | q ....... B1
% q ....... R1 [B0:L0, B1:L0]
% Derivation of unit clause U2:
% ~p ....... B0
% ~t | p ....... B4
% ~t ....... R1 [B0:L0, B4:L1]
% Derivation of unit clause U3:
% ~q | r ....... B2
% q ....... U1
% r ....... R1 [B2:L0, U1:L0]
% Derivation of unit clause U4:
% ~r | s ....... B3
% r ....... U3
% s ....... R1 [B3:L0, U3:L0]
% Derivation of unit clause U5:
% ~q | r ....... B2
% ~r | ~s | t ....... B5
% ~q | ~s | t ....... R1 [B2:L1, B5:L0]
% q ....... U1
% ~s | t ....... R2 [R1:L0, U1:L0]
% s ....... U4
% t ....... R3 [R2:L0, U4:L0]
% Derivation of the empty clause:
% t ....... U5
% ~t ....... U2
% [] ....... R1 [U5:L0, U2:L0]
% --------------- End of Proof ---------------
% PROOF FOUND!
% ---------------------------------------------
% | Statistics |
% ---------------------------------------------
% Profile 3: Performance Statistics:
% ==================================
% Total number of generated clauses: 44
% resolvents: 43 factors: 1
% Number of unit clauses generated: 23
% % unit clauses generated to total clauses generated: 52.27
% Number of unit clauses constructed and retained at depth [x]:
% =============================================================
% [0] = 1 [1] = 4 [3] = 1
% Total = 6
% Number of generated clauses having [x] literals:
% ------------------------------------------------
% [1] = 23 [2] = 15 [3] = 6
% Average size of a generated clause: 2.0
% Number of unit clauses per predicate list:
% ==========================================
% [0] p (+)0 (-)1
% [1] q (+)1 (-)0
% [2] r (+)1 (-)0
% [3] s (+)1 (-)0
% [4] t (+)1 (-)1
% ------------------
% Total: (+)4 (-)2
% Total number of unit clauses retained: 6
% Number of clauses skipped because of their length: 13
% N base clauses skippped in resolve-with-all-base-clauses
% because of the shortest resolvents table: 0
% Number of successful unifications: 51
% Number of unification failures: 0
% Number of unit to unit unification failures: 0
% N literal unification failure due to lookup root_id table: 75
% N base clause resolution failure due to lookup table: 65
% 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: 6
% 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: 0
% Max term depth in a unit clause: 0
% Number of states in UCFA table: 3
% Total number of terms of all unit clauses in table: 0
% 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: inf
% Number of symbols (columns) in UCFA: 39
% Profile 2: Number of calls to:
% ==============================
% PTUnify() = 51
% ConstructUnitClause() = 11
% Profile 1: Time spent in:
% =========================
% ConstructUnitClause() : 0.00 secs
% --------------------------------------------------------
% | |
% Inferences per sec: inf
% | |
% --------------------------------------------------------
% Elapsed time: 1 secs
% CPU time: 0.14 secs
%
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------