%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File     : CARINE---0.734
% Problem  : SYN029-1 : TPTP v5.0.0. Released v1.0.0.
% Transfm  : add_equality
% Format   : carine
% Command  : carine %s t=%d xo=off uct=32000

% Computer : art03.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 08:23:08 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/SystemOnTPTP25907/SYN/SYN029-1+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 = 5] [nf = 0] [nu = 0] [ut = 1]
% Looking for a proof at depth = 2 ...
% +================================================+
% |                                                |
% | Congratulations!!! ........ A proof was found. |
% |                                                |
% +================================================+
% Base Clauses and Unit Clauses used in proof:
% ============================================
% Base Clauses:
% -------------
% B0: ~p | ~q
% B1: r
% B2: ~p | q
% B3: p | q
% B4: ~q | ~r | p
% Unit Clauses:
% --------------
% U1: < d2 v0 dv0 f0 c0 t0 td0 > ~p
% U2: < d2 v0 dv0 f0 c0 t0 td0 > ~q
% U3: < d2 v0 dv0 f0 c0 t0 td0 > q
% --------------- Start of Proof ---------------
% Derivation of unit clause U1:
% ~p | ~q ....... B0
% ~p | q ....... B2
%  ~p | ~p ....... R1 [B0:L1, B2:L1]
%   ~p ....... R2 [R1:L0, R1:L1]
% Derivation of unit clause U2:
% r ....... B1
% ~q | ~r | p ....... B4
%  ~q | p ....... R1 [B1:L0, B4:L1]
%  ~p ....... U1
%   ~q ....... R2 [R1:L1, U1:L0]
% Derivation of unit clause U3:
% ~p | q ....... B2
% p | q ....... B3
%  q | q ....... R1 [B2:L0, B3:L0]
%   q ....... R2 [R1:L0, R1:L1]
% Derivation of the empty clause:
% q ....... U3
% ~q ....... U2
%  [] ....... R1 [U3:L0, U2:L0]
% --------------- End of Proof ---------------
% PROOF FOUND!
% ---------------------------------------------
% |                Statistics                 |
% ---------------------------------------------
% Profile 3: Performance Statistics:
% ==================================
% Total number of generated clauses: 29
% 	resolvents: 26	factors: 3
% Number of unit clauses generated: 5
% % unit clauses generated to total clauses generated: 17.24
% Number of unit clauses constructed and retained at depth [x]:
% =============================================================
% [0] = 1		[2] = 3		
% Total = 4
% Number of generated clauses having [x] literals:
% ------------------------------------------------
% [1] = 5	[2] = 23	[3] = 1	
% Average size of a generated clause: 2.0
% Number of unit clauses per predicate list:
% ==========================================
% [0] p		(+)0	(-)1
% [1] q		(+)1	(-)1
% [2] r		(+)1	(-)0
% 			------------------
% 		Total:	(+)2	(-)2
% Total number of unit clauses retained: 4
% Number of clauses skipped because of their length: 8
% N base clauses skippped in resolve-with-all-base-clauses
% 	because of the shortest resolvents table: 0
% Number of successful unifications: 35
% Number of unification failures: 0
% Number of unit to unit unification failures: 0
% N literal unification failure due to lookup root_id table: 46
% N base clause resolution failure due to lookup table: 15
% 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: 1
% 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: 37
% Profile 2: Number of calls to:
% ==============================
% PTUnify() = 35
% ConstructUnitClause() = 4
% Profile 1: Time spent in:
% =========================
% ConstructUnitClause() : 0.00 secs
% --------------------------------------------------------
% |                                                      |
%   Inferences per sec: inf
% |                                                      |
% --------------------------------------------------------
% Elapsed time: 0 secs
% CPU time: 0.14 secs
% 
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------