TSTP Solution File: SYN030-1 by CARINE---0.734
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : CARINE---0.734
% Problem : SYN030-1 : 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 08:23:12 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/SystemOnTPTP27415/SYN/SYN030-1+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 = 8] [nf = 0] [nu = 0] [ut = 0]
% Looking for a proof at depth = 2 ...
% t = 0 secs [nr = 53] [nf = 6] [nu = 5] [ut = 2]
% Looking for a proof at depth = 3 ...
% +================================================+
% | |
% | Congratulations!!! ........ A proof was found. |
% | |
% +================================================+
% Base Clauses and Unit Clauses used in proof:
% ============================================
% Base Clauses:
% -------------
% B0: ~p | ~q | ~r
% B1: ~q | r
% B2: q | r
% B3: ~r | q
% B4: ~r | s
% B7: ~q | ~r | t
% B8: ~s | ~t | p
% Unit Clauses:
% --------------
% U0: < d2 v0 dv0 f0 c0 t0 td0 > r
% U1: < d2 v0 dv0 f0 c0 t0 td0 > q
% U2: < d3 v0 dv0 f0 c0 t0 td0 > ~p
% U4: < d3 v0 dv0 f0 c0 t0 td0 > t
% U5: < d3 v0 dv0 f0 c0 t0 td0 > p
% --------------- Start of Proof ---------------
% Derivation of unit clause U0:
% ~q | r ....... B1
% q | r ....... B2
% r | r ....... R1 [B1:L0, B2:L0]
% r ....... R2 [R1:L0, R1:L1]
% Derivation of unit clause U1:
% q | r ....... B2
% ~r | q ....... B3
% q | q ....... R1 [B2:L1, B3:L0]
% q ....... R2 [R1:L0, R1:L1]
% Derivation of unit clause U2:
% ~p | ~q | ~r ....... B0
% ~q | r ....... B1
% ~p | ~q | ~q ....... R1 [B0:L2, B1:L1]
% ~p | ~q ....... R2 [R1:L1, R1:L2]
% q ....... U1
% ~p ....... R3 [R2:L1, U1:L0]
% Derivation of unit clause U4:
% ~q | r ....... B1
% ~q | ~r | t ....... B7
% ~q | ~q | t ....... R1 [B1:L1, B7:L1]
% ~q | t ....... R2 [R1:L0, R1:L1]
% q ....... U1
% t ....... R3 [R2:L0, U1:L0]
% Derivation of unit clause U5:
% ~r | s ....... B4
% ~s | ~t | p ....... B8
% ~r | ~t | p ....... R1 [B4:L1, B8:L0]
% r ....... U0
% ~t | p ....... R2 [R1:L0, U0:L0]
% t ....... U4
% p ....... R3 [R2:L0, U4:L0]
% Derivation of the empty clause:
% p ....... U5
% ~p ....... U2
% [] ....... R1 [U5:L0, U2:L0]
% --------------- End of Proof ---------------
% PROOF FOUND!
% ---------------------------------------------
% | Statistics |
% ---------------------------------------------
% Profile 3: Performance Statistics:
% ==================================
% Total number of generated clauses: 315
% resolvents: 300 factors: 15
% Number of unit clauses generated: 35
% % unit clauses generated to total clauses generated: 11.11
% Number of unit clauses constructed and retained at depth [x]:
% =============================================================
% [2] = 2 [3] = 4
% Total = 6
% Number of generated clauses having [x] literals:
% ------------------------------------------------
% [1] = 35 [2] = 190 [3] = 90
% Average size of a generated clause: 3.0
% Number of unit clauses per predicate list:
% ==========================================
% [0] p (+)1 (-)1
% [1] q (+)1 (-)0
% [2] r (+)1 (-)0
% [3] s (+)1 (-)0
% [4] t (+)1 (-)0
% ------------------
% Total: (+)5 (-)1
% Total number of unit clauses retained: 6
% Number of clauses skipped because of their length: 273
% N base clauses skippped in resolve-with-all-base-clauses
% because of the shortest resolvents table: 11
% Number of successful unifications: 328
% Number of unification failures: 0
% Number of unit to unit unification failures: 0
% N literal unification failure due to lookup root_id table: 909
% N base clause resolution failure due to lookup table: 285
% 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: 17
% 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() = 328
% ConstructUnitClause() = 23
% Profile 1: Time spent in:
% =========================
% ConstructUnitClause() : 0.00 secs
% --------------------------------------------------------
% | |
% Inferences per sec: inf
% | |
% --------------------------------------------------------
% Elapsed time: 0 secs
% CPU time: 0.14 secs
%
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------