TSTP Solution File: SYN035-1 by CARINE---0.734
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : CARINE---0.734
% Problem : SYN035-1 : 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 08:23:37 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/SystemOnTPTP11558/SYN/SYN035-1+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 = 2] [nf = 0] [nu = 0] [ut = 1]
% Looking for a proof at depth = 2 ...
% t = 0 secs [nr = 8] [nf = 0] [nu = 2] [ut = 2]
% Looking for a proof at depth = 3 ...
% t = 0 secs [nr = 18] [nf = 0] [nu = 4] [ut = 2]
% Looking for a proof at depth = 4 ...
% t = 0 secs [nr = 28] [nf = 0] [nu = 6] [ut = 2]
% Looking for a proof at depth = 5 ...
% t = 0 secs [nr = 38] [nf = 0] [nu = 8] [ut = 2]
% Looking for a proof at depth = 6 ...
% t = 0 secs [nr = 48] [nf = 0] [nu = 10] [ut = 2]
% Looking for a proof at depth = 7 ...
% t = 0 secs [nr = 58] [nf = 0] [nu = 12] [ut = 2]
% Looking for a proof at depth = 8 ...
% t = 0 secs [nr = 68] [nf = 0] [nu = 14] [ut = 2]
% Looking for a proof at depth = 9 ...
% t = 0 secs [nr = 78] [nf = 0] [nu = 16] [ut = 2]
% Looking for a proof at depth = 10 ...
% t = 0 secs [nr = 88] [nf = 0] [nu = 18] [ut = 2]
% Looking for a proof at depth = 11 ...
% t = 0 secs [nr = 98] [nf = 0] [nu = 20] [ut = 2]
% Looking for a proof at depth = 12 ...
% t = 0 secs [nr = 108] [nf = 0] [nu = 22] [ut = 2]
% Looking for a proof at depth = 13 ...
% t = 0 secs [nr = 118] [nf = 0] [nu = 24] [ut = 2]
% Looking for a proof at depth = 14 ...
% t = 0 secs [nr = 128] [nf = 0] [nu = 26] [ut = 2]
% Looking for a proof at depth = 15 ...
% t = 0 secs [nr = 138] [nf = 0] [nu = 28] [ut = 2]
% Looking for a proof at depth = 16 ...
% t = 0 secs [nr = 148] [nf = 0] [nu = 30] [ut = 2]
% Looking for a proof at depth = 17 ...
% t = 0 secs [nr = 158] [nf = 0] [nu = 32] [ut = 2]
% Looking for a proof at depth = 18 ...
% t = 0 secs [nr = 168] [nf = 0] [nu = 34] [ut = 2]
% Looking for a proof at depth = 19 ...
% t = 0 secs [nr = 178] [nf = 0] [nu = 36] [ut = 2]
% Looking for a proof at depth = 20 ...
% t = 0 secs [nr = 188] [nf = 0] [nu = 38] [ut = 2]
% Looking for a proof at depth = 21 ...
% t = 0 secs [nr = 198] [nf = 0] [nu = 40] [ut = 2]
% Looking for a proof at depth = 22 ...
% t = 0 secs [nr = 208] [nf = 0] [nu = 42] [ut = 2]
% Looking for a proof at depth = 23 ...
% t = 0 secs [nr = 218] [nf = 0] [nu = 44] [ut = 2]
% Looking for a proof at depth = 24 ...
% t = 0 secs [nr = 228] [nf = 0] [nu = 46] [ut = 2]
% Looking for a proof at depth = 25 ...
% t = 0 secs [nr = 238] [nf = 0] [nu = 48] [ut = 2]
% Looking for a proof at depth = 26 ...
% t = 0 secs [nr = 248] [nf = 0] [nu = 50] [ut = 2]
% Looking for a proof at depth = 27 ...
% t = 0 secs [nr = 258] [nf = 0] [nu = 52] [ut = 2]
% Looking for a proof at depth = 28 ...
% t = 0 secs [nr = 268] [nf = 0] [nu = 54] [ut = 2]
% Looking for a proof at depth = 29 ...
% t = 0 secs [nr = 278] [nf = 0] [nu = 56] [ut = 2]
% Looking for a proof at depth = 30 ...
% t = 0 secs [nr = 288] [nf = 0] [nu = 58] [ut = 2]
% Restarting search with different parameters.
% Looking for a proof at depth = 1 ...
% t = 0 secs [nr = 290] [nf = 0] [nu = 58] [ut = 2]
% Looking for a proof at depth = 2 ...
% t = 0 secs [nr = 296] [nf = 0] [nu = 60] [ut = 2]
% Looking for a proof at depth = 3 ...
% t = 0 secs [nr = 306] [nf = 0] [nu = 62] [ut = 2]
% Looking for a proof at depth = 4 ...
% t = 0 secs [nr = 318] [nf = 0] [nu = 64] [ut = 2]
% Looking for a proof at depth = 5 ...
% +================================================+
% | |
% | Congratulations!!! ........ A proof was found. |
% | |
% +================================================+
% Base Clauses and Unit Clauses used in proof:
% ============================================
% Base Clauses:
% -------------
% B0: ~p_2(x1,f_2(x0,x1)) | ~p_2(f_2(x0,x1),f_2(x0,x1)) | ~q_2(x0,f_2(x0,x1)) | ~q_2(f_2(x0,x1),f_2(x0,x1))
% B1: p_2(x0,x1)
% B2: ~p_2(x1,f_2(x0,x1)) | ~p_2(f_2(x0,x1),f_2(x0,x1)) | q_2(x0,x1)
% Unit Clauses:
% --------------
% U0: < d0 v2 dv2 f0 c0 t2 td1 b > p_2(x0,x1)
% U1: < d2 v2 dv2 f0 c0 t2 td1 > q_2(x0,x1)
% U2: < d5 v6 dv2 f4 c0 t10 td3 > ~p_2(f_2(x0,f_2(x0,x1)),f_2(x0,f_2(x0,x1)))
% --------------- Start of Proof ---------------
% Derivation of unit clause U0:
% p_2(x0,x1) ....... U0
% Derivation of unit clause U1:
% p_2(x0,x1) ....... B1
% ~p_2(x1,f_2(x0,x1)) | ~p_2(f_2(x0,x1),f_2(x0,x1)) | q_2(x0,x1) ....... B2
% ~p_2(f_2(x0, x1), f_2(x0, x1)) | q_2(x0, x1) ....... R1 [B1:L0, B2:L0]
% p_2(x0,x1) ....... U0
% q_2(x0, x1) ....... R2 [R1:L0, U0:L0]
% Derivation of unit clause U2:
% ~p_2(x1,f_2(x0,x1)) | ~p_2(f_2(x0,x1),f_2(x0,x1)) | ~q_2(x0,f_2(x0,x1)) | ~q_2(f_2(x0,x1),f_2(x0,x1)) ....... B0
% ~p_2(x1,f_2(x0,x1)) | ~p_2(f_2(x0,x1),f_2(x0,x1)) | q_2(x0,x1) ....... B2
% ~p_2(x0, f_2(x1, x0)) | ~p_2(f_2(x1, x0), f_2(x1, x0)) | ~q_2(f_2(x1, x0), f_2(x1, x0)) | ~p_2(f_2(x1, x0), f_2(x1, f_2(x1, x0))) | ~p_2(f_2(x1, f_2(x1, x0)), f_2(x1, f_2(x1, x0))) ....... R1 [B0:L2, B2:L2]
% p_2(x0,x1) ....... U0
% ~p_2(f_2(x0, x1), f_2(x0, x1)) | ~q_2(f_2(x0, x1), f_2(x0, x1)) | ~p_2(f_2(x0, x1), f_2(x0, f_2(x0, x1))) | ~p_2(f_2(x0, f_2(x0, x1)), f_2(x0, f_2(x0, x1))) ....... R2 [R1:L0, U0:L0]
% p_2(x0,x1) ....... U0
% ~q_2(f_2(x0, x1), f_2(x0, x1)) | ~p_2(f_2(x0, x1), f_2(x0, f_2(x0, x1))) | ~p_2(f_2(x0, f_2(x0, x1)), f_2(x0, f_2(x0, x1))) ....... R3 [R2:L0, U0:L0]
% q_2(x0,x1) ....... U1
% ~p_2(f_2(x0, x1), f_2(x0, f_2(x0, x1))) | ~p_2(f_2(x0, f_2(x0, x1)), f_2(x0, f_2(x0, x1))) ....... R4 [R3:L0, U1:L0]
% p_2(x0,x1) ....... U0
% ~p_2(f_2(x0, f_2(x0, x1)), f_2(x0, f_2(x0, x1))) ....... R5 [R4:L0, U0:L0]
% Derivation of the empty clause:
% ~p_2(f_2(x0,f_2(x0,x1)),f_2(x0,f_2(x0,x1))) ....... U2
% p_2(x0,x1) ....... U0
% [] ....... R1 [U2:L0, U0:L0]
% --------------- End of Proof ---------------
% PROOF FOUND!
% ---------------------------------------------
% | Statistics |
% ---------------------------------------------
% Profile 3: Performance Statistics:
% ==================================
% Total number of generated clauses: 327
% resolvents: 327 factors: 0
% Number of unit clauses generated: 65
% % unit clauses generated to total clauses generated: 19.88
% Number of unit clauses constructed and retained at depth [x]:
% =============================================================
% [0] = 1 [2] = 1 [5] = 1
% Total = 3
% Number of generated clauses having [x] literals:
% ------------------------------------------------
% [1] = 65 [2] = 133 [3] = 125 [4] = 1 [5] = 3
% Average size of a generated clause: 3.0
% Number of unit clauses per predicate list:
% ==========================================
% [0] p_2 (+)1 (-)1
% [1] q_2 (+)1 (-)0
% ------------------
% Total: (+)2 (-)1
% Total number of unit clauses retained: 3
% 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: 334
% Number of unification failures: 6
% Number of unit to unit unification failures: 0
% N literal unification failure due to lookup root_id table: 254
% N base clause resolution failure due to lookup table: 63
% 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: 3
% 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: 10
% Max term depth in a unit clause: 3
% Number of states in UCFA table: 17
% Total number of terms of all unit clauses in table: 14
% 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: 1.21
% Number of symbols (columns) in UCFA: 37
% Profile 2: Number of calls to:
% ==============================
% PTUnify() = 340
% ConstructUnitClause() = 5
% Profile 1: Time spent in:
% =========================
% ConstructUnitClause() : 0.00 secs
% --------------------------------------------------------
% | |
% Inferences per sec: inf
% | |
% --------------------------------------------------------
% Elapsed time: 0 secs
% CPU time: 0.13 secs
%
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------