%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File     : CARINE---0.734
% Problem  : SYN068-1 : TPTP v5.0.0. Released v1.0.0.
% Transfm  : add_equality
% Format   : carine
% Command  : carine %s t=%d xo=off uct=32000

% Computer : art09.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 08:28:16 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/SystemOnTPTP31514/SYN/SYN068-1+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 = 12] [nf = 0] [nu = 5] [ut = 6]
% Looking for a proof at depth = 2 ...
% +================================================+
% |                                                |
% | Congratulations!!! ........ A proof was found. |
% |                                                |
% +================================================+
% Base Clauses and Unit Clauses used in proof:
% ============================================
% Base Clauses:
% -------------
% B0: ~big_j_1(x0) | big_f_1(x0)
% B2: ~big_g_1(x0) | big_h_2(a_0(),x0)
% B4: ~big_f_1(x0) | big_g_1(g_1(x0))
% B6: ~big_f_1(x0) | ~big_h_2(x0,g_1(x0))
% Unit Clauses:
% --------------
% U0: < d0 v0 dv0 f0 c1 t1 td1 b > big_j_1(a_0())
% U1: < d1 v0 dv0 f0 c1 t1 td1 > big_f_1(a_0())
% U5: < d1 v0 dv0 f1 c2 t3 td2 > ~big_h_2(a_0(),g_1(a_0()))
% U6: < d2 v0 dv0 f0 c1 t1 td1 > ~big_f_1(a_0())
% --------------- Start of Proof ---------------
% Derivation of unit clause U0:
% big_j_1(a_0()) ....... U0
% Derivation of unit clause U1:
% ~big_j_1(x0) | big_f_1(x0) ....... B0
% big_j_1(a_0()) ....... U0
%  big_f_1(a_0()) ....... R1 [B0:L0, U0:L0]
% Derivation of unit clause U5:
% ~big_f_1(x0) | ~big_h_2(x0,g_1(x0)) ....... B6
% big_f_1(a_0()) ....... U1
%  ~big_h_2(a_0(), g_1(a_0())) ....... R1 [B6:L0, U1:L0]
% Derivation of unit clause U6:
% ~big_g_1(x0) | big_h_2(a_0(),x0) ....... B2
% ~big_f_1(x0) | big_g_1(g_1(x0)) ....... B4
%  big_h_2(a_0(), g_1(x0)) | ~big_f_1(x0) ....... R1 [B2:L0, B4:L1]
%  ~big_h_2(a_0(),g_1(a_0())) ....... U5
%   ~big_f_1(a_0()) ....... R2 [R1:L0, U5:L0]
% Derivation of the empty clause:
% ~big_f_1(a_0()) ....... U6
% big_f_1(a_0()) ....... U1
%  [] ....... R1 [U6:L0, U1:L0]
% --------------- End of Proof ---------------
% PROOF FOUND!
% ---------------------------------------------
% |                Statistics                 |
% ---------------------------------------------
% Profile 3: Performance Statistics:
% ==================================
% Total number of generated clauses: 32
% 	resolvents: 32	factors: 0
% Number of unit clauses generated: 15
% % unit clauses generated to total clauses generated: 46.88
% Number of unit clauses constructed and retained at depth [x]:
% =============================================================
% [0] = 1		[1] = 5		[2] = 1		
% Total = 7
% Number of generated clauses having [x] literals:
% ------------------------------------------------
% [1] = 15	[2] = 17	
% Average size of a generated clause: 2.0
% Number of unit clauses per predicate list:
% ==========================================
% [0] big_f_1		(+)1	(-)1
% [1] big_g_1		(+)2	(-)0
% [2] big_j_1		(+)1	(-)0
% [3] big_h_2		(+)1	(-)1
% 			------------------
% 		Total:	(+)5	(-)2
% 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: 36
% Number of unification failures: 2
% Number of unit to unit unification failures: 1
% N literal unification failure due to lookup root_id table: 92
% N base clause resolution failure due to lookup table: 59
% N UC-BCL resolution dropped due to lookup table: 0
% Max entries in substitution set: 3
% N unit clauses dropped because they exceeded max values: 5
% 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: 2
% Number of states in UCFA table: 15
% Total number of terms of all unit clauses in table: 13
% 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: 1.15
% Number of symbols (columns) in UCFA: 41
% Profile 2: Number of calls to:
% ==============================
% PTUnify() = 38
% ConstructUnitClause() = 11
% Profile 1: Time spent in:
% =========================
% ConstructUnitClause() : 0.00 secs
% --------------------------------------------------------
% |                                                      |
%   Inferences per sec: inf
% |                                                      |
% --------------------------------------------------------
% Elapsed time: 0 secs
% CPU time: 0.13 secs
% 
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------