TSTP Solution File: SYN101-1.002.002 by CARINE---0.734
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : CARINE---0.734
% Problem : SYN101-1.002.002 : TPTP v5.0.0. Bugfixed v1.2.1.
% Transfm : add_equality
% Format : carine
% Command : carine %s t=%d xo=off uct=32000
% Computer : art04.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 08:32:20 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/SystemOnTPTP2670/SYN/SYN101-1.002.002+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 = 18] [nf = 0] [nu = 0] [ut = 5]
% Looking for a proof at depth = 2 ...
% t = 1 secs [nr = 138] [nf = 0] [nu = 32] [ut = 21]
% Looking for a proof at depth = 3 ...
% t = 1 secs [nr = 628] [nf = 0] [nu = 152] [ut = 22]
% Looking for a proof at depth = 4 ...
% +================================================+
% | |
% | Congratulations!!! ........ A proof was found. |
% | |
% +================================================+
% Base Clauses and Unit Clauses used in proof:
% ============================================
% Base Clauses:
% -------------
% B0: ~p_1_2_2(a_0(),a_0())
% B1: nq_1_1(a_0())
% B10: ~nq_1_1(x0) | ~nq_2_1(x1) | p_2_2_2(x0,x1)
% B13: ~p_1_1_2(x0,x1) | ~p_2_2_2(x0,x1) | p_1_2_2(x0,x1)
% Unit Clauses:
% --------------
% U1: < d0 v0 dv0 f0 c1 t1 td1 b > nq_1_1(a_0())
% U3: < d0 v0 dv0 f0 c1 t1 td1 b > nq_2_1(a_0())
% U7: < d2 v0 dv0 f0 c2 t2 td1 > p_2_2_2(a_0(),a_0())
% U22: < d4 v0 dv0 f0 c1 t1 td1 > ~nq_2_1(a_0())
% --------------- Start of Proof ---------------
% Derivation of unit clause U1:
% nq_1_1(a_0()) ....... U1
% Derivation of unit clause U3:
% nq_2_1(a_0()) ....... U3
% Derivation of unit clause U7:
% nq_1_1(a_0()) ....... B1
% ~nq_1_1(x0) | ~nq_2_1(x1) | p_2_2_2(x0,x1) ....... B10
% ~nq_2_1(x0) | p_2_2_2(a_0(), x0) ....... R1 [B1:L0, B10:L0]
% nq_2_1(a_0()) ....... U3
% p_2_2_2(a_0(), a_0()) ....... R2 [R1:L0, U3:L0]
% Derivation of unit clause U22:
% ~p_1_2_2(a_0(),a_0()) ....... B0
% ~p_1_1_2(x0,x1) | ~p_2_2_2(x0,x1) | p_1_2_2(x0,x1) ....... B13
% ~p_1_1_2(a_0(), a_0()) | ~p_2_2_2(a_0(), a_0()) ....... R1 [B0:L0, B13:L2]
% ~nq_1_1(x0) | ~nq_2_1(x1) | p_1_1_2(x0,x1) ....... B9
% ~p_2_2_2(a_0(), a_0()) | ~nq_1_1(a_0()) | ~nq_2_1(a_0()) ....... R2 [R1:L0, B9:L2]
% p_2_2_2(a_0(),a_0()) ....... U7
% ~nq_1_1(a_0()) | ~nq_2_1(a_0()) ....... R3 [R2:L0, U7:L0]
% nq_1_1(a_0()) ....... U1
% ~nq_2_1(a_0()) ....... R4 [R3:L0, U1:L0]
% Derivation of the empty clause:
% ~nq_2_1(a_0()) ....... U22
% nq_2_1(a_0()) ....... U3
% [] ....... R1 [U22:L0, U3:L0]
% --------------- End of Proof ---------------
% PROOF FOUND!
% ---------------------------------------------
% | Statistics |
% ---------------------------------------------
% Profile 3: Performance Statistics:
% ==================================
% Total number of generated clauses: 650
% resolvents: 646 factors: 4
% Number of unit clauses generated: 159
% % unit clauses generated to total clauses generated: 24.46
% Number of unit clauses constructed and retained at depth [x]:
% =============================================================
% [0] = 5 [2] = 16 [3] = 1
% [4] = 1
% Total = 23
% Number of generated clauses having [x] literals:
% ------------------------------------------------
% [1] = 159 [2] = 416 [3] = 75
% Average size of a generated clause: 2.0
% Number of unit clauses per predicate list:
% ==========================================
% [0] nq_1_1 (+)2 (-)0
% [1] nq_2_1 (+)2 (-)1
% [2] p_1_1_2 (+)4 (-)0
% [3] p_1_2_2 (+)0 (-)1
% [4] p_2_2_2 (+)4 (-)0
% [5] q_1_1_2 (+)4 (-)0
% [6] q_1_2_2 (+)0 (-)1
% [7] q_2_2_2 (+)4 (-)0
% ------------------
% Total: (+)20 (-)3
% Total number of unit clauses retained: 23
% Number of clauses skipped because of their length: 1114
% N base clauses skippped in resolve-with-all-base-clauses
% because of the shortest resolvents table: 64
% Number of successful unifications: 656
% Number of unification failures: 276
% Number of unit to unit unification failures: 0
% N literal unification failure due to lookup root_id table: 990
% N base clause resolution failure due to lookup table: 1036
% N UC-BCL resolution dropped due to lookup table: 0
% Max entries in substitution set: 6
% N unit clauses dropped because they exceeded max values: 101
% 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: 2
% Max term depth in a unit clause: 1
% Number of states in UCFA table: 22
% Total number of terms of all unit clauses in table: 41
% 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: 0.54
% Number of symbols (columns) in UCFA: 44
% Profile 2: Number of calls to:
% ==============================
% PTUnify() = 932
% ConstructUnitClause() = 119
% Profile 1: Time spent in:
% =========================
% ConstructUnitClause() : 0.00 secs
% --------------------------------------------------------
% | |
% Inferences per sec: inf
% | |
% --------------------------------------------------------
% Elapsed time: 1 secs
% CPU time: 0.14 secs
%
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------