TSTP Solution File: SYN125-1 by CARINE---0.734
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : CARINE---0.734
% Problem : SYN125-1 : TPTP v5.0.0. Released v1.1.0.
% Transfm : add_equality
% Format : carine
% Command : carine %s t=%d xo=off uct=32000
% Computer : art06.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 08:34:26 EST 2010
% Result : Unsatisfiable 0.27s
% Output : Refutation 0.27s
% 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/SystemOnTPTP27343/SYN/SYN125-1+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 = 831] [nf = 0] [nu = 404] [ut = 133]
% Looking for a proof at depth = 2 ...
% t = 0 secs [nr = 6518] [nf = 78] [nu = 2298] [ut = 244]
% Looking for a proof at depth = 3 ...
% +================================================+
% | |
% | Congratulations!!! ........ A proof was found. |
% | |
% +================================================+
% Base Clauses and Unit Clauses used in proof:
% ============================================
% Base Clauses:
% -------------
% B0: ~l3_2(e_0(),c_0())
% B5: k0_1(e_0())
% B179: ~k0_1(x1) | ~l0_1(x0) | m1_3(x0,x1,x0)
% B197: ~r0_1(x0) | ~p2_3(x0,x1,x0) | l3_2(x0,x1)
% Unit Clauses:
% --------------
% U8: < d0 v0 dv0 f0 c1 t1 td1 b > l0_1(c_0())
% U9: < d0 v0 dv0 f0 c1 t1 td1 b > r0_1(e_0())
% U162: < d2 v0 dv0 f0 c3 t3 td1 > m1_3(c_0(),e_0(),c_0())
% U244: < d3 v0 dv0 f0 c3 t3 td1 > ~m1_3(c_0(),e_0(),c_0())
% --------------- Start of Proof ---------------
% Derivation of unit clause U8:
% l0_1(c_0()) ....... U8
% Derivation of unit clause U9:
% r0_1(e_0()) ....... U9
% Derivation of unit clause U162:
% k0_1(e_0()) ....... B5
% ~k0_1(x1) | ~l0_1(x0) | m1_3(x0,x1,x0) ....... B179
% ~l0_1(x0) | m1_3(x0, e_0(), x0) ....... R1 [B5:L0, B179:L0]
% l0_1(c_0()) ....... U8
% m1_3(c_0(), e_0(), c_0()) ....... R2 [R1:L0, U8:L0]
% Derivation of unit clause U244:
% ~l3_2(e_0(),c_0()) ....... B0
% ~r0_1(x0) | ~p2_3(x0,x1,x0) | l3_2(x0,x1) ....... B197
% ~r0_1(e_0()) | ~p2_3(e_0(), c_0(), e_0()) ....... R1 [B0:L0, B197:L2]
% ~m1_3(x1,x0,x1) | p2_3(x0,x1,x0) ....... B70
% ~r0_1(e_0()) | ~m1_3(c_0(), e_0(), c_0()) ....... R2 [R1:L1, B70:L1]
% r0_1(e_0()) ....... U9
% ~m1_3(c_0(), e_0(), c_0()) ....... R3 [R2:L0, U9:L0]
% Derivation of the empty clause:
% ~m1_3(c_0(),e_0(),c_0()) ....... U244
% m1_3(c_0(),e_0(),c_0()) ....... U162
% [] ....... R1 [U244:L0, U162:L0]
% --------------- End of Proof ---------------
% PROOF FOUND!
% ---------------------------------------------
% | Statistics |
% ---------------------------------------------
% Profile 3: Performance Statistics:
% ==================================
% Total number of generated clauses: 6600
% resolvents: 6522 factors: 78
% Number of unit clauses generated: 2300
% % unit clauses generated to total clauses generated: 34.85
% Number of unit clauses constructed and retained at depth [x]:
% =============================================================
% [0] = 39 [1] = 94 [2] = 111 [3] = 1
% Total = 245
% Number of generated clauses having [x] literals:
% ------------------------------------------------
% [1] = 2300 [2] = 3306 [3] = 994
% Average size of a generated clause: 2.0
% Number of unit clauses per predicate list:
% ==========================================
% [0] k0_1 (+)2 (-)0
% [1] k1_1 (+)5 (-)0
% [2] k4_1 (+)0 (-)0
% [3] k5_1 (+)0 (-)0
% [4] l0_1 (+)2 (-)0
% [5] l4_1 (+)6 (-)0
% [6] l5_1 (+)0 (-)0
% [7] m2_1 (+)2 (-)0
% [8] n2_1 (+)6 (-)0
% [9] n3_1 (+)6 (-)0
% [10] r0_1 (+)2 (-)0
% [11] r1_1 (+)0 (-)0
% [12] r2_1 (+)0 (-)0
% [13] r4_1 (+)0 (-)0
% [14] s0_1 (+)2 (-)0
% [15] s1_1 (+)5 (-)0
% [16] s2_1 (+)1 (-)0
% [17] s4_1 (+)0 (-)0
% [18] s5_1 (+)0 (-)0
% [19] k2_2 (+)6 (-)0
% [20] l1_2 (+)5 (-)0
% [21] l2_2 (+)0 (-)0
% [22] l3_2 (+)3 (-)1
% [23] m4_2 (+)0 (-)0
% [24] m5_2 (+)0 (-)0
% [25] n0_2 (+)8 (-)0
% [26] n4_2 (+)0 (-)0
% [27] n5_2 (+)0 (-)0
% [28] p0_2 (+)4 (-)0
% [29] q0_2 (+)8 (-)0
% [30] q3_2 (+)2 (-)0
% [31] q4_2 (+)0 (-)0
% [32] q5_2 (+)0 (-)0
% [33] r5_2 (+)0 (-)0
% [34] s3_2 (+)0 (-)0
% [35] k3_3 (+)7 (-)0
% [36] m0_3 (+)10 (-)1
% [37] m1_3 (+)23 (-)1
% [38] m3_3 (+)6 (-)0
% [39] n1_3 (+)21 (-)0
% [40] p1_3 (+)21 (-)1
% [41] p2_3 (+)10 (-)1
% [42] p3_3 (+)6 (-)0
% [43] p4_3 (+)6 (-)0
% [44] p5_3 (+)0 (-)0
% [45] q1_3 (+)32 (-)0
% [46] q2_3 (+)16 (-)0
% [47] r3_3 (+)7 (-)0
% ------------------
% Total: (+)240 (-)5
% Total number of unit clauses retained: 245
% Number of clauses skipped because of their length: 72187
% N base clauses skippped in resolve-with-all-base-clauses
% because of the shortest resolvents table: 0
% Number of successful unifications: 6605
% Number of unification failures: 2766
% Number of unit to unit unification failures: 56
% N literal unification failure due to lookup root_id table: 15948
% N base clause resolution failure due to lookup table: 86065
% N UC-BCL resolution dropped due to lookup table: 21
% Max entries in substitution set: 6
% N unit clauses dropped because they exceeded max values: 1575
% 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: 1
% Number of states in UCFA table: 282
% Total number of terms of all unit clauses in table: 620
% 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: 0.45
% Number of symbols (columns) in UCFA: 87
% Profile 2: Number of calls to:
% ==============================
% PTUnify() = 9371
% ConstructUnitClause() = 1781
% Profile 1: Time spent in:
% =========================
% ConstructUnitClause() : 0.00 secs
% --------------------------------------------------------
% | |
% Inferences per sec: inf
% | |
% --------------------------------------------------------
% Elapsed time: 0 secs
% CPU time: 0.27 secs
%
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------