TSTP Solution File: SYN240-1 by CARINE---0.734
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : CARINE---0.734
% Problem : SYN240-1 : TPTP v5.0.0. Released v1.1.0.
% Transfm : add_equality
% Format : carine
% Command : carine %s t=%d xo=off uct=32000
% Computer : art11.cs.miami.edu
% Model : i686 i686
% CPU : Intel(R) Pentium(R) 4 CPU 3.00GHz @ 3000MHz
% Memory : 2006MB
% OS : Linux 2.6.31.5-127.fc12.i686.PAE
% CPULimit : 300s
% DateTime : Sun Nov 28 08:47:04 EST 2010
% Result : Unsatisfiable 0.25s
% Output : Refutation 0.25s
% 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/SystemOnTPTP16743/SYN/SYN240-1+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 ...
% +================================================+
% | |
% | Congratulations!!! ........ A proof was found. |
% | |
% +================================================+
% Base Clauses and Unit Clauses used in proof:
% ============================================
% Base Clauses:
% -------------
% B0: ~m1_3(x0,e_0(),e_0())
% B42: ~m0_3(x1,x2,x0) | m1_3(x0,x0,x0)
% Unit Clauses:
% --------------
% U1: < d0 v2 dv2 f0 c1 t3 td1 b > m0_3(x0,d_0(),x1)
% U39: < d1 v2 dv2 f0 c1 t3 td1 > ~m0_3(x0,x1,e_0())
% --------------- Start of Proof ---------------
% Derivation of unit clause U1:
% m0_3(x0,d_0(),x1) ....... U1
% Derivation of unit clause U39:
% ~m1_3(x0,e_0(),e_0()) ....... B0
% ~m0_3(x1,x2,x0) | m1_3(x0,x0,x0) ....... B42
% ~m0_3(x0, x1, e_0()) ....... R1 [B0:L0, B42:L1]
% Derivation of the empty clause:
% ~m0_3(x0,x1,e_0()) ....... U39
% m0_3(x0,d_0(),x1) ....... U1
% [] ....... R1 [U39:L0, U1:L0]
% --------------- End of Proof ---------------
% PROOF FOUND!
% ---------------------------------------------
% | Statistics |
% ---------------------------------------------
% Profile 3: Performance Statistics:
% ==================================
% Total number of generated clauses: 1
% resolvents: 1 factors: 0
% Number of unit clauses generated: 1
% % unit clauses generated to total clauses generated: 100.00
% Number of unit clauses constructed and retained at depth [x]:
% =============================================================
% [0] = 39 [1] = 1
% Total = 40
% Number of generated clauses having [x] literals:
% ------------------------------------------------
% [1] = 1
% Average size of a generated clause: 1.0
% Number of unit clauses per predicate list:
% ==========================================
% [0] k0_1 (+)2 (-)0
% [1] k1_1 (+)0 (-)0
% [2] k4_1 (+)0 (-)0
% [3] k5_1 (+)0 (-)0
% [4] l0_1 (+)2 (-)0
% [5] l4_1 (+)0 (-)0
% [6] l5_1 (+)0 (-)0
% [7] m2_1 (+)0 (-)0
% [8] n2_1 (+)0 (-)0
% [9] n3_1 (+)0 (-)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 (+)0 (-)0
% [16] s2_1 (+)0 (-)0
% [17] s4_1 (+)0 (-)0
% [18] s5_1 (+)0 (-)0
% [19] k2_2 (+)0 (-)0
% [20] l1_2 (+)0 (-)0
% [21] l2_2 (+)0 (-)0
% [22] l3_2 (+)0 (-)0
% [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 (+)0 (-)0
% [31] q4_2 (+)0 (-)0
% [32] q5_2 (+)0 (-)0
% [33] r5_2 (+)0 (-)0
% [34] s3_2 (+)0 (-)0
% [35] k3_3 (+)0 (-)0
% [36] m0_3 (+)10 (-)1
% [37] m1_3 (+)0 (-)1
% [38] m3_3 (+)0 (-)0
% [39] n1_3 (+)0 (-)0
% [40] p1_3 (+)0 (-)0
% [41] p2_3 (+)0 (-)0
% [42] p3_3 (+)0 (-)0
% [43] p4_3 (+)0 (-)0
% [44] p5_3 (+)0 (-)0
% [45] q1_3 (+)0 (-)0
% [46] q2_3 (+)0 (-)0
% [47] r3_3 (+)0 (-)0
% ------------------
% Total: (+)38 (-)2
% Total number of unit clauses retained: 40
% 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: 2
% Number of unification failures: 0
% Number of unit to unit unification failures: 0
% N literal unification failure due to lookup root_id table: 1
% N base clause resolution failure due to lookup table: 3
% 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: 0
% 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: 44
% Total number of terms of all unit clauses in table: 84
% 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: 0.52
% Number of symbols (columns) in UCFA: 87
% Profile 2: Number of calls to:
% ==============================
% PTUnify() = 2
% ConstructUnitClause() = 1
% Profile 1: Time spent in:
% =========================
% ConstructUnitClause() : 0.00 secs
% --------------------------------------------------------
% | |
% Inferences per sec: inf
% | |
% --------------------------------------------------------
% Elapsed time: 0 secs
% CPU time: 0.24 secs
%
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------