%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File     : CARINE---0.734
% Problem  : SYN321-1 : TPTP v5.0.0. Released v1.2.0.
% 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 08:54:17 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/SystemOnTPTP18566/SYN/SYN321-1+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 = 8] [nf = 0] [nu = 0] [ut = 0]
% Looking for a proof at depth = 2 ...
% +================================================+
% |                                                |
% | Congratulations!!! ........ A proof was found. |
% |                                                |
% +================================================+
% Base Clauses and Unit Clauses used in proof:
% ============================================
% Base Clauses:
% -------------
% B0: ~f_2(a_0(),x0) | g_2(a_0(),x1)
% B1: f_2(a_0(),b_0()) | g_2(a_0(),x0)
% B2: ~g_2(x0,x0) | f_2(x0,b_0())
% B3: ~f_2(a_0(),b_0()) | ~g_2(a_0(),d_0())
% Unit Clauses:
% --------------
% U1: < d2 v0 dv0 f0 c2 t2 td1 > ~f_2(a_0(),b_0())
% U2: < d2 v0 dv0 f0 c2 t2 td1 > f_2(a_0(),b_0())
% --------------- Start of Proof ---------------
% Derivation of unit clause U1:
% ~f_2(a_0(),x0) | g_2(a_0(),x1) ....... B0
% ~f_2(a_0(),b_0()) | ~g_2(a_0(),d_0()) ....... B3
%  ~f_2(a_0(), x0) | ~f_2(a_0(), b_0()) ....... R1 [B0:L1, B3:L1]
%   ~f_2(a_0(), b_0()) ....... R2 [R1:L0, R1:L1]
% Derivation of unit clause U2:
% f_2(a_0(),b_0()) | g_2(a_0(),x0) ....... B1
% ~g_2(x0,x0) | f_2(x0,b_0()) ....... B2
%  f_2(a_0(), b_0()) | f_2(a_0(), b_0()) ....... R1 [B1:L1, B2:L0]
%   f_2(a_0(), b_0()) ....... R2 [R1:L0, R1:L1]
% Derivation of the empty clause:
% f_2(a_0(),b_0()) ....... U2
% ~f_2(a_0(),b_0()) ....... U1
%  [] ....... R1 [U2:L0, U1:L0]
% --------------- End of Proof ---------------
% PROOF FOUND!
% ---------------------------------------------
% |                Statistics                 |
% ---------------------------------------------
% Profile 3: Performance Statistics:
% ==================================
% Total number of generated clauses: 34
% 	resolvents: 31	factors: 3
% Number of unit clauses generated: 5
% % unit clauses generated to total clauses generated: 14.71
% Number of unit clauses constructed and retained at depth [x]:
% =============================================================
% [2] = 3		
% Total = 3
% Number of generated clauses having [x] literals:
% ------------------------------------------------
% [1] = 5	[2] = 29	
% Average size of a generated clause: 2.0
% Number of unit clauses per predicate list:
% ==========================================
% [0] f_2		(+)1	(-)1
% [1] g_2		(+)1	(-)0
% 			------------------
% 		Total:	(+)2	(-)1
% Total number of unit clauses retained: 3
% 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: 38
% Number of unification failures: 0
% Number of unit to unit unification failures: 0
% N literal unification failure due to lookup root_id table: 57
% N base clause resolution failure due to lookup table: 14
% 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: 1
% 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: 9
% Total number of terms of all unit clauses in table: 6
% 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: 1.50
% Number of symbols (columns) in UCFA: 39
% Profile 2: Number of calls to:
% ==============================
% PTUnify() = 38
% ConstructUnitClause() = 4
% Profile 1: Time spent in:
% =========================
% ConstructUnitClause() : 0.00 secs
% --------------------------------------------------------
% |                                                      |
%   Inferences per sec: inf
% |                                                      |
% --------------------------------------------------------
% Elapsed time: 0 secs
% CPU time: 0.13 secs
% 
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------