TSTP Solution File: SYN555-1 by CARINE---0.734
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : CARINE---0.734
% Problem : SYN555-1 : TPTP v5.0.0. Released v2.5.0.
% 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 10:20:04 EST 2010
% Result : Unsatisfiable 0.18s
% Output : Refutation 0.18s
% 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/SystemOnTPTP4412/SYN/SYN555-1+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 = 15] [nf = 0] [nu = 0] [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: p3_2(x0,x0)
% B1: p4_2(x0,x0)
% B3: p4_2(f5_3(c7_0(),c10_0(),c9_0()),c9_0())
% B8: ~p4_2(x2,x1) | ~p4_2(x2,x0) | p4_2(x0,x1)
% B11: ~p4_2(f5_3(c7_0(),f6_3(x0,x2,x1),x2),f5_3(c7_0(),f6_3(x0,x2,x1),x1)) | ~p4_2(f5_3(c7_0(),x0,x2),x2) | p4_2(f5_3(c7_0(),x0,x1),x1)
% Unit Clauses:
% --------------
% U2: < d0 v2 dv1 f2 c4 t8 td2 b nc > p4_2(f5_3(c7_0(),x0,c8_0()),f5_3(c7_0(),x0,c9_0()))
% U4: < d0 v0 dv0 f1 c4 t5 td2 b nc > ~p4_2(f5_3(c7_0(),c10_0(),c8_0()),c8_0())
% U6: < d2 v2 dv1 f2 c4 t8 td2 > p4_2(f5_3(c7_0(),x0,c9_0()),f5_3(c7_0(),x0,c8_0()))
% U13: < d2 v0 dv0 f1 c4 t5 td2 > p4_2(f5_3(c7_0(),c10_0(),c8_0()),c8_0())
% --------------- Start of Proof ---------------
% Derivation of unit clause U2:
% p4_2(f5_3(c7_0(),x0,c8_0()),f5_3(c7_0(),x0,c9_0())) ....... U2
% Derivation of unit clause U4:
% ~p4_2(f5_3(c7_0(),c10_0(),c8_0()),c8_0()) ....... U4
% Derivation of unit clause U6:
% p4_2(x0,x0) ....... B1
% ~p4_2(x2,x1) | ~p4_2(x2,x0) | p4_2(x0,x1) ....... B8
% ~p4_2(x0, x1) | p4_2(x1, x0) ....... R1 [B1:L0, B8:L0]
% p4_2(f5_3(c7_0(),x0,c8_0()),f5_3(c7_0(),x0,c9_0())) ....... U2
% p4_2(f5_3(c7_0(), x0, c9_0()), f5_3(c7_0(), x0, c8_0())) ....... R2 [R1:L0, U2:L0]
% Derivation of unit clause U13:
% p4_2(f5_3(c7_0(),c10_0(),c9_0()),c9_0()) ....... B3
% ~p4_2(f5_3(c7_0(),f6_3(x0,x2,x1),x2),f5_3(c7_0(),f6_3(x0,x2,x1),x1)) | ~p4_2(f5_3(c7_0(),x0,x2),x2) | p4_2(f5_3(c7_0(),x0,x1),x1) ....... B11
% ~p4_2(f5_3(c7_0(), f6_3(c10_0(), c9_0(), x0), c9_0()), f5_3(c7_0(), f6_3(c10_0(), c9_0(), x0), x0)) | p4_2(f5_3(c7_0(), c10_0(), x0), x0) ....... R1 [B3:L0, B11:L1]
% p4_2(f5_3(c7_0(),x0,c9_0()),f5_3(c7_0(),x0,c8_0())) ....... U6
% p4_2(f5_3(c7_0(), c10_0(), c8_0()), c8_0()) ....... R2 [R1:L0, U6:L0]
% Derivation of the empty clause:
% p4_2(f5_3(c7_0(),c10_0(),c8_0()),c8_0()) ....... U13
% ~p4_2(f5_3(c7_0(),c10_0(),c8_0()),c8_0()) ....... U4
% [] ....... R1 [U13:L0, U4:L0]
% --------------- End of Proof ---------------
% PROOF FOUND!
% ---------------------------------------------
% | Statistics |
% ---------------------------------------------
% Profile 3: Performance Statistics:
% ==================================
% Total number of generated clauses: 71
% resolvents: 69 factors: 2
% Number of unit clauses generated: 32
% % unit clauses generated to total clauses generated: 45.07
% Number of unit clauses constructed and retained at depth [x]:
% =============================================================
% [0] = 6 [2] = 8
% Total = 14
% Number of generated clauses having [x] literals:
% ------------------------------------------------
% [1] = 32 [2] = 28 [3] = 11
% Average size of a generated clause: 2.0
% Number of unit clauses per predicate list:
% ==========================================
% [0] p2_2 (+)1 (-)0
% [1] p3_2 (+)1 (-)0
% [2] p4_2 (+)10 (-)2
% ------------------
% Total: (+)12 (-)2
% Total number of unit clauses retained: 14
% Number of clauses skipped because of their length: 63
% N base clauses skippped in resolve-with-all-base-clauses
% because of the shortest resolvents table: 0
% Number of successful unifications: 75
% Number of unification failures: 35
% Number of unit to unit unification failures: 18
% N literal unification failure due to lookup root_id table: 50
% N base clause resolution failure due to lookup table: 23
% 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: 24
% 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: 8
% Max term depth in a unit clause: 2
% Number of states in UCFA table: 36
% Total number of terms of all unit clauses in table: 67
% Max allowed number of states in UCFA: 160000
% 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: 43
% Profile 2: Number of calls to:
% ==============================
% PTUnify() = 110
% ConstructUnitClause() = 32
% Profile 1: Time spent in:
% =========================
% ConstructUnitClause() : 0.00 secs
% --------------------------------------------------------
% | |
% Inferences per sec: inf
% | |
% --------------------------------------------------------
% Elapsed time: 0 secs
% CPU time: 0.18 secs
%
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------