TSTP Solution File: SYN724-1 by CARINE---0.734
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : CARINE---0.734
% Problem : SYN724-1 : TPTP v5.0.0. Released v2.5.0.
% 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 11:33:41 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/SystemOnTPTP9824/SYN/SYN724-1+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 = 1 secs [nr = 4] [nf = 0] [nu = 0] [ut = 0]
% Looking for a proof at depth = 2 ...
% t = 1 secs [nr = 22] [nf = 4] [nu = 0] [ut = 0]
% Looking for a proof at depth = 3 ...
% t = 1 secs [nr = 120] [nf = 14] [nu = 10] [ut = 4]
% Looking for a proof at depth = 4 ...
% +================================================+
% | |
% | Congratulations!!! ........ A proof was found. |
% | |
% +================================================+
% Base Clauses and Unit Clauses used in proof:
% ============================================
% Base Clauses:
% -------------
% B0: ~r_1(x0) | s_1(x0)
% B1: r_1(sk1_0()) | r_1(sk2_0())
% B3: ~r_1(sk2_0()) | ~s_1(sk2_0()) | r_1(sk1_0())
% B4: ~r_1(sk2_0()) | ~s_1(sk2_0()) | ~s_1(sk1_0())
% Unit Clauses:
% --------------
% U0: < d3 v0 dv0 f0 c1 t1 td1 > r_1(sk2_0())
% U2: < d3 v0 dv0 f0 c1 t1 td1 > ~s_1(sk1_0())
% U4: < d4 v0 dv0 f0 c1 t1 td1 > s_1(sk1_0())
% --------------- Start of Proof ---------------
% Derivation of unit clause U0:
% ~r_1(x0) | s_1(x0) ....... B0
% r_1(sk1_0()) | r_1(sk2_0()) ....... B1
% s_1(sk1_0()) | r_1(sk2_0()) ....... R1 [B0:L0, B1:L0]
% ~s_1(sk1_0()) | r_1(sk2_0()) ....... B2
% r_1(sk2_0()) | r_1(sk2_0()) ....... R2 [R1:L0, B2:L0]
% r_1(sk2_0()) ....... R3 [R2:L0, R2:L1]
% Derivation of unit clause U2:
% ~r_1(x0) | s_1(x0) ....... B0
% ~r_1(sk2_0()) | ~s_1(sk2_0()) | ~s_1(sk1_0()) ....... B4
% ~r_1(sk2_0()) | ~r_1(sk2_0()) | ~s_1(sk1_0()) ....... R1 [B0:L1, B4:L1]
% ~r_1(sk2_0()) | ~s_1(sk1_0()) ....... R2 [R1:L0, R1:L1]
% r_1(sk2_0()) ....... U0
% ~s_1(sk1_0()) ....... R3 [R2:L0, U0:L0]
% Derivation of unit clause U4:
% ~r_1(x0) | s_1(x0) ....... B0
% ~r_1(sk2_0()) | ~s_1(sk2_0()) | r_1(sk1_0()) ....... B3
% ~r_1(sk2_0()) | ~r_1(sk2_0()) | r_1(sk1_0()) ....... R1 [B0:L1, B3:L1]
% ~r_1(sk2_0()) | r_1(sk1_0()) ....... R2 [R1:L0, R1:L1]
% ~r_1(x0) | s_1(x0) ....... B0
% ~r_1(sk2_0()) | s_1(sk1_0()) ....... R3 [R2:L1, B0:L0]
% r_1(sk2_0()) ....... U0
% s_1(sk1_0()) ....... R4 [R3:L0, U0:L0]
% Derivation of the empty clause:
% s_1(sk1_0()) ....... U4
% ~s_1(sk1_0()) ....... U2
% [] ....... R1 [U4:L0, U2:L0]
% --------------- End of Proof ---------------
% PROOF FOUND!
% ---------------------------------------------
% | Statistics |
% ---------------------------------------------
% Profile 3: Performance Statistics:
% ==================================
% Total number of generated clauses: 285
% resolvents: 262 factors: 23
% Number of unit clauses generated: 40
% % unit clauses generated to total clauses generated: 14.04
% Number of unit clauses constructed and retained at depth [x]:
% =============================================================
% [3] = 4
% [4] = 1
% Total = 5
% Number of generated clauses having [x] literals:
% ------------------------------------------------
% [1] = 40 [2] = 152 [3] = 93
% Average size of a generated clause: 3.0
% Number of unit clauses per predicate list:
% ==========================================
% [0] r_1 (+)2 (-)0
% [1] s_1 (+)1 (-)2
% ------------------
% Total: (+)3 (-)2
% Total number of unit clauses retained: 5
% Number of clauses skipped because of their length: 162
% N base clauses skippped in resolve-with-all-base-clauses
% because of the shortest resolvents table: 36
% Number of successful unifications: 295
% Number of unification failures: 108
% Number of unit to unit unification failures: 0
% N literal unification failure due to lookup root_id table: 609
% N base clause resolution failure due to lookup table: 129
% N UC-BCL resolution dropped due to lookup table: 0
% Max entries in substitution set: 3
% N unit clauses dropped because they exceeded max values: 16
% 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: 1
% Max term depth in a unit clause: 1
% Number of states in UCFA table: 6
% Total number of terms of all unit clauses in table: 5
% 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: 1.20
% Number of symbols (columns) in UCFA: 38
% Profile 2: Number of calls to:
% ==============================
% PTUnify() = 403
% ConstructUnitClause() = 21
% Profile 1: Time spent in:
% =========================
% ConstructUnitClause() : 0.00 secs
% --------------------------------------------------------
% | |
% Inferences per sec: inf
% | |
% --------------------------------------------------------
% Elapsed time: 1 secs
% CPU time: 0.13 secs
%
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------