## TSTP Solution File: SYN053-1 by CARINE---0.734

View Problem - Process Solution

```%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File     : CARINE---0.734
% Problem  : SYN053-1 : TPTP v5.0.0. Released v1.0.0.
% 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 08:25:52 EST 2010

% Result   : Unsatisfiable 0.14s
% Output   : Refutation 0.14s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : None (Parsing solution fails)
% Syntax   : Number of formulae    : 0

%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ERROR: Could not form TPTP format derivation
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% Command entered:
% /home/graph/tptp/Systems/CARINE---0.734/carine /tmp/SystemOnTPTP25525/SYN/SYN053-1+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 = 3] [nf = 0] [nu = 0] [ut = 1]
% Looking for a proof at depth = 2 ...
% 	t = 0 secs [nr = 42] [nf = 9] [nu = 12] [ut = 3]
% Looking for a proof at depth = 3 ...
% +================================================+
% |                                                |
% | Congratulations!!! ........ A proof was found. |
% |                                                |
% +================================================+
% Base Clauses and Unit Clauses used in proof:
% ============================================
% Base Clauses:
% -------------
% B0: ~p
% B1: p | big_f_1(x0) | big_f_1(x1)
% B3: ~big_f_1(a_0()) | p | big_f_1(x0)
% Unit Clauses:
% --------------
% U1: < d2 v1 dv1 f0 c0 t1 td1 > big_f_1(x0)
% U3: < d3 v0 dv0 f0 c1 t1 td1 > ~big_f_1(a_0())
% --------------- Start of Proof ---------------
% Derivation of unit clause U1:
% ~p ....... B0
% p | big_f_1(x0) | big_f_1(x1) ....... B1
%  big_f_1(x0) | big_f_1(x1) ....... R1 [B0:L0, B1:L0]
%   big_f_1(x0) ....... R2 [R1:L1, R1:L0]
% Derivation of unit clause U3:
% ~p ....... B0
% ~big_f_1(a_0()) | p | big_f_1(x0) ....... B3
%  ~big_f_1(a_0()) | big_f_1(x0) ....... R1 [B0:L0, B3:L1]
%  ~big_f_1(b_0()) | ~big_f_1(a_0()) ....... B4
%   ~big_f_1(a_0()) | ~big_f_1(a_0()) ....... R2 [R1:L1, B4:L0]
%    ~big_f_1(a_0()) ....... R3 [R2:L0, R2:L1]
% Derivation of the empty clause:
% ~big_f_1(a_0()) ....... U3
% big_f_1(x0) ....... U1
%  [] ....... R1 [U3:L0, U1:L0]
% --------------- End of Proof ---------------
% PROOF FOUND!
% ---------------------------------------------
% |                Statistics                 |
% ---------------------------------------------
% Profile 3: Performance Statistics:
% ==================================
% Total number of generated clauses: 104
% 	resolvents: 84	factors: 20
% Number of unit clauses generated: 28
% % unit clauses generated to total clauses generated: 26.92
% Number of unit clauses constructed and retained at depth [x]:
% =============================================================
% [0] = 1		[2] = 2		[3] = 1
% Total = 4
% Number of generated clauses having [x] literals:
% ------------------------------------------------
% [1] = 28	[2] = 59	[3] = 17
% Average size of a generated clause: 2.0
% Number of unit clauses per predicate list:
% ==========================================
% [0] p		(+)0	(-)1
% [1] big_f_1		(+)2	(-)1
% 			------------------
% 		Total:	(+)2	(-)2
% Total number of unit clauses retained: 4
% Number of clauses skipped because of their length: 59
% N base clauses skippped in resolve-with-all-base-clauses
% 	because of the shortest resolvents table: 0
% Number of successful unifications: 109
% Number of unification failures: 9
% Number of unit to unit unification failures: 0
% N literal unification failure due to lookup root_id table: 69
% N base clause resolution failure due to lookup table: 15
% N UC-BCL resolution dropped due to lookup table: 0
% Max entries in substitution set: 2
% N unit clauses dropped because they exceeded max values: 17
% 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: 5
% Total number of terms of all unit clauses in table: 3
% 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: 1.67
% Number of symbols (columns) in UCFA: 38
% Profile 2: Number of calls to:
% ==============================
% PTUnify() = 118
% ConstructUnitClause() = 20
% Profile 1: Time spent in:
% =========================
% ConstructUnitClause() : 0.00 secs
% --------------------------------------------------------
% |                                                      |
%   Inferences per sec: inf
% |                                                      |
% --------------------------------------------------------
% Elapsed time: 0 secs
% CPU time: 0.13 secs
%
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
```