%------------------------------------------------------------------------------ % File : CARINE---0.734 % Problem : SWV242-2 : TPTP v5.0.0. Released v3.2.0. % Transfm : add_equality % Format : carine % Command : carine %s t=%d xo=off uct=32000 % Computer : art01.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 06:36:22 EST 2010 % Result : Unsatisfiable 0.17s % Output : Refutation 0.17s % 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/SystemOnTPTP27451/SWV/SWV242-2+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 = 30] [nf = 0] [nu = 20] [ut = 16] % Looking for a proof at depth = 2 ... % t = 0 secs [nr = 774] [nf = 8] [nu = 505] [ut = 109] % Looking for a proof at depth = 3 ... % +================================================+ % | | % | Congratulations!!! ........ A proof was found. | % | | % +================================================+ % Base Clauses and Unit Clauses used in proof: % ============================================ % Base Clauses: % ------------- % B0: c_lessequals_3(v_G_0(),c_Message_Oanalz_1(v_G_H_0()),tc_set_1(tc_Message_Omsg_0())) % B1: c_lessequals_3(v_H_0(),c_Message_Oanalz_1(v_H_H_0()),tc_set_1(tc_Message_Omsg_0())) % B3: c_lessequals_3(x0,c_union_3(x0,x1,x2),tc_set_1(x2)) % B4: c_lessequals_3(x0,c_union_3(x1,x0,x2),tc_set_1(x2)) % B5: ~c_lessequals_3(x0,x1,tc_set_1(tc_Message_Omsg_0())) | c_lessequals_3(c_Message_Oanalz_1(x0),c_Message_Oanalz_1(x1),tc_set_1(tc_Message_Omsg_0())) % B6: ~c_lessequals_3(x3,x0,tc_set_1(x2)) | ~c_lessequals_3(x0,x1,tc_set_1(x2)) | c_lessequals_3(x3,x1,tc_set_1(x2)) % Unit Clauses: % -------------- % U6: < d1 v3 dv2 f4 c2 t9 td3 > c_lessequals_3(c_Message_Oanalz_1(x0),c_Message_Oanalz_1(c_union_3(x0,x1,tc_Message_Omsg_0())),tc_set_1(tc_Message_Omsg_0())) % U7: < d1 v3 dv2 f4 c2 t9 td3 > c_lessequals_3(c_Message_Oanalz_1(x0),c_Message_Oanalz_1(c_union_3(x1,x0,tc_Message_Omsg_0())),tc_set_1(tc_Message_Omsg_0())) % U23: < d2 v1 dv1 f3 c4 t8 td3 > c_lessequals_3(v_H_0(),c_Message_Oanalz_1(c_union_3(x0,v_H_H_0(),tc_Message_Omsg_0())),tc_set_1(tc_Message_Omsg_0())) % U109: < d3 v0 dv0 f3 c5 t8 td3 > ~c_lessequals_3(v_H_0(),c_Message_Oanalz_1(c_union_3(v_G_H_0(),v_H_H_0(),tc_Message_Omsg_0())),tc_set_1(tc_Message_Omsg_0())) % --------------- Start of Proof --------------- % Derivation of unit clause U6: % c_lessequals_3(x0,c_union_3(x0,x1,x2),tc_set_1(x2)) ....... B3 % ~c_lessequals_3(x0,x1,tc_set_1(tc_Message_Omsg_0())) | c_lessequals_3(c_Message_Oanalz_1(x0),c_Message_Oanalz_1(x1),tc_set_1(tc_Message_Omsg_0())) ....... B5 % c_lessequals_3(c_Message_Oanalz_1(x0), c_Message_Oanalz_1(c_union_3(x0, x1, tc_Message_Omsg_0())), tc_set_1(tc_Message_Omsg_0())) ....... R1 [B3:L0, B5:L0] % Derivation of unit clause U7: % c_lessequals_3(x0,c_union_3(x1,x0,x2),tc_set_1(x2)) ....... B4 % ~c_lessequals_3(x0,x1,tc_set_1(tc_Message_Omsg_0())) | c_lessequals_3(c_Message_Oanalz_1(x0),c_Message_Oanalz_1(x1),tc_set_1(tc_Message_Omsg_0())) ....... B5 % c_lessequals_3(c_Message_Oanalz_1(x0), c_Message_Oanalz_1(c_union_3(x1, x0, tc_Message_Omsg_0())), tc_set_1(tc_Message_Omsg_0())) ....... R1 [B4:L0, B5:L0] % Derivation of unit clause U23: % c_lessequals_3(v_H_0(),c_Message_Oanalz_1(v_H_H_0()),tc_set_1(tc_Message_Omsg_0())) ....... B1 % ~c_lessequals_3(x3,x0,tc_set_1(x2)) | ~c_lessequals_3(x0,x1,tc_set_1(x2)) | c_lessequals_3(x3,x1,tc_set_1(x2)) ....... B6 % ~c_lessequals_3(c_Message_Oanalz_1(v_H_H_0()), x0, tc_set_1(tc_Message_Omsg_0())) | c_lessequals_3(v_H_0(), x0, tc_set_1(tc_Message_Omsg_0())) ....... R1 [B1:L0, B6:L0] % c_lessequals_3(c_Message_Oanalz_1(x0),c_Message_Oanalz_1(c_union_3(x1,x0,tc_Message_Omsg_0())),tc_set_1(tc_Message_Omsg_0())) ....... U7 % c_lessequals_3(v_H_0(), c_Message_Oanalz_1(c_union_3(x0, v_H_H_0(), tc_Message_Omsg_0())), tc_set_1(tc_Message_Omsg_0())) ....... R2 [R1:L0, U7:L0] % Derivation of unit clause U109: % c_lessequals_3(v_G_0(),c_Message_Oanalz_1(v_G_H_0()),tc_set_1(tc_Message_Omsg_0())) ....... B0 % ~c_lessequals_3(x3,x0,tc_set_1(x2)) | ~c_lessequals_3(x0,x1,tc_set_1(x2)) | c_lessequals_3(x3,x1,tc_set_1(x2)) ....... B6 % ~c_lessequals_3(c_Message_Oanalz_1(v_G_H_0()), x0, tc_set_1(tc_Message_Omsg_0())) | c_lessequals_3(v_G_0(), x0, tc_set_1(tc_Message_Omsg_0())) ....... R1 [B0:L0, B6:L0] % ~c_lessequals_3(v_G_0(),c_Message_Oanalz_1(c_union_3(v_G_H_0(),v_H_H_0(),tc_Message_Omsg_0())),tc_set_1(tc_Message_Omsg_0())) | ~c_lessequals_3(v_H_0(),c_Message_Oanalz_1(c_union_3(v_G_H_0(),v_H_H_0(),tc_Message_Omsg_0())),tc_set_1(tc_Message_Omsg_0())) ....... B2 % ~c_lessequals_3(c_Message_Oanalz_1(v_G_H_0()), c_Message_Oanalz_1(c_union_3(v_G_H_0(), v_H_H_0(), tc_Message_Omsg_0())), tc_set_1(tc_Message_Omsg_0())) | ~c_lessequals_3(v_H_0(), c_Message_Oanalz_1(c_union_3(v_G_H_0(), v_H_H_0(), tc_Message_Omsg_0())), tc_set_1(tc_Message_Omsg_0())) ....... R2 [R1:L1, B2:L0] % c_lessequals_3(c_Message_Oanalz_1(x0),c_Message_Oanalz_1(c_union_3(x0,x1,tc_Message_Omsg_0())),tc_set_1(tc_Message_Omsg_0())) ....... U6 % ~c_lessequals_3(v_H_0(), c_Message_Oanalz_1(c_union_3(v_G_H_0(), v_H_H_0(), tc_Message_Omsg_0())), tc_set_1(tc_Message_Omsg_0())) ....... R3 [R2:L0, U6:L0] % Derivation of the empty clause: % ~c_lessequals_3(v_H_0(),c_Message_Oanalz_1(c_union_3(v_G_H_0(),v_H_H_0(),tc_Message_Omsg_0())),tc_set_1(tc_Message_Omsg_0())) ....... U109 % c_lessequals_3(v_H_0(),c_Message_Oanalz_1(c_union_3(x0,v_H_H_0(),tc_Message_Omsg_0())),tc_set_1(tc_Message_Omsg_0())) ....... U23 % [] ....... R1 [U109:L0, U23:L0] % --------------- End of Proof --------------- % PROOF FOUND! % --------------------------------------------- % | Statistics | % --------------------------------------------- % Profile 3: Performance Statistics: % ================================== % Total number of generated clauses: 805 % resolvents: 797 factors: 8 % Number of unit clauses generated: 526 % % unit clauses generated to total clauses generated: 65.34 % Number of unit clauses constructed and retained at depth [x]: % ============================================================= % [0] = 4 [1] = 12 [2] = 93 [3] = 1 % Total = 110 % Number of generated clauses having [x] literals: % ------------------------------------------------ % [1] = 526 [2] = 274 [3] = 5 % Average size of a generated clause: 2.0 % Number of unit clauses per predicate list: % ========================================== % [0] c_lessequals_3 (+)109 (-)1 % ------------------ % Total: (+)109 (-)1 % Total number of unit clauses retained: 110 % Number of clauses skipped because of their length: 19 % N base clauses skippped in resolve-with-all-base-clauses % because of the shortest resolvents table: 0 % Number of successful unifications: 812 % Number of unification failures: 511 % Number of unit to unit unification failures: 23 % N literal unification failure due to lookup root_id table: 121 % N base clause resolution failure due to lookup table: 13 % N UC-BCL resolution dropped due to lookup table: 2 % Max entries in substitution set: 6 % N unit clauses dropped because they exceeded max values: 298 % N unit clauses dropped because too much nesting: 242 % 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: 14 % Max term depth in a unit clause: 5 % Number of states in UCFA table: 744 % Total number of terms of all unit clauses in table: 1281 % Max allowed number of states in UCFA: 128000 % Ratio n states used/total allowed states: 0.01 % Ratio n states used/total unit clauses terms: 0.58 % Number of symbols (columns) in UCFA: 43 % Profile 2: Number of calls to: % ============================== % PTUnify() = 1323 % ConstructUnitClause() = 404 % Profile 1: Time spent in: % ========================= % ConstructUnitClause() : 0.00 secs % -------------------------------------------------------- % | | % Inferences per sec: inf % | | % -------------------------------------------------------- % Elapsed time: 0 secs % CPU time: 0.17 secs % %------------------------------------------------------------------------------