%------------------------------------------------------------------------------ % File : CARINE---0.734 % Problem : SWV256-2 : TPTP v5.0.0. Released v3.2.0. % 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 06:41:36 EST 2010 % Result : Unsatisfiable 0.32s % Output : Refutation 0.32s % 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/SystemOnTPTP10400/SWV/SWV256-2+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 ... % +================================================+ % | | % | Congratulations!!! ........ A proof was found. | % | | % +================================================+ % Base Clauses and Unit Clauses used in proof: % ============================================ % Base Clauses: % ------------- % B0: ~c_lessequals_3(c_Message_Oparts_1(c_Message_Oanalz_1(v_H_0())),c_Message_Oparts_1(v_H_0()),tc_set_1(tc_Message_Omsg_0())) % B2: ~c_lessequals_3(x0,c_Message_Oparts_1(x1),tc_set_1(tc_Message_Omsg_0())) | c_lessequals_3(c_Message_Oparts_1(x0),c_Message_Oparts_1(x1),tc_set_1(tc_Message_Omsg_0())) % Unit Clauses: % -------------- % U1: < d0 v2 dv1 f3 c1 t6 td2 b > c_lessequals_3(c_Message_Oanalz_1(x0),c_Message_Oparts_1(x0),tc_set_1(tc_Message_Omsg_0())) % U2: < d1 v0 dv0 f3 c3 t6 td2 > ~c_lessequals_3(c_Message_Oanalz_1(v_H_0()),c_Message_Oparts_1(v_H_0()),tc_set_1(tc_Message_Omsg_0())) % --------------- Start of Proof --------------- % Derivation of unit clause U1: % c_lessequals_3(c_Message_Oanalz_1(x0),c_Message_Oparts_1(x0),tc_set_1(tc_Message_Omsg_0())) ....... U1 % Derivation of unit clause U2: % ~c_lessequals_3(c_Message_Oparts_1(c_Message_Oanalz_1(v_H_0())),c_Message_Oparts_1(v_H_0()),tc_set_1(tc_Message_Omsg_0())) ....... B0 % ~c_lessequals_3(x0,c_Message_Oparts_1(x1),tc_set_1(tc_Message_Omsg_0())) | c_lessequals_3(c_Message_Oparts_1(x0),c_Message_Oparts_1(x1),tc_set_1(tc_Message_Omsg_0())) ....... B2 % ~c_lessequals_3(c_Message_Oanalz_1(v_H_0()), c_Message_Oparts_1(v_H_0()), tc_set_1(tc_Message_Omsg_0())) ....... R1 [B0:L0, B2:L1] % Derivation of the empty clause: % ~c_lessequals_3(c_Message_Oanalz_1(v_H_0()),c_Message_Oparts_1(v_H_0()),tc_set_1(tc_Message_Omsg_0())) ....... U2 % c_lessequals_3(c_Message_Oanalz_1(x0),c_Message_Oparts_1(x0),tc_set_1(tc_Message_Omsg_0())) ....... U1 % [] ....... R1 [U2:L0, U1:L0] % --------------- End of Proof --------------- % PROOF FOUND! % --------------------------------------------- % | Statistics | % --------------------------------------------- % Profile 3: Performance Statistics: % ================================== % Total number of generated clauses: 1 % resolvents: 1 factors: 0 % Number of unit clauses generated: 1 % % unit clauses generated to total clauses generated: 100.00 % Number of unit clauses constructed and retained at depth [x]: % ============================================================= % [0] = 2 [1] = 1 % Total = 3 % Number of generated clauses having [x] literals: % ------------------------------------------------ % [1] = 1 % Average size of a generated clause: 1.0 % Number of unit clauses per predicate list: % ========================================== % [0] c_lessequals_3 (+)1 (-)2 % ------------------ % Total: (+)1 (-)2 % 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: 2 % Number of unification failures: 0 % Number of unit to unit unification failures: 1 % N literal unification failure due to lookup root_id table: 1 % N base clause resolution failure due to lookup table: 0 % N UC-BCL resolution dropped due to lookup table: 0 % Max entries in substitution set: 0 % N unit clauses dropped because they exceeded max values: 0 % 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: 7 % Max term depth in a unit clause: 3 % Number of states in UCFA table: 21 % Total number of terms of all unit clauses in table: 19 % Max allowed number of states in UCFA: 448000 % Ratio n states used/total allowed states: 0.00 % Ratio n states used/total unit clauses terms: 1.11 % Number of symbols (columns) in UCFA: 40 % Profile 2: Number of calls to: % ============================== % PTUnify() = 2 % ConstructUnitClause() = 1 % Profile 1: Time spent in: % ========================= % ConstructUnitClause() : 0.00 secs % -------------------------------------------------------- % | | % Inferences per sec: inf % | | % -------------------------------------------------------- % Elapsed time: 0 secs % CPU time: 0.31 secs % %------------------------------------------------------------------------------