%------------------------------------------------------------------------------ % File : CARINE---0.734 % Problem : SWV258-2 : TPTP v5.0.0. Released v3.2.0. % Transfm : add_equality % Format : carine % Command : carine %s t=%d xo=off uct=32000 % Computer : art02.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 06:42:23 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/SystemOnTPTP17169/SWV/SWV258-2+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 = 33] [nf = 0] [nu = 25] [ut = 14] % Looking for a proof at depth = 2 ... % +================================================+ % | | % | Congratulations!!! ........ A proof was found. | % | | % +================================================+ % Base Clauses and Unit Clauses used in proof: % ============================================ % Base Clauses: % ------------- % B0: c_in_3(v_X_0(),c_Message_Oparts_1(v_H_0()),tc_Message_Omsg_0()) % B1: ~c_lessequals_3(c_Message_Oparts_1(c_insert_3(v_X_0(),v_H_0(),tc_Message_Omsg_0())),c_Message_Oparts_1(v_H_0()),tc_set_1(tc_Message_Omsg_0())) % B2: c_lessequals_3(x0,x0,tc_set_1(x1)) % B3: ~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())) % B4: ~c_lessequals_3(c_Message_Oparts_1(x0),c_Message_Oparts_1(x1),tc_set_1(tc_Message_Omsg_0())) | c_lessequals_3(x0,c_Message_Oparts_1(x1),tc_set_1(tc_Message_Omsg_0())) % B5: ~c_in_3(x0,x1,x2) | ~c_lessequals_3(x3,x1,tc_set_1(x2)) | c_lessequals_3(c_insert_3(x0,x3,x2),x1,tc_set_1(x2)) % Unit Clauses: % -------------- % U3: < d1 v0 dv0 f3 c5 t8 td2 > ~c_lessequals_3(c_insert_3(v_X_0(),v_H_0(),tc_Message_Omsg_0()),c_Message_Oparts_1(v_H_0()),tc_set_1(tc_Message_Omsg_0())) % U6: < d1 v2 dv1 f2 c1 t5 td2 > c_lessequals_3(x0,c_Message_Oparts_1(x0),tc_set_1(tc_Message_Omsg_0())) % U16: < d2 v0 dv0 f3 c5 t8 td2 > c_lessequals_3(c_insert_3(v_X_0(),v_H_0(),tc_Message_Omsg_0()),c_Message_Oparts_1(v_H_0()),tc_set_1(tc_Message_Omsg_0())) % --------------- Start of Proof --------------- % Derivation of unit clause U3: % ~c_lessequals_3(c_Message_Oparts_1(c_insert_3(v_X_0(),v_H_0(),tc_Message_Omsg_0())),c_Message_Oparts_1(v_H_0()),tc_set_1(tc_Message_Omsg_0())) ....... B1 % ~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())) ....... B3 % ~c_lessequals_3(c_insert_3(v_X_0(), v_H_0(), tc_Message_Omsg_0()), c_Message_Oparts_1(v_H_0()), tc_set_1(tc_Message_Omsg_0())) ....... R1 [B1:L0, B3:L1] % Derivation of unit clause U6: % c_lessequals_3(x0,x0,tc_set_1(x1)) ....... B2 % ~c_lessequals_3(c_Message_Oparts_1(x0),c_Message_Oparts_1(x1),tc_set_1(tc_Message_Omsg_0())) | c_lessequals_3(x0,c_Message_Oparts_1(x1),tc_set_1(tc_Message_Omsg_0())) ....... B4 % c_lessequals_3(x0, c_Message_Oparts_1(x0), tc_set_1(tc_Message_Omsg_0())) ....... R1 [B2:L0, B4:L0] % Derivation of unit clause U16: % c_in_3(v_X_0(),c_Message_Oparts_1(v_H_0()),tc_Message_Omsg_0()) ....... B0 % ~c_in_3(x0,x1,x2) | ~c_lessequals_3(x3,x1,tc_set_1(x2)) | c_lessequals_3(c_insert_3(x0,x3,x2),x1,tc_set_1(x2)) ....... B5 % ~c_lessequals_3(x0, c_Message_Oparts_1(v_H_0()), tc_set_1(tc_Message_Omsg_0())) | c_lessequals_3(c_insert_3(v_X_0(), x0, tc_Message_Omsg_0()), c_Message_Oparts_1(v_H_0()), tc_set_1(tc_Message_Omsg_0())) ....... R1 [B0:L0, B5:L0] % c_lessequals_3(x0,c_Message_Oparts_1(x0),tc_set_1(tc_Message_Omsg_0())) ....... U6 % c_lessequals_3(c_insert_3(v_X_0(), v_H_0(), tc_Message_Omsg_0()), c_Message_Oparts_1(v_H_0()), tc_set_1(tc_Message_Omsg_0())) ....... R2 [R1:L0, U6:L0] % Derivation of the empty clause: % c_lessequals_3(c_insert_3(v_X_0(),v_H_0(),tc_Message_Omsg_0()),c_Message_Oparts_1(v_H_0()),tc_set_1(tc_Message_Omsg_0())) ....... U16 % ~c_lessequals_3(c_insert_3(v_X_0(),v_H_0(),tc_Message_Omsg_0()),c_Message_Oparts_1(v_H_0()),tc_set_1(tc_Message_Omsg_0())) ....... U3 % [] ....... R1 [U16:L0, U3:L0] % --------------- End of Proof --------------- % PROOF FOUND! % --------------------------------------------- % | Statistics | % --------------------------------------------- % Profile 3: Performance Statistics: % ================================== % Total number of generated clauses: 37 % resolvents: 37 factors: 0 % Number of unit clauses generated: 28 % % unit clauses generated to total clauses generated: 75.68 % Number of unit clauses constructed and retained at depth [x]: % ============================================================= % [0] = 3 [1] = 11 [2] = 3 % Total = 17 % Number of generated clauses having [x] literals: % ------------------------------------------------ % [1] = 28 [2] = 9 % Average size of a generated clause: 2.0 % Number of unit clauses per predicate list: % ========================================== % [0] c_in_3 (+)1 (-)0 % [1] c_lessequals_3 (+)12 (-)4 % ------------------ % Total: (+)13 (-)4 % Total number of unit clauses retained: 17 % Number of clauses skipped because of their length: 2 % N base clauses skippped in resolve-with-all-base-clauses % because of the shortest resolvents table: 0 % Number of successful unifications: 41 % Number of unification failures: 1 % Number of unit to unit unification failures: 45 % N literal unification failure due to lookup root_id table: 14 % N base clause resolution failure due to lookup table: 5 % N UC-BCL resolution dropped due to lookup table: 0 % Max entries in substitution set: 6 % N unit clauses dropped because they exceeded max values: 14 % N unit clauses dropped because too much nesting: 3 % 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: 11 % Max term depth in a unit clause: 5 % Number of states in UCFA table: 94 % Total number of terms of all unit clauses in table: 129 % Max allowed number of states in UCFA: 136000 % Ratio n states used/total allowed states: 0.00 % Ratio n states used/total unit clauses terms: 0.73 % Number of symbols (columns) in UCFA: 42 % Profile 2: Number of calls to: % ============================== % PTUnify() = 42 % ConstructUnitClause() = 28 % Profile 1: Time spent in: % ========================= % ConstructUnitClause() : 0.01 secs % -------------------------------------------------------- % | | % Inferences per sec: inf % | | % -------------------------------------------------------- % Elapsed time: 0 secs % CPU time: 0.17 secs % %------------------------------------------------------------------------------