%------------------------------------------------------------------------------ % File : CARINE---0.734 % Problem : SWV273-2 : TPTP v5.0.0. Released v3.2.0. % 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 06:47:51 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/SystemOnTPTP15148/SWV/SWV273-2+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 = 59] [nf = 0] [nu = 48] [ut = 32] % Looking for a proof at depth = 2 ... % +================================================+ % | | % | Congratulations!!! ........ A proof was found. | % | | % +================================================+ % Base Clauses and Unit Clauses used in proof: % ============================================ % Base Clauses: % ------------- % B0: ~c_lessequals_3(c_union_3(c_Message_Oparts_1(v_H_0()),c_Message_Osynth_1(v_H_0()),tc_Message_Omsg_0()),c_Message_Oparts_1(c_Message_Osynth_1(v_H_0())),tc_set_1(tc_Message_Omsg_0())) % B1: c_lessequals_3(x0,x0,tc_set_1(x1)) % B2: c_lessequals_3(x0,c_Message_Osynth_1(x0),tc_set_1(tc_Message_Omsg_0())) % B3: ~c_lessequals_3(x0,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_lessequals_3(x3,x1,tc_set_1(x2)) | ~c_lessequals_3(x0,x1,tc_set_1(x2)) | c_lessequals_3(c_union_3(x3,x0,x2),x1,tc_set_1(x2)) % Unit Clauses: % -------------- % U5: < d1 v2 dv1 f2 c1 t5 td2 > c_lessequals_3(x0,c_Message_Oparts_1(x0),tc_set_1(tc_Message_Omsg_0())) % U6: < d1 v2 dv1 f4 c1 t7 td3 > c_lessequals_3(c_Message_Oparts_1(x0),c_Message_Oparts_1(c_Message_Osynth_1(x0)),tc_set_1(tc_Message_Omsg_0())) % U32: < d2 v0 dv0 f4 c3 t7 td3 > ~c_lessequals_3(c_Message_Osynth_1(v_H_0()),c_Message_Oparts_1(c_Message_Osynth_1(v_H_0())),tc_set_1(tc_Message_Omsg_0())) % --------------- Start of Proof --------------- % Derivation of unit clause U5: % c_lessequals_3(x0,x0,tc_set_1(x1)) ....... B1 % ~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 [B1:L0, B4:L0] % Derivation of unit clause U6: % c_lessequals_3(x0,c_Message_Osynth_1(x0),tc_set_1(tc_Message_Omsg_0())) ....... B2 % ~c_lessequals_3(x0,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_Message_Oparts_1(x0), c_Message_Oparts_1(c_Message_Osynth_1(x0)), tc_set_1(tc_Message_Omsg_0())) ....... R1 [B2:L0, B3:L0] % Derivation of unit clause U32: % ~c_lessequals_3(c_union_3(c_Message_Oparts_1(v_H_0()),c_Message_Osynth_1(v_H_0()),tc_Message_Omsg_0()),c_Message_Oparts_1(c_Message_Osynth_1(v_H_0())),tc_set_1(tc_Message_Omsg_0())) ....... B0 % ~c_lessequals_3(x3,x1,tc_set_1(x2)) | ~c_lessequals_3(x0,x1,tc_set_1(x2)) | c_lessequals_3(c_union_3(x3,x0,x2),x1,tc_set_1(x2)) ....... B5 % ~c_lessequals_3(c_Message_Oparts_1(v_H_0()), c_Message_Oparts_1(c_Message_Osynth_1(v_H_0())), tc_set_1(tc_Message_Omsg_0())) | ~c_lessequals_3(c_Message_Osynth_1(v_H_0()), c_Message_Oparts_1(c_Message_Osynth_1(v_H_0())), tc_set_1(tc_Message_Omsg_0())) ....... R1 [B0:L0, B5:L2] % c_lessequals_3(c_Message_Oparts_1(x0),c_Message_Oparts_1(c_Message_Osynth_1(x0)),tc_set_1(tc_Message_Omsg_0())) ....... U6 % ~c_lessequals_3(c_Message_Osynth_1(v_H_0()), c_Message_Oparts_1(c_Message_Osynth_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_Message_Osynth_1(v_H_0()),c_Message_Oparts_1(c_Message_Osynth_1(v_H_0())),tc_set_1(tc_Message_Omsg_0())) ....... U32 % c_lessequals_3(x0,c_Message_Oparts_1(x0),tc_set_1(tc_Message_Omsg_0())) ....... U5 % [] ....... R1 [U32:L0, U5:L0] % --------------- End of Proof --------------- % PROOF FOUND! % --------------------------------------------- % | Statistics | % --------------------------------------------- % Profile 3: Performance Statistics: % ================================== % Total number of generated clauses: 62 % resolvents: 62 factors: 0 % Number of unit clauses generated: 50 % % unit clauses generated to total clauses generated: 80.65 % Number of unit clauses constructed and retained at depth [x]: % ============================================================= % [0] = 3 [1] = 29 [2] = 1 % Total = 33 % Number of generated clauses having [x] literals: % ------------------------------------------------ % [1] = 50 [2] = 12 % Average size of a generated clause: 2.0 % Number of unit clauses per predicate list: % ========================================== % [0] c_lessequals_3 (+)28 (-)5 % ------------------ % Total: (+)28 (-)5 % Total number of unit clauses retained: 33 % 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: 66 % Number of unification failures: 8 % Number of unit to unit unification failures: 115 % N literal unification failure due to lookup root_id table: 19 % N base clause resolution failure due to lookup table: 3 % N UC-BCL resolution dropped due to lookup table: 0 % Max entries in substitution set: 5 % N unit clauses dropped because they exceeded max values: 19 % N unit clauses dropped because too much nesting: 8 % 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: 13 % Max term depth in a unit clause: 5 % Number of states in UCFA table: 144 % Total number of terms of all unit clauses in table: 276 % Max allowed number of states in UCFA: 152000 % Ratio n states used/total allowed states: 0.00 % Ratio n states used/total unit clauses terms: 0.52 % Number of symbols (columns) in UCFA: 41 % Profile 2: Number of calls to: % ============================== % PTUnify() = 74 % ConstructUnitClause() = 49 % Profile 1: Time spent in: % ========================= % ConstructUnitClause() : 0.00 secs % -------------------------------------------------------- % | | % Inferences per sec: inf % | | % -------------------------------------------------------- % Elapsed time: 0 secs % CPU time: 0.16 secs % %------------------------------------------------------------------------------