%------------------------------------------------------------------------------ % File : CARINE---0.734 % Problem : SWV284-2 : 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 06:50:55 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/SystemOnTPTP16083/SWV/SWV284-2+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(x0,v_x_1(x0),tc_nat_0()) % B1: ~c_in_3(c_Message_Omsg_ONonce_1(x0),c_Event_Oused_1(v_list_0()),tc_Message_Omsg_0()) | ~c_lessequals_3(v_N_0(),x0,tc_nat_0()) % B2: c_in_3(c_Message_Omsg_ONonce_1(v_x_1(x0)),c_Event_Oused_1(v_list_0()),tc_Message_Omsg_0()) | c_in_3(c_Message_Omsg_ONonce_1(v_x_1(x0)),c_Message_Oparts_1(c_insert_3(v_msg_0(),c_emptyset_0(),tc_Message_Omsg_0())),tc_Message_Omsg_0()) % B3: ~c_lessequals_3(c_plus_3(x0,x1,tc_nat_0()),x2,tc_nat_0()) | c_lessequals_3(x0,x2,tc_nat_0()) % B4: ~c_lessequals_3(c_plus_3(x0,x1,tc_nat_0()),x2,tc_nat_0()) | c_lessequals_3(x1,x2,tc_nat_0()) % B5: ~c_in_3(c_Message_Omsg_ONonce_1(x0),c_Message_Oparts_1(c_insert_3(x1,c_emptyset_0(),tc_Message_Omsg_0())),tc_Message_Omsg_0()) | ~c_lessequals_3(v_sko__upX_1(x1),x0,tc_nat_0()) % Unit Clauses: % -------------- % U2: < d1 v3 dv2 f2 c2 t7 td3 > c_lessequals_3(x0,v_x_1(c_plus_3(x0,x1,tc_nat_0())),tc_nat_0()) % U3: < d1 v3 dv2 f2 c2 t7 td3 > c_lessequals_3(x0,v_x_1(c_plus_3(x1,x0,tc_nat_0())),tc_nat_0()) % U5: < d1 v1 dv1 f4 c4 t9 td4 > ~c_in_3(c_Message_Omsg_ONonce_1(v_x_1(c_plus_3(v_N_0(),x0,tc_nat_0()))),c_Event_Oused_1(v_list_0()),tc_Message_Omsg_0()) % U8: < d1 v1 dv1 f5 c6 t12 td4 > c_in_3(c_Message_Omsg_ONonce_1(v_x_1(c_plus_3(v_N_0(),x0,tc_nat_0()))),c_Message_Oparts_1(c_insert_3(v_msg_0(),c_emptyset_0(),tc_Message_Omsg_0())),tc_Message_Omsg_0()) % U22: < d1 v1 dv1 f3 c4 t8 td3 > ~c_lessequals_3(v_sko__upX_1(v_msg_0()),v_x_1(c_plus_3(v_N_0(),x0,tc_nat_0())),tc_nat_0()) % --------------- Start of Proof --------------- % Derivation of unit clause U2: % c_lessequals_3(x0,v_x_1(x0),tc_nat_0()) ....... B0 % ~c_lessequals_3(c_plus_3(x0,x1,tc_nat_0()),x2,tc_nat_0()) | c_lessequals_3(x0,x2,tc_nat_0()) ....... B3 % c_lessequals_3(x0, v_x_1(c_plus_3(x0, x1, tc_nat_0())), tc_nat_0()) ....... R1 [B0:L0, B3:L0] % Derivation of unit clause U3: % c_lessequals_3(x0,v_x_1(x0),tc_nat_0()) ....... B0 % ~c_lessequals_3(c_plus_3(x0,x1,tc_nat_0()),x2,tc_nat_0()) | c_lessequals_3(x1,x2,tc_nat_0()) ....... B4 % c_lessequals_3(x0, v_x_1(c_plus_3(x1, x0, tc_nat_0())), tc_nat_0()) ....... R1 [B0:L0, B4:L0] % Derivation of unit clause U5: % ~c_in_3(c_Message_Omsg_ONonce_1(x0),c_Event_Oused_1(v_list_0()),tc_Message_Omsg_0()) | ~c_lessequals_3(v_N_0(),x0,tc_nat_0()) ....... B1 % c_lessequals_3(x0,v_x_1(c_plus_3(x0,x1,tc_nat_0())),tc_nat_0()) ....... U2 % ~c_in_3(c_Message_Omsg_ONonce_1(v_x_1(c_plus_3(v_N_0(), x0, tc_nat_0()))), c_Event_Oused_1(v_list_0()), tc_Message_Omsg_0()) ....... R1 [B1:L1, U2:L0] % Derivation of unit clause U8: % c_in_3(c_Message_Omsg_ONonce_1(v_x_1(x0)),c_Event_Oused_1(v_list_0()),tc_Message_Omsg_0()) | c_in_3(c_Message_Omsg_ONonce_1(v_x_1(x0)),c_Message_Oparts_1(c_insert_3(v_msg_0(),c_emptyset_0(),tc_Message_Omsg_0())),tc_Message_Omsg_0()) ....... B2 % ~c_in_3(c_Message_Omsg_ONonce_1(v_x_1(c_plus_3(v_N_0(),x0,tc_nat_0()))),c_Event_Oused_1(v_list_0()),tc_Message_Omsg_0()) ....... U5 % c_in_3(c_Message_Omsg_ONonce_1(v_x_1(c_plus_3(v_N_0(), x0, tc_nat_0()))), c_Message_Oparts_1(c_insert_3(v_msg_0(), c_emptyset_0(), tc_Message_Omsg_0())), tc_Message_Omsg_0()) ....... R1 [B2:L0, U5:L0] % Derivation of unit clause U22: % ~c_in_3(c_Message_Omsg_ONonce_1(x0),c_Message_Oparts_1(c_insert_3(x1,c_emptyset_0(),tc_Message_Omsg_0())),tc_Message_Omsg_0()) | ~c_lessequals_3(v_sko__upX_1(x1),x0,tc_nat_0()) ....... B5 % c_in_3(c_Message_Omsg_ONonce_1(v_x_1(c_plus_3(v_N_0(),x0,tc_nat_0()))),c_Message_Oparts_1(c_insert_3(v_msg_0(),c_emptyset_0(),tc_Message_Omsg_0())),tc_Message_Omsg_0()) ....... U8 % ~c_lessequals_3(v_sko__upX_1(v_msg_0()), v_x_1(c_plus_3(v_N_0(), x0, tc_nat_0())), tc_nat_0()) ....... R1 [B5:L0, U8:L0] % Derivation of the empty clause: % ~c_lessequals_3(v_sko__upX_1(v_msg_0()),v_x_1(c_plus_3(v_N_0(),x0,tc_nat_0())),tc_nat_0()) ....... U22 % c_lessequals_3(x0,v_x_1(c_plus_3(x1,x0,tc_nat_0())),tc_nat_0()) ....... U3 % [] ....... R1 [U22:L0, U3:L0] % --------------- End of Proof --------------- % PROOF FOUND! % --------------------------------------------- % | Statistics | % --------------------------------------------- % Profile 3: Performance Statistics: % ================================== % Total number of generated clauses: 45 % resolvents: 45 factors: 0 % Number of unit clauses generated: 33 % % unit clauses generated to total clauses generated: 73.33 % Number of unit clauses constructed and retained at depth [x]: % ============================================================= % [0] = 1 [1] = 22 % Total = 23 % Number of generated clauses having [x] literals: % ------------------------------------------------ % [1] = 33 [2] = 12 % Average size of a generated clause: 2.0 % Number of unit clauses per predicate list: % ========================================== % [0] c_in_3 (+)4 (-)4 % [1] c_lessequals_3 (+)13 (-)2 % ------------------ % Total: (+)17 (-)6 % Total number of unit clauses retained: 23 % 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: 50 % Number of unification failures: 0 % Number of unit to unit unification failures: 31 % N literal unification failure due to lookup root_id table: 34 % N base clause resolution failure due to lookup table: 6 % 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: 11 % 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: 138 % Total number of terms of all unit clauses in table: 223 % 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: 0.62 % Number of symbols (columns) in UCFA: 49 % Profile 2: Number of calls to: % ============================== % PTUnify() = 50 % ConstructUnitClause() = 33 % Profile 1: Time spent in: % ========================= % ConstructUnitClause() : 0.00 secs % -------------------------------------------------------- % | | % Inferences per sec: inf % | | % -------------------------------------------------------- % Elapsed time: 0 secs % CPU time: 0.16 secs % %------------------------------------------------------------------------------