TSTP Solution File: SWV357-2 by CARINE---0.734
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : CARINE---0.734
% Problem : SWV357-2 : TPTP v5.0.0. Released v3.2.0.
% Transfm : add_equality
% Format : carine
% Command : carine %s t=%d xo=off uct=32000
% Computer : art05.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 07:09:31 EST 2010
% Result : Unsatisfiable 0.42s
% Output : Refutation 0.42s
% 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/SystemOnTPTP17622/SWV/SWV357-2+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 = 15] [nf = 0] [nu = 10] [ut = 11]
% 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_evs2_0(),c_Yahalom_Oyahalom_0(),tc_List_Olist_1(tc_Event_Oevent_0()))
% B2: ~c_in_3(c_Message_Omsg_ONonce_1(v_NB_0()),c_Message_Oanalz_1(c_Event_Oknows_2(c_Message_Oagent_OSpy_0(),v_evs2_0())),tc_Message_Omsg_0())
% B3: ~c_in_3(c_Message_Omsg_OMPair_2(x0,x1),c_Message_Oanalz_1(x2),tc_Message_Omsg_0()) | c_in_3(x1,c_Message_Oanalz_1(x2),tc_Message_Omsg_0())
% B4: ~c_in_3(c_Event_Oevent_OGets_2(x1,x2),c_List_Oset_2(x0,tc_Event_Oevent_0()),tc_Event_Oevent_0()) | ~c_in_3(x0,c_Yahalom_Oyahalom_0(),tc_List_Olist_1(tc_Event_Oevent_0())) | c_in_3(x2,c_Message_Oanalz_1(c_Event_Oknows_2(c_Message_Oagent_OSpy_0(),x0)),tc_Message_Omsg_0())
% Unit Clauses:
% --------------
% U1: < d0 v0 dv0 f5 c6 t11 td4 b nc > c_in_3(c_Event_Oevent_OGets_2(v_Ba_0(),c_Message_Omsg_OMPair_2(c_Message_Omsg_OAgent_1(v_Aa_0()),c_Message_Omsg_ONonce_1(v_NB_0()))),c_List_Oset_2(v_evs2_0(),tc_Event_Oevent_0()),tc_Event_Oevent_0())
% U3: < d1 v1 dv1 f4 c4 t9 td3 > ~c_in_3(c_Message_Omsg_OMPair_2(x0,c_Message_Omsg_ONonce_1(v_NB_0())),c_Message_Oanalz_1(c_Event_Oknows_2(c_Message_Oagent_OSpy_0(),v_evs2_0())),tc_Message_Omsg_0())
% U11: < d2 v0 dv0 f5 c5 t10 td3 > c_in_3(c_Message_Omsg_OMPair_2(c_Message_Omsg_OAgent_1(v_Aa_0()),c_Message_Omsg_ONonce_1(v_NB_0())),c_Message_Oanalz_1(c_Event_Oknows_2(c_Message_Oagent_OSpy_0(),v_evs2_0())),tc_Message_Omsg_0())
% --------------- Start of Proof ---------------
% Derivation of unit clause U1:
% c_in_3(c_Event_Oevent_OGets_2(v_Ba_0(),c_Message_Omsg_OMPair_2(c_Message_Omsg_OAgent_1(v_Aa_0()),c_Message_Omsg_ONonce_1(v_NB_0()))),c_List_Oset_2(v_evs2_0(),tc_Event_Oevent_0()),tc_Event_Oevent_0()) ....... U1
% Derivation of unit clause U3:
% ~c_in_3(c_Message_Omsg_ONonce_1(v_NB_0()),c_Message_Oanalz_1(c_Event_Oknows_2(c_Message_Oagent_OSpy_0(),v_evs2_0())),tc_Message_Omsg_0()) ....... B2
% ~c_in_3(c_Message_Omsg_OMPair_2(x0,x1),c_Message_Oanalz_1(x2),tc_Message_Omsg_0()) | c_in_3(x1,c_Message_Oanalz_1(x2),tc_Message_Omsg_0()) ....... B3
% ~c_in_3(c_Message_Omsg_OMPair_2(x0, c_Message_Omsg_ONonce_1(v_NB_0())), c_Message_Oanalz_1(c_Event_Oknows_2(c_Message_Oagent_OSpy_0(), v_evs2_0())), tc_Message_Omsg_0()) ....... R1 [B2:L0, B3:L1]
% Derivation of unit clause U11:
% c_in_3(v_evs2_0(),c_Yahalom_Oyahalom_0(),tc_List_Olist_1(tc_Event_Oevent_0())) ....... B0
% ~c_in_3(c_Event_Oevent_OGets_2(x1,x2),c_List_Oset_2(x0,tc_Event_Oevent_0()),tc_Event_Oevent_0()) | ~c_in_3(x0,c_Yahalom_Oyahalom_0(),tc_List_Olist_1(tc_Event_Oevent_0())) | c_in_3(x2,c_Message_Oanalz_1(c_Event_Oknows_2(c_Message_Oagent_OSpy_0(),x0)),tc_Message_Omsg_0()) ....... B4
% ~c_in_3(c_Event_Oevent_OGets_2(x0, x1), c_List_Oset_2(v_evs2_0(), tc_Event_Oevent_0()), tc_Event_Oevent_0()) | c_in_3(x1, c_Message_Oanalz_1(c_Event_Oknows_2(c_Message_Oagent_OSpy_0(), v_evs2_0())), tc_Message_Omsg_0()) ....... R1 [B0:L0, B4:L1]
% c_in_3(c_Event_Oevent_OGets_2(v_Ba_0(),c_Message_Omsg_OMPair_2(c_Message_Omsg_OAgent_1(v_Aa_0()),c_Message_Omsg_ONonce_1(v_NB_0()))),c_List_Oset_2(v_evs2_0(),tc_Event_Oevent_0()),tc_Event_Oevent_0()) ....... U1
% c_in_3(c_Message_Omsg_OMPair_2(c_Message_Omsg_OAgent_1(v_Aa_0()), c_Message_Omsg_ONonce_1(v_NB_0())), c_Message_Oanalz_1(c_Event_Oknows_2(c_Message_Oagent_OSpy_0(), v_evs2_0())), tc_Message_Omsg_0()) ....... R2 [R1:L0, U1:L0]
% Derivation of the empty clause:
% c_in_3(c_Message_Omsg_OMPair_2(c_Message_Omsg_OAgent_1(v_Aa_0()),c_Message_Omsg_ONonce_1(v_NB_0())),c_Message_Oanalz_1(c_Event_Oknows_2(c_Message_Oagent_OSpy_0(),v_evs2_0())),tc_Message_Omsg_0()) ....... U11
% ~c_in_3(c_Message_Omsg_OMPair_2(x0,c_Message_Omsg_ONonce_1(v_NB_0())),c_Message_Oanalz_1(c_Event_Oknows_2(c_Message_Oagent_OSpy_0(),v_evs2_0())),tc_Message_Omsg_0()) ....... U3
% [] ....... R1 [U11:L0, U3:L0]
% --------------- End of Proof ---------------
% PROOF FOUND!
% ---------------------------------------------
% | Statistics |
% ---------------------------------------------
% Profile 3: Performance Statistics:
% ==================================
% Total number of generated clauses: 17
% resolvents: 17 factors: 0
% Number of unit clauses generated: 11
% % unit clauses generated to total clauses generated: 64.71
% Number of unit clauses constructed and retained at depth [x]:
% =============================================================
% [0] = 3 [1] = 8 [2] = 1
% Total = 12
% Number of generated clauses having [x] literals:
% ------------------------------------------------
% [1] = 11 [2] = 6
% Average size of a generated clause: 2.0
% Number of unit clauses per predicate list:
% ==========================================
% [0] c_in_3 (+)3 (-)9
% ------------------
% Total: (+)3 (-)9
% Total number of unit clauses retained: 12
% Number of clauses skipped because of their length: 1
% N base clauses skippped in resolve-with-all-base-clauses
% because of the shortest resolvents table: 0
% Number of successful unifications: 20
% Number of unification failures: 0
% Number of unit to unit unification failures: 19
% N literal unification failure due to lookup root_id table: 13
% 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: 3
% N unit clauses dropped because they exceeded max values: 2
% N unit clauses dropped because too much nesting: 1
% 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: 23
% Max term depth in a unit clause: 10
% Number of states in UCFA table: 97
% Total number of terms of all unit clauses in table: 160
% Max allowed number of states in UCFA: 528000
% Ratio n states used/total allowed states: 0.00
% Ratio n states used/total unit clauses terms: 0.61
% Number of symbols (columns) in UCFA: 51
% Profile 2: Number of calls to:
% ==============================
% PTUnify() = 20
% ConstructUnitClause() = 11
% Profile 1: Time spent in:
% =========================
% ConstructUnitClause() : 0.00 secs
% --------------------------------------------------------
% | |
% Inferences per sec: inf
% | |
% --------------------------------------------------------
% Elapsed time: 0 secs
% CPU time: 0.41 secs
%
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------