TSTP Solution File: SWV242-2 by CARINE---0.734
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : CARINE---0.734
% Problem : SWV242-2 : TPTP v5.0.0. Released v3.2.0.
% Transfm : add_equality
% Format : carine
% Command : carine %s t=%d xo=off uct=32000
% Computer : art01.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 06:36:22 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/SystemOnTPTP27451/SWV/SWV242-2+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 = 30] [nf = 0] [nu = 20] [ut = 16]
% Looking for a proof at depth = 2 ...
% t = 0 secs [nr = 774] [nf = 8] [nu = 505] [ut = 109]
% Looking for a proof at depth = 3 ...
% +================================================+
% | |
% | Congratulations!!! ........ A proof was found. |
% | |
% +================================================+
% Base Clauses and Unit Clauses used in proof:
% ============================================
% Base Clauses:
% -------------
% B0: c_lessequals_3(v_G_0(),c_Message_Oanalz_1(v_G_H_0()),tc_set_1(tc_Message_Omsg_0()))
% B1: c_lessequals_3(v_H_0(),c_Message_Oanalz_1(v_H_H_0()),tc_set_1(tc_Message_Omsg_0()))
% B3: c_lessequals_3(x0,c_union_3(x0,x1,x2),tc_set_1(x2))
% B4: c_lessequals_3(x0,c_union_3(x1,x0,x2),tc_set_1(x2))
% B5: ~c_lessequals_3(x0,x1,tc_set_1(tc_Message_Omsg_0())) | c_lessequals_3(c_Message_Oanalz_1(x0),c_Message_Oanalz_1(x1),tc_set_1(tc_Message_Omsg_0()))
% B6: ~c_lessequals_3(x3,x0,tc_set_1(x2)) | ~c_lessequals_3(x0,x1,tc_set_1(x2)) | c_lessequals_3(x3,x1,tc_set_1(x2))
% Unit Clauses:
% --------------
% U6: < d1 v3 dv2 f4 c2 t9 td3 > c_lessequals_3(c_Message_Oanalz_1(x0),c_Message_Oanalz_1(c_union_3(x0,x1,tc_Message_Omsg_0())),tc_set_1(tc_Message_Omsg_0()))
% U7: < d1 v3 dv2 f4 c2 t9 td3 > c_lessequals_3(c_Message_Oanalz_1(x0),c_Message_Oanalz_1(c_union_3(x1,x0,tc_Message_Omsg_0())),tc_set_1(tc_Message_Omsg_0()))
% U23: < d2 v1 dv1 f3 c4 t8 td3 > c_lessequals_3(v_H_0(),c_Message_Oanalz_1(c_union_3(x0,v_H_H_0(),tc_Message_Omsg_0())),tc_set_1(tc_Message_Omsg_0()))
% U109: < d3 v0 dv0 f3 c5 t8 td3 > ~c_lessequals_3(v_H_0(),c_Message_Oanalz_1(c_union_3(v_G_H_0(),v_H_H_0(),tc_Message_Omsg_0())),tc_set_1(tc_Message_Omsg_0()))
% --------------- Start of Proof ---------------
% Derivation of unit clause U6:
% c_lessequals_3(x0,c_union_3(x0,x1,x2),tc_set_1(x2)) ....... B3
% ~c_lessequals_3(x0,x1,tc_set_1(tc_Message_Omsg_0())) | c_lessequals_3(c_Message_Oanalz_1(x0),c_Message_Oanalz_1(x1),tc_set_1(tc_Message_Omsg_0())) ....... B5
% c_lessequals_3(c_Message_Oanalz_1(x0), c_Message_Oanalz_1(c_union_3(x0, x1, tc_Message_Omsg_0())), tc_set_1(tc_Message_Omsg_0())) ....... R1 [B3:L0, B5:L0]
% Derivation of unit clause U7:
% c_lessequals_3(x0,c_union_3(x1,x0,x2),tc_set_1(x2)) ....... B4
% ~c_lessequals_3(x0,x1,tc_set_1(tc_Message_Omsg_0())) | c_lessequals_3(c_Message_Oanalz_1(x0),c_Message_Oanalz_1(x1),tc_set_1(tc_Message_Omsg_0())) ....... B5
% c_lessequals_3(c_Message_Oanalz_1(x0), c_Message_Oanalz_1(c_union_3(x1, x0, tc_Message_Omsg_0())), tc_set_1(tc_Message_Omsg_0())) ....... R1 [B4:L0, B5:L0]
% Derivation of unit clause U23:
% c_lessequals_3(v_H_0(),c_Message_Oanalz_1(v_H_H_0()),tc_set_1(tc_Message_Omsg_0())) ....... B1
% ~c_lessequals_3(x3,x0,tc_set_1(x2)) | ~c_lessequals_3(x0,x1,tc_set_1(x2)) | c_lessequals_3(x3,x1,tc_set_1(x2)) ....... B6
% ~c_lessequals_3(c_Message_Oanalz_1(v_H_H_0()), x0, tc_set_1(tc_Message_Omsg_0())) | c_lessequals_3(v_H_0(), x0, tc_set_1(tc_Message_Omsg_0())) ....... R1 [B1:L0, B6:L0]
% c_lessequals_3(c_Message_Oanalz_1(x0),c_Message_Oanalz_1(c_union_3(x1,x0,tc_Message_Omsg_0())),tc_set_1(tc_Message_Omsg_0())) ....... U7
% c_lessequals_3(v_H_0(), c_Message_Oanalz_1(c_union_3(x0, v_H_H_0(), tc_Message_Omsg_0())), tc_set_1(tc_Message_Omsg_0())) ....... R2 [R1:L0, U7:L0]
% Derivation of unit clause U109:
% c_lessequals_3(v_G_0(),c_Message_Oanalz_1(v_G_H_0()),tc_set_1(tc_Message_Omsg_0())) ....... B0
% ~c_lessequals_3(x3,x0,tc_set_1(x2)) | ~c_lessequals_3(x0,x1,tc_set_1(x2)) | c_lessequals_3(x3,x1,tc_set_1(x2)) ....... B6
% ~c_lessequals_3(c_Message_Oanalz_1(v_G_H_0()), x0, tc_set_1(tc_Message_Omsg_0())) | c_lessequals_3(v_G_0(), x0, tc_set_1(tc_Message_Omsg_0())) ....... R1 [B0:L0, B6:L0]
% ~c_lessequals_3(v_G_0(),c_Message_Oanalz_1(c_union_3(v_G_H_0(),v_H_H_0(),tc_Message_Omsg_0())),tc_set_1(tc_Message_Omsg_0())) | ~c_lessequals_3(v_H_0(),c_Message_Oanalz_1(c_union_3(v_G_H_0(),v_H_H_0(),tc_Message_Omsg_0())),tc_set_1(tc_Message_Omsg_0())) ....... B2
% ~c_lessequals_3(c_Message_Oanalz_1(v_G_H_0()), c_Message_Oanalz_1(c_union_3(v_G_H_0(), v_H_H_0(), tc_Message_Omsg_0())), tc_set_1(tc_Message_Omsg_0())) | ~c_lessequals_3(v_H_0(), c_Message_Oanalz_1(c_union_3(v_G_H_0(), v_H_H_0(), tc_Message_Omsg_0())), tc_set_1(tc_Message_Omsg_0())) ....... R2 [R1:L1, B2:L0]
% c_lessequals_3(c_Message_Oanalz_1(x0),c_Message_Oanalz_1(c_union_3(x0,x1,tc_Message_Omsg_0())),tc_set_1(tc_Message_Omsg_0())) ....... U6
% ~c_lessequals_3(v_H_0(), c_Message_Oanalz_1(c_union_3(v_G_H_0(), v_H_H_0(), tc_Message_Omsg_0())), tc_set_1(tc_Message_Omsg_0())) ....... R3 [R2:L0, U6:L0]
% Derivation of the empty clause:
% ~c_lessequals_3(v_H_0(),c_Message_Oanalz_1(c_union_3(v_G_H_0(),v_H_H_0(),tc_Message_Omsg_0())),tc_set_1(tc_Message_Omsg_0())) ....... U109
% c_lessequals_3(v_H_0(),c_Message_Oanalz_1(c_union_3(x0,v_H_H_0(),tc_Message_Omsg_0())),tc_set_1(tc_Message_Omsg_0())) ....... U23
% [] ....... R1 [U109:L0, U23:L0]
% --------------- End of Proof ---------------
% PROOF FOUND!
% ---------------------------------------------
% | Statistics |
% ---------------------------------------------
% Profile 3: Performance Statistics:
% ==================================
% Total number of generated clauses: 805
% resolvents: 797 factors: 8
% Number of unit clauses generated: 526
% % unit clauses generated to total clauses generated: 65.34
% Number of unit clauses constructed and retained at depth [x]:
% =============================================================
% [0] = 4 [1] = 12 [2] = 93 [3] = 1
% Total = 110
% Number of generated clauses having [x] literals:
% ------------------------------------------------
% [1] = 526 [2] = 274 [3] = 5
% Average size of a generated clause: 2.0
% Number of unit clauses per predicate list:
% ==========================================
% [0] c_lessequals_3 (+)109 (-)1
% ------------------
% Total: (+)109 (-)1
% Total number of unit clauses retained: 110
% Number of clauses skipped because of their length: 19
% N base clauses skippped in resolve-with-all-base-clauses
% because of the shortest resolvents table: 0
% Number of successful unifications: 812
% Number of unification failures: 511
% Number of unit to unit unification failures: 23
% N literal unification failure due to lookup root_id table: 121
% N base clause resolution failure due to lookup table: 13
% N UC-BCL resolution dropped due to lookup table: 2
% Max entries in substitution set: 6
% N unit clauses dropped because they exceeded max values: 298
% N unit clauses dropped because too much nesting: 242
% 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: 14
% Max term depth in a unit clause: 5
% Number of states in UCFA table: 744
% Total number of terms of all unit clauses in table: 1281
% Max allowed number of states in UCFA: 128000
% Ratio n states used/total allowed states: 0.01
% Ratio n states used/total unit clauses terms: 0.58
% Number of symbols (columns) in UCFA: 43
% Profile 2: Number of calls to:
% ==============================
% PTUnify() = 1323
% ConstructUnitClause() = 404
% Profile 1: Time spent in:
% =========================
% ConstructUnitClause() : 0.00 secs
% --------------------------------------------------------
% | |
% Inferences per sec: inf
% | |
% --------------------------------------------------------
% Elapsed time: 0 secs
% CPU time: 0.17 secs
%
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------