TSTP Solution File: SWV267-2 by CARINE---0.734
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : CARINE---0.734
% Problem : SWV267-2 : 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 06:46:14 EST 2010
% Result : Unsatisfiable 0.14s
% Output : Refutation 0.14s
% 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/SystemOnTPTP14346/SWV/SWV267-2+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 = 5] [nf = 0] [nu = 0] [ut = 3]
% 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_Message_Oparts_1(v_G_0()),c_Message_Oparts_1(v_H_0()),tc_set_1(tc_Message_Omsg_0()))
% B3: ~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:
% --------------
% U1: < d0 v0 dv0 f2 c3 t5 td2 b nc > ~c_lessequals_3(v_G_0(),c_Message_Oparts_1(v_H_0()),tc_set_1(tc_Message_Omsg_0()))
% U2: < d0 v2 dv1 f2 c1 t5 td2 b > c_lessequals_3(x0,c_Message_Oparts_1(x0),tc_set_1(tc_Message_Omsg_0()))
% U4: < d2 v0 dv0 f2 c3 t5 td2 > c_lessequals_3(v_G_0(),c_Message_Oparts_1(v_H_0()),tc_set_1(tc_Message_Omsg_0()))
% --------------- Start of Proof ---------------
% Derivation of unit clause U1:
% ~c_lessequals_3(v_G_0(),c_Message_Oparts_1(v_H_0()),tc_set_1(tc_Message_Omsg_0())) ....... U1
% Derivation of unit clause U2:
% c_lessequals_3(x0,c_Message_Oparts_1(x0),tc_set_1(tc_Message_Omsg_0())) ....... U2
% Derivation of unit clause U4:
% c_lessequals_3(c_Message_Oparts_1(v_G_0()),c_Message_Oparts_1(v_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)) ....... B3
% ~c_lessequals_3(x0, c_Message_Oparts_1(v_G_0()), tc_set_1(tc_Message_Omsg_0())) | c_lessequals_3(x0, c_Message_Oparts_1(v_H_0()), tc_set_1(tc_Message_Omsg_0())) ....... R1 [B0:L0, B3:L1]
% c_lessequals_3(x0,c_Message_Oparts_1(x0),tc_set_1(tc_Message_Omsg_0())) ....... U2
% c_lessequals_3(v_G_0(), c_Message_Oparts_1(v_H_0()), tc_set_1(tc_Message_Omsg_0())) ....... R2 [R1:L0, U2:L0]
% Derivation of the empty clause:
% c_lessequals_3(v_G_0(),c_Message_Oparts_1(v_H_0()),tc_set_1(tc_Message_Omsg_0())) ....... U4
% ~c_lessequals_3(v_G_0(),c_Message_Oparts_1(v_H_0()),tc_set_1(tc_Message_Omsg_0())) ....... U1
% [] ....... R1 [U4:L0, U1:L0]
% --------------- End of Proof ---------------
% PROOF FOUND!
% ---------------------------------------------
% | Statistics |
% ---------------------------------------------
% Profile 3: Performance Statistics:
% ==================================
% Total number of generated clauses: 9
% resolvents: 9 factors: 0
% Number of unit clauses generated: 2
% % unit clauses generated to total clauses generated: 22.22
% Number of unit clauses constructed and retained at depth [x]:
% =============================================================
% [0] = 3 [2] = 2
% Total = 5
% Number of generated clauses having [x] literals:
% ------------------------------------------------
% [1] = 2 [2] = 7
% Average size of a generated clause: 2.0
% Number of unit clauses per predicate list:
% ==========================================
% [0] c_lessequals_3 (+)4 (-)1
% ------------------
% Total: (+)4 (-)1
% Total number of unit clauses retained: 5
% 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: 11
% Number of unification failures: 4
% Number of unit to unit unification failures: 3
% N literal unification failure due to lookup root_id table: 4
% N base clause resolution failure due to lookup table: 0
% 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: 0
% N unit clauses dropped because too much nesting: 0
% 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: 7
% Max term depth in a unit clause: 3
% Number of states in UCFA table: 25
% Total number of terms of all unit clauses in table: 28
% Max allowed number of states in UCFA: 80000
% Ratio n states used/total allowed states: 0.00
% Ratio n states used/total unit clauses terms: 0.89
% Number of symbols (columns) in UCFA: 40
% Profile 2: Number of calls to:
% ==============================
% PTUnify() = 15
% ConstructUnitClause() = 2
% Profile 1: Time spent in:
% =========================
% ConstructUnitClause() : 0.00 secs
% --------------------------------------------------------
% | |
% Inferences per sec: inf
% | |
% --------------------------------------------------------
% Elapsed time: 0 secs
% CPU time: 0.13 secs
%
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------