%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File     : Gandalf---c-2.6
% Problem  : SWV327-1 : TPTP v3.4.2. Released v3.2.0.
% Transfm  : add_equality:r
% Format   : otter:hypothesis:set(auto),clear(print_given)
% Command  : gandalf-wrapper -time %d %s

% Computer : art04.cs.miami.edu
% Model    : i686 i686
% CPU      : Intel(R) Pentium(R) 4 CPU 2.80GHz @ 2793MHz
% Memory   : 1003MB
% OS       : Linux 2.6.11-1.1369_FC4
% CPULimit : 600s

% Result   : Timeout 603.5s
% Output   : None 
% Verified : 
% SZS Type : None (Parsing solution fails)
% Syntax   : Number of formulae    : 0

% Comments : 
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----NO SOLUTION OUTPUT BY SYSTEM
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 
% Gandalf c-2.6 r1 starting to prove: /tmp/SystemOnTPTP14312/SWV/SWV327-1+eq_r.in
% 
% Some predicates or functions were curried and renamed.
% Using automatic strategy selection.
% Time limit in seconds: 600
% 
% prove-all-passes started
% 
% detected problem class: neq
% detected subclass: big
% 
% strategies selected: 
% (hyper 28 #f 11 7)
% (binary-unit 28 #f 11 7)
% (binary-double 11 #f 11 7)
% (binary-double 17 #f)
% (binary-double 17 #t)
% (binary 87 #t 11 7)
% (binary-order 28 #f 11 7)
% (binary-posweight-order 58 #f)
% (binary-posweight-lex-big-order 28 #f)
% (binary-posweight-lex-small-order 11 #f)
% (binary-order-sos 28 #t)
% (binary-unit-uniteq 28 #f)
% (binary-weightorder 28 #f)
% (binary-weightorder-sos 17 #f)
% (binary-order 28 #f)
% (hyper-order 17 #f)
% (binary 141 #t)
% 
% 
% SOS clause 
% equal(v_^b,v_^c) | -c_in(c_^message_^omsg_^o^crypt(c_^public_^oshr^k(v_^a),c_^message_^omsg_^o^m^pair(v_^n^a,c_^message_^omsg_^o^m^pair(c_^message_^omsg_^o^agent(v_^a),c_^message_^omsg_^o^agent(v_^b)))),c_^message_^oparts(c_^event_^oknows(c_^message_^oagent_^o^spy,v_evs4)),tc_^message_^omsg) | -c_in(c_^message_^omsg_^o^crypt(c_^public_^oshr^k(v_^a),c_^message_^omsg_^o^m^pair(v_^n^a,c_^message_^omsg_^o^m^pair(c_^message_^omsg_^o^agent(v_^a),c_^message_^omsg_^o^agent(v_^c)))),c_^message_^oparts(c_^event_^oknows(c_^message_^oagent_^o^spy,v_evs4)),tc_^message_^omsg).
% was split for some strategies as: 
% equal(v_^b,v_^c).
% -c_in(c_^message_^omsg_^o^crypt(c_^public_^oshr^k(v_^a),c_^message_^omsg_^o^m^pair(v_^n^a,c_^message_^omsg_^o^m^pair(c_^message_^omsg_^o^agent(v_^a),c_^message_^omsg_^o^agent(v_^b)))),c_^message_^oparts(c_^event_^oknows(c_^message_^oagent_^o^spy,v_evs4)),tc_^message_^omsg).
% -c_in(c_^message_^omsg_^o^crypt(c_^public_^oshr^k(v_^a),c_^message_^omsg_^o^m^pair(v_^n^a,c_^message_^omsg_^o^m^pair(c_^message_^omsg_^o^agent(v_^a),c_^message_^omsg_^o^agent(v_^c)))),c_^message_^oparts(c_^event_^oknows(c_^message_^oagent_^o^spy,v_evs4)),tc_^message_^omsg).
% 
% Starting a split proof attempt with 3 components.
% 
% Split component 1 started.
% 
% START OF PROOFPART
% Making new sos for split:
% Original clause to be split: 
% equal(v_^b,v_^c) | -c_in(c_^message_^omsg_^o^crypt(c_^public_^oshr^k(v_^a),c_^message_^omsg_^o^m^pair(v_^n^a,c_^message_^omsg_^o^m^pair(c_^message_^omsg_^o^agent(v_^a),c_^message_^omsg_^o^agent(v_^b)))),c_^message_^oparts(c_^event_^oknows(c_^message_^oagent_^o^spy,v_evs4)),tc_^message_^omsg) | -c_in(c_^message_^omsg_^o^crypt(c_^public_^oshr^k(v_^a),c_^message_^omsg_^o^m^pair(v_^n^a,c_^message_^omsg_^o^m^pair(c_^message_^omsg_^o^agent(v_^a),c_^message_^omsg_^o^agent(v_^c)))),c_^message_^oparts(c_^event_^oknows(c_^message_^oagent_^o^spy,v_evs4)),tc_^message_^omsg).
% Split part used next: equal(v_^b,v_^c).
% END OF PROOFPART
% ********* EMPTY CLAUSE DERIVED *********
% 
% 
% timer checkpoints: c(1481,40,7,2962,0,13,104705,4,989,105406,5,1314,105407,5,1319,105408,1,1319,105408,50,1326,105408,40,1326,106889,0,1327,140087,3,1978,156899,4,2304,158784,5,2629,158785,5,2631,158786,1,2631,158786,50,2636,158786,40,2636,160267,0,2637,178825,3,2888,182701,4,3013,184604,5,3138,184606,5,3138,184606,1,3138,184606,50,3140,184606,40,3140,186087,0,3142,212369,3,3544,218237,4,3743,219827,5,3943,219828,5,3945,219829,1,3945,219829,50,3947,219829,40,3947,221310,0,3949,257198,3,4350,269295,4,4550,271140,5,4754,271140,5,4755,271141,1,4755,271141,50,4760,271141,40,4760,272622,0,4761,395546,3,6912,429181,4,7988,459243,1,9062,459243,50,9069,459243,40,9069,460724,0,9071,492282,3,9722,492897,4,10047,540378,5,10372,540380,5,10372,540380,1,10372,540380,50,10373,540380,40,10373,541861,0,10375,596004,3,11776,626745,4,12476,671133,5,13176,671133,1,13176,671133,50,13184,671133,40,13184,672614,0,13186,702609,3,13837,712739,4,14162,745750,5,14487,745751,1,14487,745751,50,14491,745751,40,14491,747232,0,14493,760496,3,14744,762456,4,14869,768488,5,14994,768488,1,14994,768488,50,14995,768488,40,14995,769969,0,14997,801489,3,15648,802106,4,15973,847186,5,16298,847188,5,16298,847188,1,16298,847188,50,16300,847188,40,16300,848669,0,16301,886426,3,16952,901462,4,17278,903461,5,17602,903462,5,17604,903463,1,17604,903463,50,17608,903463,40,17608,904944,0,17610,917104,3,18262,927743,4,18587,972855,5,18911,972857,1,18912,972857,50,18915,972857,40,18915,974338,0,18916,1001336,3,19317,1008156,4,19517,1009574,5,19717,1009575,5,19719,1009576,1,19719,1009576,50,19722,1009576,40,19722,1011057,0,19723,1044770,3,20374,1059382,4,20699,1060702,5,21024,1060703,5,21026,1060704,1,21026,1060704,50,21030,1060704,40,21030,1062185,0,21035,1161844,4,21655,1165362,5,21837,1165363,1,21837,1165363,50,21844,1165363,40,21844,1166844,0,21845,1356500,3,26002,1454023,4,28071,1458663,5,30169,1458665,5,30171,1458665,1,30171,1458665,50,30178,1458665,40,30178,1458665,40,30178,1460146,0,30183)
% 
% 
% START OF PROOF
% 1460138 [] equal(v_^b,v_^c).
% 1460139 [] -equal(v_^b,v_^c).
% 1460147 [hyper:1460139,1460138] contradiction
% END OF PROOF
% 
% Proof found by the following strategy:
% 
% using hyperresolution
% not using sos strategy
% using positive unit paramodulation strategy
% using dynamic demodulation
% using ordered paramodulation
% using kb ordering for equality
% preferring bigger arities for lex ordering
% clause length limited to 7
% clause depth limited to 11
% seconds given: 8
% 
% 
% Split component 2 started.
% 
% START OF PROOFPART
% Making new sos for split:
% Original clause to be split: 
% equal(v_^b,v_^c) | -c_in(c_^message_^omsg_^o^crypt(c_^public_^oshr^k(v_^a),c_^message_^omsg_^o^m^pair(v_^n^a,c_^message_^omsg_^o^m^pair(c_^message_^omsg_^o^agent(v_^a),c_^message_^omsg_^o^agent(v_^b)))),c_^message_^oparts(c_^event_^oknows(c_^message_^oagent_^o^spy,v_evs4)),tc_^message_^omsg) | -c_in(c_^message_^omsg_^o^crypt(c_^public_^oshr^k(v_^a),c_^message_^omsg_^o^m^pair(v_^n^a,c_^message_^omsg_^o^m^pair(c_^message_^omsg_^o^agent(v_^a),c_^message_^omsg_^o^agent(v_^c)))),c_^message_^oparts(c_^event_^oknows(c_^message_^oagent_^o^spy,v_evs4)),tc_^message_^omsg).
% Split part used next: -c_in(c_^message_^omsg_^o^crypt(c_^public_^oshr^k(v_^a),c_^message_^omsg_^o^m^pair(v_^n^a,c_^message_^omsg_^o^m^pair(c_^message_^omsg_^o^agent(v_^a),c_^message_^omsg_^o^agent(v_^b)))),c_^message_^oparts(c_^event_^oknows(c_^message_^oagent_^o^spy,v_evs4)),tc_^message_^omsg).
% END OF PROOFPART
% using hyperresolution
% not using sos strategy
% using positive unit paramodulation strategy
% using dynamic demodulation
% using ordered paramodulation
% using kb ordering for equality
% preferring bigger arities for lex ordering
% clause length limited to 7
% clause depth limited to 11
% seconds given: 8
% 
% 
% proof attempt stopped: time limit
% 
% old unit clauses discarded
% 
% using binary resolution
% not using sos strategy
% using unit strategy
% using dynamic demodulation
% using ordered paramodulation
% using kb ordering for equality
% preferring bigger arities for lex ordering
% using clause demodulation
% clause length limited to 7
% clause depth limited to 11
% seconds given: 8
% 
% 
% proof attempt stopped: time limit
% 
% using binary resolution
% not using sos strategy
% using double strategy
% using dynamic demodulation
% using ordered paramodulation
% using kb ordering for equality
% preferring bigger arities for lex ordering
% using clause demodulation
% clause length limited to 7
% clause depth limited to 11
% seconds given: 2
% 
% 
% proof attempt stopped: time limit
% 
% using binary resolution
% not using sos strategy
% using double strategy
% using dynamic demodulation
% using ordered paramodulation
% using kb ordering for equality
% preferring bigger arities for lex ordering
% using clause demodulation
% seconds given: 4
% 
% 
% proof attempt stopped: time limit
% 
% old unit clauses discarded
% 
% using binary resolution
% using sos strategy
% using double strategy
% using dynamic demodulation
% using ordered paramodulation
% using kb ordering for equality
% preferring bigger arities for lex ordering
% using clause demodulation
% seconds given: 4
% 
% 
% proof attempt stopped: time limit
% 
% using binary resolution
% using sos strategy
% using dynamic demodulation
% using ordered paramodulation
% using kb ordering for equality
% preferring bigger arities for lex ordering
% using clause demodulation
% clause length limited to 7
% clause depth limited to 11
% seconds given: 28
% 
% 
% proof attempt stopped: time limit
% 
% old unit clauses discarded
% 
% using binary resolution
% using term-depth-order strategy
% not using sos strategy
% using dynamic demodulation
% using ordered paramodulation
% using kb ordering for equality
% preferring bigger arities for lex ordering
% using clause demodulation
% clause length limited to 7
% clause depth limited to 11
% seconds given: 8
% 
% 
% proof attempt stopped: time limit
% 
% using binary resolution
% using first neg lit preferred strategy
% not using sos strategy
% using dynamic demodulation
% using ordered paramodulation
% using kb ordering for equality
% preferring bigger arities for lex ordering
% using clause demodulation
% seconds given: 18
% 
% 
% proof attempt stopped: time limit
% 
% old unit clauses discarded
% 
% using binary resolution
% using first neg lit preferred strategy
% not using sos strategy
% using dynamic demodulation
% using ordered paramodulation
% using lex ordering for equality
% preferring bigger arities for lex ordering
% using clause demodulation
% seconds given: 8
% 
% 
% proof attempt stopped: time limit
% 
% using binary resolution
% using first neg lit preferred strategy
% not using sos strategy
% using dynamic demodulation
% using ordered paramodulation
% using lex ordering for equality
% preferring smaller arities for lex ordering
% using clause demodulation
% seconds given: 2
% 
% 
% proof attempt stopped: time limit
% 
% using binary resolution
% using term-depth-order strategy
% using sos strategy
% using dynamic demodulation
% using ordered paramodulation
% using kb ordering for equality
% preferring bigger arities for lex ordering
% using clause demodulation
% seconds given: 8
% 
% 
% proof attempt stopped: time limit
% 
% old unit clauses discarded
% 
% using binary resolution
% not using sos strategy
% using unit paramodulation strategy
% using unit strategy
% using dynamic demodulation
% using ordered paramodulation
% using kb ordering for equality
% preferring bigger arities for lex ordering
% using clause demodulation
% seconds given: 8
% 
% 
% proof attempt stopped: time limit
% 
% using binary resolution
% using weight-order strategy
% not using sos strategy
% using dynamic demodulation
% using ordered paramodulation
% using kb ordering for equality
% preferring bigger arities for lex ordering
% using clause demodulation
% seconds given: 8
% 
% 
% proof attempt stopped: time limit
% 
% old unit clauses discarded
% 
% using binary resolution
% using weight-order strategy
% not using sos strategy
% using dynamic demodulation
% using ordered paramodulation
% using kb ordering for equality
% preferring bigger arities for lex ordering
% using clause demodulation
% seconds given: 4
% 
% 
% proof attempt stopped: time limit
% 
% using binary resolution
% using term-depth-order strategy
% not using sos strategy
% using dynamic demodulation
% using ordered paramodulation
% using kb ordering for equality
% preferring bigger arities for lex ordering
% using clause demodulation
% seconds given: 8
% 
% 
% proof attempt stopped: time limit
% 
% using hyperresolution
% using term-depth-order strategy
% not using sos strategy
% using positive unit paramodulation strategy
% using dynamic demodulation
% using ordered paramodulation
% using kb ordering for equality
% preferring bigger arities for lex ordering
% seconds given: 4
% 
% 
% proof attempt stopped: time limit
% 
% old unit clauses discarded
% 
% using binary resolution
% using sos strategy
% using dynamic demodulation
% using ordered paramodulation
% using kb ordering for equality
% preferring bigger arities for lex ordering
% using clause demodulation
% seconds given: 350
% 
% Wow, gandalf-wrapper got a signal XCPU
% Xcpu signal caught by Gandalf: stopping
% 
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------