TSTP Solution File: SWV349-2 by CARINE---0.734
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : CARINE---0.734
% Problem : SWV349-2 : TPTP v5.0.0. Released v3.2.0.
% Transfm : add_equality
% Format : carine
% Command : carine %s t=%d xo=off uct=32000
% Computer : art06.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 07:06:50 EST 2010
% Result : Unsatisfiable 0.38s
% Output : Refutation 0.38s
% 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/SystemOnTPTP13518/SWV/SWV349-2+noeq.car t=300 xo=off uct=32000
% CARINE version 0.734 (Dec 2003)
% Initializing tables ... done.
% Parsing .. done.
% Calculating time slices ... done.
% +================================================+
% | |
% | Congratulations!!! ........ A proof was found. |
% | |
% +================================================+
% Base Clauses and Unit Clauses used in proof:
% ============================================
% Base Clauses:
% -------------
% B0: ~c_in_3(c_Event_Oevent_ONotes_2(c_Message_Oagent_OSpy_0(),c_Message_Omsg_OMPair_2(c_Message_Omsg_ONonce_1(v_NA_0()),c_Message_Omsg_OMPair_2(c_Message_Omsg_ONonce_1(v_NB_0()),x0))),c_List_Oset_2(v_evso_0(),tc_Event_Oevent_0()),tc_Event_Oevent_0())
% Unit Clauses:
% --------------
% U0: < d0 v1 dv1 f6 c6 t13 td5 b nc > ~c_in_3(c_Event_Oevent_ONotes_2(c_Message_Oagent_OSpy_0(),c_Message_Omsg_OMPair_2(c_Message_Omsg_ONonce_1(v_NA_0()),c_Message_Omsg_OMPair_2(c_Message_Omsg_ONonce_1(v_NB_0()),x0))),c_List_Oset_2(v_evso_0(),tc_Event_Oevent_0()),tc_Event_Oevent_0())
% U1: < d0 v0 dv0 f6 c7 t13 td5 b nc > c_in_3(c_Event_Oevent_ONotes_2(c_Message_Oagent_OSpy_0(),c_Message_Omsg_OMPair_2(c_Message_Omsg_ONonce_1(v_NA_0()),c_Message_Omsg_OMPair_2(c_Message_Omsg_ONonce_1(v_NB_0()),v_k_0()))),c_List_Oset_2(v_evso_0(),tc_Event_Oevent_0()),tc_Event_Oevent_0())
% --------------- Start of Proof ---------------
% Derivation of unit clause U0:
% ~c_in_3(c_Event_Oevent_ONotes_2(c_Message_Oagent_OSpy_0(),c_Message_Omsg_OMPair_2(c_Message_Omsg_ONonce_1(v_NA_0()),c_Message_Omsg_OMPair_2(c_Message_Omsg_ONonce_1(v_NB_0()),x0))),c_List_Oset_2(v_evso_0(),tc_Event_Oevent_0()),tc_Event_Oevent_0()) ....... U0
% Derivation of unit clause U1:
% c_in_3(c_Event_Oevent_ONotes_2(c_Message_Oagent_OSpy_0(),c_Message_Omsg_OMPair_2(c_Message_Omsg_ONonce_1(v_NA_0()),c_Message_Omsg_OMPair_2(c_Message_Omsg_ONonce_1(v_NB_0()),v_k_0()))),c_List_Oset_2(v_evso_0(),tc_Event_Oevent_0()),tc_Event_Oevent_0()) ....... U1
% Derivation of the empty clause:
% c_in_3(c_Event_Oevent_ONotes_2(c_Message_Oagent_OSpy_0(),c_Message_Omsg_OMPair_2(c_Message_Omsg_ONonce_1(v_NA_0()),c_Message_Omsg_OMPair_2(c_Message_Omsg_ONonce_1(v_NB_0()),v_k_0()))),c_List_Oset_2(v_evso_0(),tc_Event_Oevent_0()),tc_Event_Oevent_0()) ....... U1
% ~c_in_3(c_Event_Oevent_ONotes_2(c_Message_Oagent_OSpy_0(),c_Message_Omsg_OMPair_2(c_Message_Omsg_ONonce_1(v_NA_0()),c_Message_Omsg_OMPair_2(c_Message_Omsg_ONonce_1(v_NB_0()),x0))),c_List_Oset_2(v_evso_0(),tc_Event_Oevent_0()),tc_Event_Oevent_0()) ....... U0
% [] ....... R1 [U1:L0, U0:L0]
% --------------- End of Proof ---------------
% PROOF FOUND!
% ---------------------------------------------
% | Statistics |
% ---------------------------------------------
% Profile 3: Performance Statistics:
% ==================================
% Total number of generated clauses: 0
% resolvents: 0 factors: 0
% Number of unit clauses generated: 0
% % unit clauses generated to total clauses generated: nan
% Number of unit clauses constructed and retained at depth [x]:
% =============================================================
% [0] = 2
% Total = 2
% Number of generated clauses having [x] literals:
% ------------------------------------------------
% Average size of a generated clause: nan
% Number of unit clauses per predicate list:
% ==========================================
% [0] c_in_3 (+)1 (-)1
% ------------------
% Total: (+)1 (-)1
% Total number of unit clauses retained: 2
% 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: 0
% Number of unification failures: 0
% Number of unit to unit unification failures: 0
% N literal unification failure due to lookup root_id table: 0
% 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: 0
% 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: 13
% Max term depth in a unit clause: 5
% Number of states in UCFA table: 29
% Total number of terms of all unit clauses in table: 26
% 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: 1.12
% Number of symbols (columns) in UCFA: 45
% Profile 2: Number of calls to:
% ==============================
% PTUnify() = 0
% ConstructUnitClause() = 0
% Profile 1: Time spent in:
% =========================
% ConstructUnitClause() : 0.00 secs
% --------------------------------------------------------
% | |
% Inferences per sec: nan
% | |
% --------------------------------------------------------
% Elapsed time: 0 secs
% CPU time: 0.37 secs
%
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------