TSTP Solution File: MGT003+1 by CSE---1.6
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : CSE---1.6
% Problem : MGT003+1 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v2.0.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : java -jar /export/starexec/sandbox2/solver/bin/mcs_scs.jar %s %d
% Computer : n024.cluster.edu
% Model : x86_64 x86_64
% CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 2.10GHz
% Memory : 8042.1875MB
% OS : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64
% CPULimit : 300s
% WCLimit : 300s
% DateTime : Thu Aug 31 09:06:39 EDT 2023
% Result : Theorem 0.21s 0.62s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.21s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : -
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----WARNING: Could not form TPTP format derivation
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.07/0.12 % Problem : MGT003+1 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v2.0.0.
% 0.07/0.13 % Command : java -jar /export/starexec/sandbox2/solver/bin/mcs_scs.jar %s %d
% 0.13/0.34 % Computer : n024.cluster.edu
% 0.13/0.34 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.13/0.34 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.13/0.34 % Memory : 8042.1875MB
% 0.13/0.34 % OS : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64
% 0.13/0.34 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.13/0.34 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.13/0.34 % DateTime : Mon Aug 28 06:19:38 EDT 2023
% 0.13/0.34 % CPUTime :
% 0.21/0.56 start to proof:theBenchmark
% 0.21/0.62 %-------------------------------------------
% 0.21/0.62 % File :CSE---1.6
% 0.21/0.62 % Problem :theBenchmark
% 0.21/0.62 % Transform :cnf
% 0.21/0.62 % Format :tptp:raw
% 0.21/0.62 % Command :java -jar mcs_scs.jar %d %s
% 0.21/0.62
% 0.21/0.62 % Result :Theorem 0.000000s
% 0.21/0.62 % Output :CNFRefutation 0.000000s
% 0.21/0.62 %-------------------------------------------
% 0.21/0.62 %--------------------------------------------------------------------------
% 0.21/0.62 % File : MGT003+1 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v2.0.0.
% 0.21/0.62 % Domain : Management (Organisation Theory)
% 0.21/0.62 % Problem : Organizational death rates decrease with age.
% 0.21/0.62 % Version : [PB+94] axioms.
% 0.21/0.62 % English :
% 0.21/0.62
% 0.21/0.62 % Refs : [PB+92] Peli et al. (1992), A Logical Approach to Formalizing
% 0.21/0.62 % : [PB+94] Peli et al. (1994), A Logical Approach to Formalizing
% 0.21/0.62 % : [Kam94] Kamps (1994), Email to G. Sutcliffe
% 0.21/0.62 % Source : [Kam94]
% 0.21/0.62 % Names : THEOREM 3 [PB+92]
% 0.21/0.62 % : T3FOL2 [PB+94]
% 0.21/0.62
% 0.21/0.62 % Status : Theorem
% 0.21/0.62 % Rating : 0.00 v6.1.0, 0.04 v6.0.0, 0.50 v5.5.0, 0.12 v5.4.0, 0.09 v5.3.0, 0.17 v5.2.0, 0.00 v5.0.0, 0.05 v4.1.0, 0.06 v4.0.1, 0.05 v3.7.0, 0.00 v3.2.0, 0.11 v3.1.0, 0.00 v2.1.0
% 0.21/0.62 % Syntax : Number of formulae : 5 ( 0 unt; 0 def)
% 0.21/0.62 % Number of atoms : 29 ( 0 equ)
% 0.21/0.62 % Maximal formula atoms : 10 ( 5 avg)
% 0.21/0.62 % Number of connectives : 24 ( 0 ~; 0 |; 19 &)
% 0.21/0.62 % ( 0 <=>; 5 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% 0.21/0.62 % Maximal formula depth : 18 ( 11 avg)
% 0.21/0.62 % Maximal term depth : 1 ( 1 avg)
% 0.21/0.62 % Number of predicates : 5 ( 5 usr; 0 prp; 2-3 aty)
% 0.21/0.62 % Number of functors : 0 ( 0 usr; 0 con; --- aty)
% 0.21/0.62 % Number of variables : 24 ( 23 !; 1 ?)
% 0.21/0.62 % SPC : FOF_THM_RFO_NEQ
% 0.21/0.62
% 0.21/0.62 % Comments :
% 0.21/0.62 %--------------------------------------------------------------------------
% 0.21/0.62 fof(mp4,axiom,
% 0.21/0.62 ! [X,T1,T2] :
% 0.21/0.62 ( reorganization_free(X,T1,T2)
% 0.21/0.62 => ( reorganization_free(X,T1,T1)
% 0.21/0.62 & reorganization_free(X,T2,T2) ) ) ).
% 0.21/0.62
% 0.21/0.62 fof(mp5,axiom,
% 0.21/0.62 ! [X,T] :
% 0.21/0.62 ( organization(X,T)
% 0.21/0.62 => ? [I] : inertia(X,I,T) ) ).
% 0.21/0.62
% 0.21/0.62 fof(t1_FOL,hypothesis,
% 0.21/0.62 ! [X,Y,T1,T2,I1,I2,P1,P2] :
% 0.21/0.62 ( ( organization(X,T1)
% 0.21/0.62 & organization(Y,T2)
% 0.21/0.62 & reorganization_free(X,T1,T1)
% 0.21/0.62 & reorganization_free(Y,T2,T2)
% 0.21/0.62 & inertia(X,I1,T1)
% 0.21/0.62 & inertia(Y,I2,T2)
% 0.21/0.62 & survival_chance(X,P1,T1)
% 0.21/0.62 & survival_chance(Y,P2,T2)
% 0.21/0.62 & greater(I2,I1) )
% 0.21/0.62 => greater(P2,P1) ) ).
% 0.21/0.62
% 0.21/0.62 fof(t2_FOL,hypothesis,
% 0.21/0.62 ! [X,I1,I2,T1,T2] :
% 0.21/0.62 ( ( organization(X,T1)
% 0.21/0.62 & organization(X,T2)
% 0.21/0.62 & reorganization_free(X,T1,T2)
% 0.21/0.62 & inertia(X,I1,T1)
% 0.21/0.62 & inertia(X,I2,T2)
% 0.21/0.62 & greater(T2,T1) )
% 0.21/0.62 => greater(I2,I1) ) ).
% 0.21/0.62
% 0.21/0.62 fof(t3_FOL,conjecture,
% 0.21/0.62 ! [X,P1,P2,T1,T2] :
% 0.21/0.62 ( ( organization(X,T1)
% 0.21/0.62 & organization(X,T2)
% 0.21/0.62 & reorganization_free(X,T1,T2)
% 0.21/0.62 & survival_chance(X,P1,T1)
% 0.21/0.62 & survival_chance(X,P2,T2)
% 0.21/0.62 & greater(T2,T1) )
% 0.21/0.62 => greater(P2,P1) ) ).
% 0.21/0.62
% 0.21/0.62 %--------------------------------------------------------------------------
% 0.21/0.62 %-------------------------------------------
% 0.21/0.62 % Proof found
% 0.21/0.62 % SZS status Theorem for theBenchmark
% 0.21/0.62 % SZS output start Proof
% 0.21/0.62 %ClaNum:12(EqnAxiom:0)
% 0.21/0.62 %VarNum:61(SingletonVarNum:21)
% 0.21/0.62 %MaxLitNum:10
% 0.21/0.62 %MaxfuncDepth:1
% 0.21/0.62 %SharedTerms:12
% 0.21/0.63 %goalClause: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
% 0.21/0.63 %singleGoalClaCount:7
% 0.21/0.63 [1]P1(a1,a3)
% 0.21/0.63 [2]P1(a1,a6)
% 0.21/0.63 [3]P2(a6,a3)
% 0.21/0.63 [4]P4(a1,a3,a6)
% 0.21/0.63 [5]P5(a1,a4,a3)
% 0.21/0.63 [6]P5(a1,a5,a6)
% 0.21/0.63 [7]~P2(a5,a4)
% 0.21/0.63 [8]~P1(x81,x82)+P3(x81,f2(x81,x82),x82)
% 0.21/0.63 [9]P4(x91,x92,x92)+~P4(x91,x93,x92)
% 0.21/0.63 [10]P4(x101,x102,x102)+~P4(x101,x102,x103)
% 0.21/0.63 [11]~P2(x114,x115)+~P4(x113,x115,x114)+~P3(x113,x111,x114)+~P3(x113,x112,x115)+P2(x111,x112)+~P1(x113,x114)+~P1(x113,x115)
% 0.21/0.63 [12]~P4(x123,x124,x124)+~P4(x125,x126,x126)+~P3(x123,x127,x124)+~P3(x125,x128,x126)+~P5(x123,x121,x124)+~P5(x125,x122,x126)+P2(x121,x122)+~P1(x123,x124)+~P1(x125,x126)+~P2(x127,x128)
% 0.21/0.63 %EqnAxiom
% 0.21/0.63
% 0.21/0.63 %-------------------------------------------
% 0.21/0.63 cnf(13,plain,
% 0.21/0.63 (P4(a1,a3,a3)),
% 0.21/0.63 inference(scs_inference,[],[4,10])).
% 0.21/0.63 cnf(14,plain,
% 0.21/0.63 (P4(a1,a6,a6)),
% 0.21/0.63 inference(scs_inference,[],[4,10,9])).
% 0.21/0.63 cnf(15,plain,
% 0.21/0.63 (P3(a1,f2(a1,a3),a3)),
% 0.21/0.63 inference(scs_inference,[],[1,4,10,9,8])).
% 0.21/0.63 cnf(19,plain,
% 0.21/0.63 (P2(x191,f2(a1,a3))+~P3(a1,x191,a6)),
% 0.21/0.63 inference(scs_inference,[],[1,2,3,4,15,11])).
% 0.21/0.63 cnf(23,plain,
% 0.21/0.63 (P3(a1,f2(a1,a6),a6)),
% 0.21/0.63 inference(scs_inference,[],[2,8])).
% 0.21/0.63 cnf(26,plain,
% 0.21/0.63 (~P2(f2(a1,a6),f2(a1,a3))),
% 0.21/0.63 inference(scs_inference,[],[2,6,7,13,5,14,15,1,8,11,12])).
% 0.21/0.63 cnf(29,plain,
% 0.21/0.63 ($false),
% 0.21/0.63 inference(scs_inference,[],[26,23,19]),
% 0.21/0.63 ['proof']).
% 0.21/0.63 % SZS output end Proof
% 0.21/0.63 % Total time :0.000000s
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------