TSTP Solution File: MGT015+1 by CSE---1.6
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : CSE---1.6
% Problem : MGT015+1 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v2.0.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : java -jar /export/starexec/sandbox/solver/bin/mcs_scs.jar %s %d
% Computer : n001.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 09:06:45 EDT 2023
% Result : Theorem 0.21s 0.66s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.21s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : -
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----WARNING: Could not form TPTP format derivation
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.13 % Problem : MGT015+1 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v2.0.0.
% 0.00/0.14 % Command : java -jar /export/starexec/sandbox/solver/bin/mcs_scs.jar %s %d
% 0.14/0.35 % Computer : n001.cluster.edu
% 0.14/0.35 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.14/0.35 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.14/0.35 % Memory : 8042.1875MB
% 0.14/0.35 % OS : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64
% 0.14/0.35 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.14/0.35 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.14/0.35 % DateTime : Mon Aug 28 06:42:34 EDT 2023
% 0.14/0.35 % CPUTime :
% 0.21/0.58 start to proof:theBenchmark
% 0.21/0.65 %-------------------------------------------
% 0.21/0.65 % File :CSE---1.6
% 0.21/0.65 % Problem :theBenchmark
% 0.21/0.65 % Transform :cnf
% 0.21/0.65 % Format :tptp:raw
% 0.21/0.65 % Command :java -jar mcs_scs.jar %d %s
% 0.21/0.65
% 0.21/0.65 % Result :Theorem 0.020000s
% 0.21/0.65 % Output :CNFRefutation 0.020000s
% 0.21/0.65 %-------------------------------------------
% 0.21/0.65 %--------------------------------------------------------------------------
% 0.21/0.65 % File : MGT015+1 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v2.0.0.
% 0.21/0.65 % Domain : Management (Organisation Theory)
% 0.21/0.65 % Problem : Complexity increases the expected duration of reorganisation.
% 0.21/0.65 % Version : [PB+94] axioms.
% 0.21/0.65 % English :
% 0.21/0.65
% 0.21/0.65 % Refs : [PB+94] Peli et al. (1994), A Logical Approach to Formalizing
% 0.21/0.65 % : [Kam94] Kamps (1994), Email to G. Sutcliffe
% 0.21/0.65 % : [Kam95] Kamps (1995), Email to G. Sutcliffe
% 0.21/0.65 % Source : [Kam94]
% 0.21/0.65 % Names :
% 0.21/0.65
% 0.21/0.65 % Status : Theorem
% 0.21/0.65 % Rating : 0.00 v6.3.0, 0.08 v6.2.0, 0.00 v6.1.0, 0.04 v6.0.0, 0.50 v5.5.0, 0.12 v5.4.0, 0.13 v5.3.0, 0.22 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
% 0.21/0.65 % Syntax : Number of formulae : 4 ( 0 unt; 0 def)
% 0.21/0.65 % Number of atoms : 38 ( 0 equ)
% 0.21/0.65 % Maximal formula atoms : 13 ( 9 avg)
% 0.21/0.65 % Number of connectives : 34 ( 0 ~; 0 |; 30 &)
% 0.21/0.65 % ( 0 <=>; 4 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% 0.21/0.65 % Maximal formula depth : 22 ( 17 avg)
% 0.21/0.65 % Maximal term depth : 1 ( 1 avg)
% 0.21/0.65 % Number of predicates : 7 ( 7 usr; 0 prp; 2-3 aty)
% 0.21/0.65 % Number of functors : 0 ( 0 usr; 0 con; --- aty)
% 0.21/0.65 % Number of variables : 30 ( 29 !; 1 ?)
% 0.21/0.65 % SPC : FOF_THM_RFO_NEQ
% 0.21/0.65
% 0.21/0.65 % Comments : "Not published due to publication constraints." [Kam95].
% 0.21/0.65 %--------------------------------------------------------------------------
% 0.21/0.65 fof(mp5,axiom,
% 0.21/0.65 ! [X,T] :
% 0.21/0.65 ( organization(X,T)
% 0.21/0.65 => ? [I] : inertia(X,I,T) ) ).
% 0.21/0.65
% 0.21/0.65 fof(a12_FOL,hypothesis,
% 0.21/0.65 ! [X,Y,C,C1,C2,I1,I2,T1,T2] :
% 0.21/0.65 ( ( organization(X,T1)
% 0.21/0.65 & organization(Y,T2)
% 0.21/0.65 & class(X,C,T1)
% 0.21/0.65 & class(Y,C,T2)
% 0.21/0.65 & complexity(X,C1,T1)
% 0.21/0.65 & complexity(Y,C2,T2)
% 0.21/0.65 & inertia(X,I1,T1)
% 0.21/0.65 & inertia(Y,I2,T2)
% 0.21/0.65 & greater(C2,C1) )
% 0.21/0.65 => greater(I2,I1) ) ).
% 0.21/0.65
% 0.21/0.65 %----The length of reorganizational period grows by the inertia the
% 0.21/0.65 %----organization begin s reorganization (if the organization with
% 0.21/0.65 %----higher inertia survives it).
% 0.21/0.65 fof(a13_FOL,hypothesis,
% 0.21/0.65 ! [X,Y,Rt,C,I1,I2,Ta,Tb,Tc] :
% 0.21/0.65 ( ( organization(X,Ta)
% 0.21/0.65 & organization(Y,Ta)
% 0.21/0.65 & organization(Y,Tc)
% 0.21/0.65 & class(X,C,Ta)
% 0.21/0.65 & class(Y,C,Ta)
% 0.21/0.65 & reorganization(X,Ta,Tb)
% 0.21/0.65 & reorganization(Y,Ta,Tc)
% 0.21/0.65 & reorganization_type(X,Rt,Ta)
% 0.21/0.65 & reorganization_type(Y,Rt,Ta)
% 0.21/0.65 & inertia(X,I1,Ta)
% 0.21/0.65 & inertia(Y,I2,Ta)
% 0.21/0.65 & greater(I2,I1) )
% 0.21/0.65 => greater(Tc,Tb) ) ).
% 0.21/0.65
% 0.21/0.65 %----t15_FOL - alias a10_FOL
% 0.21/0.65 %----Take care! If the set of complexity types is only partially ordered (as
% 0.21/0.65 %----we believe it), then ~greater(c1,c2) does not mean necessarily that
% 0.21/0.65 %----c2 is >= to c1. It means that if c1 and c2 are comparable,
% 0.21/0.65 %----THEN c2 is greater or equal to c1. [Kam94]
% 0.21/0.65 fof(t15_FOL,conjecture,
% 0.21/0.66 ! [X,Y,Re,C,C1,C2,Ta,Tb,Tc] :
% 0.21/0.66 ( ( organization(X,Ta)
% 0.21/0.66 & organization(Y,Ta)
% 0.21/0.66 & organization(Y,Tc)
% 0.21/0.66 & class(X,C,Ta)
% 0.21/0.66 & class(Y,C,Ta)
% 0.21/0.66 & reorganization(X,Ta,Tb)
% 0.21/0.66 & reorganization(Y,Ta,Tc)
% 0.21/0.66 & reorganization_type(X,Re,Ta)
% 0.21/0.66 & reorganization_type(Y,Re,Ta)
% 0.21/0.66 & complexity(X,C1,Ta)
% 0.21/0.66 & complexity(Y,C2,Ta)
% 0.21/0.66 & greater(C2,C1) )
% 0.21/0.66 => greater(Tc,Tb) ) ).
% 0.21/0.66
% 0.21/0.66 %--------------------------------------------------------------------------
% 0.21/0.66 %-------------------------------------------
% 0.21/0.66 % Proof found
% 0.21/0.66 % SZS status Theorem for theBenchmark
% 0.21/0.66 % SZS output start Proof
% 0.21/0.66 %ClaNum:16(EqnAxiom:0)
% 0.21/0.66 %VarNum:66(SingletonVarNum:20)
% 0.21/0.66 %MaxLitNum:13
% 0.21/0.66 %MaxfuncDepth:1
% 0.21/0.66 %SharedTerms:22
% 0.21/0.66 %goalClause: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
% 0.21/0.66 %singleGoalClaCount:13
% 0.21/0.66 [1]P1(a1,a4)
% 0.21/0.66 [2]P1(a5,a4)
% 0.21/0.66 [3]P1(a5,a2)
% 0.21/0.66 [4]P2(a6,a7)
% 0.21/0.66 [5]P3(a1,a8,a4)
% 0.21/0.66 [6]P3(a5,a8,a4)
% 0.21/0.66 [7]P4(a1,a7,a4)
% 0.21/0.66 [8]P4(a5,a6,a4)
% 0.21/0.66 [9]P6(a1,a4,a10)
% 0.21/0.66 [10]P6(a5,a4,a2)
% 0.21/0.66 [11]P7(a1,a9,a4)
% 0.21/0.66 [12]P7(a5,a9,a4)
% 0.21/0.66 [13]~P2(a2,a10)
% 0.21/0.66 [14]~P1(x141,x142)+P5(x141,f3(x141,x142),x142)
% 0.21/0.66 [15]~P5(x153,x151,x154)+~P5(x155,x152,x156)+~P3(x155,x159,x156)+~P4(x153,x157,x154)+~P4(x155,x158,x156)+P2(x151,x152)+~P1(x153,x154)+~P3(x153,x159,x154)+~P1(x155,x156)+~P2(x157,x158)
% 0.21/0.66 [16]~P5(x163,x166,x164)+~P5(x165,x167,x164)+~P3(x165,x168,x164)+~P6(x163,x164,x161)+~P6(x165,x164,x162)+~P7(x165,x169,x164)+P2(x161,x162)+~P1(x163,x161)+~P1(x163,x164)+~P1(x165,x164)+~P3(x163,x168,x164)+~P7(x163,x169,x164)+~P2(x166,x167)
% 0.21/0.66 %EqnAxiom
% 0.21/0.66
% 0.21/0.66 %-------------------------------------------
% 0.21/0.66 cnf(17,plain,
% 0.21/0.66 (P5(a1,f3(a1,a4),a4)),
% 0.21/0.66 inference(scs_inference,[],[1,14])).
% 0.21/0.66 cnf(37,plain,
% 0.21/0.66 (P2(x371,f3(a1,a4))+~P5(a5,x371,a4)),
% 0.21/0.66 inference(scs_inference,[],[4,17,8,7,6,1,5,2,15])).
% 0.21/0.66 cnf(40,plain,
% 0.21/0.66 (P5(a5,f3(a5,a4),a4)),
% 0.21/0.66 inference(scs_inference,[],[2,14])).
% 0.21/0.66 cnf(43,plain,
% 0.21/0.66 (P2(f3(a5,a4),f3(a1,a4))),
% 0.21/0.66 inference(scs_inference,[],[8,6,2,4,14,15,37])).
% 0.21/0.66 cnf(46,plain,
% 0.21/0.66 ($false),
% 0.21/0.66 inference(scs_inference,[],[5,43,40,17,10,11,12,9,13,6,3,1,2,16]),
% 0.21/0.66 ['proof']).
% 0.21/0.66 % SZS output end Proof
% 0.21/0.66 % Total time :0.020000s
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------