TSTP Solution File: MGT022-2 by SPASS---3.9
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : SPASS---3.9
% Problem : MGT022-2 : TPTP v8.1.0. Released v2.4.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp
% Command : run_spass %d %s
% Computer : n026.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 : 600s
% DateTime : Sun Jul 17 22:26:14 EDT 2022
% Result : Unsatisfiable 0.19s 0.42s
% Output : Refutation 0.19s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : -
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----WARNING: Could not form TPTP format derivation
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.11/0.12 % Problem : MGT022-2 : TPTP v8.1.0. Released v2.4.0.
% 0.11/0.13 % Command : run_spass %d %s
% 0.12/0.34 % Computer : n026.cluster.edu
% 0.12/0.34 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.12/0.34 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.12/0.34 % Memory : 8042.1875MB
% 0.12/0.34 % OS : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64
% 0.12/0.34 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.12/0.34 % WCLimit : 600
% 0.12/0.34 % DateTime : Thu Jun 9 07:39:17 EDT 2022
% 0.12/0.34 % CPUTime :
% 0.19/0.42
% 0.19/0.42 SPASS V 3.9
% 0.19/0.42 SPASS beiseite: Proof found.
% 0.19/0.42 % SZS status Theorem
% 0.19/0.42 Problem: /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% 0.19/0.42 SPASS derived 13 clauses, backtracked 11 clauses, performed 2 splits and kept 26 clauses.
% 0.19/0.42 SPASS allocated 75628 KBytes.
% 0.19/0.42 SPASS spent 0:00:00.06 on the problem.
% 0.19/0.42 0:00:00.04 for the input.
% 0.19/0.42 0:00:00.00 for the FLOTTER CNF translation.
% 0.19/0.42 0:00:00.00 for inferences.
% 0.19/0.42 0:00:00.00 for the backtracking.
% 0.19/0.42 0:00:00.00 for the reduction.
% 0.19/0.42
% 0.19/0.42
% 0.19/0.42 Here is a proof with depth 2, length 24 :
% 0.19/0.42 % SZS output start Refutation
% 0.19/0.42 1[0:Inp] decreases(u) constant(u) || -> .
% 0.19/0.42 2[0:Inp] environment(u) || decreases(resources(u,v)) greater(resilience(w),resilience(x)) subpopulations(x,w,u,v)* -> increases(difference(disbanding_rate(x,v),disbanding_rate(w,v)))*.
% 0.19/0.42 3[0:Inp] environment(u) || constant(resources(u,v)) greater(resilience(w),resilience(x)) subpopulations(x,w,u,v)* -> constant(difference(disbanding_rate(x,v),disbanding_rate(w,v)))*.
% 0.19/0.42 4[0:Inp] || -> greater(resilience(efficient_producers),resilience(first_movers))*.
% 0.19/0.42 5[0:Inp] || -> environment(sk1)*.
% 0.19/0.42 6[0:Inp] || -> subpopulations(first_movers,efficient_producers,sk1,sk2)*.
% 0.19/0.42 7[0:Inp] || -> constant(resources(sk1,sk2))* decreases(resources(sk1,sk2)).
% 0.19/0.42 8[0:Inp] || -> decreases(resources(sk1,sk2)) decreases(difference(disbanding_rate(first_movers,sk2),disbanding_rate(efficient_producers,sk2)))*.
% 0.19/0.42 9[0:Inp] || increases(difference(disbanding_rate(first_movers,sk2),disbanding_rate(efficient_producers,sk2)))* -> constant(resources(sk1,sk2)).
% 0.19/0.42 13[0:Res:6.0,3.1] environment(sk1) || greater(resilience(efficient_producers),resilience(first_movers)) constant(resources(sk1,sk2)) -> constant(difference(disbanding_rate(first_movers,sk2),disbanding_rate(efficient_producers,sk2)))*.
% 0.19/0.42 14[0:Res:6.0,2.1] environment(sk1) || greater(resilience(efficient_producers),resilience(first_movers)) decreases(resources(sk1,sk2)) -> increases(difference(disbanding_rate(first_movers,sk2),disbanding_rate(efficient_producers,sk2)))*.
% 0.19/0.42 15[0:MRR:14.0,14.1,5.0,4.0] || decreases(resources(sk1,sk2)) -> increases(difference(disbanding_rate(first_movers,sk2),disbanding_rate(efficient_producers,sk2)))*.
% 0.19/0.42 16[0:MRR:13.0,13.1,5.0,4.0] || constant(resources(sk1,sk2)) -> constant(difference(disbanding_rate(first_movers,sk2),disbanding_rate(efficient_producers,sk2)))*.
% 0.19/0.42 32[1:Spt:7.0] || -> constant(resources(sk1,sk2))*.
% 0.19/0.42 33[1:MRR:16.0,32.0] || -> constant(difference(disbanding_rate(first_movers,sk2),disbanding_rate(efficient_producers,sk2)))*.
% 0.19/0.42 34[2:Spt:8.0] || -> decreases(resources(sk1,sk2))*.
% 0.19/0.42 37[2:EmS:1.0,1.1,34.0,32.0] || -> .
% 0.19/0.42 38[2:Spt:37.0,8.0,34.0] || decreases(resources(sk1,sk2))* -> .
% 0.19/0.42 39[2:Spt:37.0,8.1] || -> decreases(difference(disbanding_rate(first_movers,sk2),disbanding_rate(efficient_producers,sk2)))*.
% 0.19/0.42 40[2:EmS:1.0,1.1,39.0,33.0] || -> .
% 0.19/0.42 41[1:Spt:40.0,7.0,32.0] || constant(resources(sk1,sk2))* -> .
% 0.19/0.42 42[1:Spt:40.0,7.1] || -> decreases(resources(sk1,sk2))*.
% 0.19/0.42 43[1:MRR:15.0,42.0] || -> increases(difference(disbanding_rate(first_movers,sk2),disbanding_rate(efficient_producers,sk2)))*.
% 0.19/0.42 44[1:MRR:9.0,9.1,43.0,41.0] || -> .
% 0.19/0.42 % SZS output end Refutation
% 0.19/0.42 Formulae used in the proof : mp_constant_not_decrease_1 a6_2 a6_3 a2_4 prove_l4_5 prove_l4_6 prove_l4_7 prove_l4_8 prove_l4_9
% 0.19/0.42
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------