TSTP Solution File: MGT001+1 by CSE---1.6
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : CSE---1.6
% Problem : MGT001+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 : n018.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 0.18s 0.67s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.18s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : -
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----WARNING: Could not form TPTP format derivation
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.12 % Problem : MGT001+1 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v2.0.0.
% 0.00/0.12 % Command : java -jar /export/starexec/sandbox/solver/bin/mcs_scs.jar %s %d
% 0.12/0.33 % Computer : n018.cluster.edu
% 0.12/0.33 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.12/0.33 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.12/0.33 % Memory : 8042.1875MB
% 0.12/0.33 % OS : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64
% 0.12/0.33 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.12/0.33 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.12/0.33 % DateTime : Mon Aug 28 06:26:46 EDT 2023
% 0.12/0.34 % CPUTime :
% 0.18/0.55 start to proof:theBenchmark
% 0.18/0.66 %-------------------------------------------
% 0.18/0.66 % File :CSE---1.6
% 0.18/0.66 % Problem :theBenchmark
% 0.18/0.66 % Transform :cnf
% 0.18/0.66 % Format :tptp:raw
% 0.18/0.66 % Command :java -jar mcs_scs.jar %d %s
% 0.18/0.66
% 0.18/0.66 % Result :Theorem 0.050000s
% 0.18/0.66 % Output :CNFRefutation 0.050000s
% 0.18/0.66 %-------------------------------------------
% 0.18/0.66 %--------------------------------------------------------------------------
% 0.18/0.66 % File : MGT001+1 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v2.0.0.
% 0.18/0.66 % Domain : Management (Organisation Theory)
% 0.18/0.66 % Problem : Selection favors organizations with high inertia
% 0.18/0.67 % Version : [PB+94] axioms.
% 0.18/0.67 % English : Selection within populations of organizations in modern
% 0.18/0.67 % societies favours organizations whose structure have high
% 0.18/0.67 % inertia.
% 0.18/0.67
% 0.18/0.67 % Refs : [PB+92] Peli et al. (1992), A Logical Approach to Formalizing
% 0.18/0.67 % : [PB+94] Peli et al. (1994), A Logical Approach to Formalizing
% 0.18/0.67 % : [Kam94] Kamps (1994), Email to G. Sutcliffe
% 0.18/0.67 % Source : [Kam94]
% 0.18/0.67 % Names : THEOREM 1 [PB+92]
% 0.18/0.67 % : T1FOL3 [PB+94]
% 0.18/0.67
% 0.18/0.67 % Status : Theorem
% 0.18/0.67 % Rating : 0.00 v7.5.0, 0.05 v7.4.0, 0.00 v7.0.0, 0.07 v6.4.0, 0.00 v6.1.0, 0.12 v6.0.0, 0.50 v5.5.0, 0.12 v5.4.0, 0.17 v5.3.0, 0.26 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
% 0.18/0.67 % Syntax : Number of formulae : 7 ( 0 unt; 0 def)
% 0.18/0.67 % Number of atoms : 48 ( 0 equ)
% 0.18/0.67 % Maximal formula atoms : 11 ( 6 avg)
% 0.18/0.67 % Number of connectives : 41 ( 0 ~; 0 |; 32 &)
% 0.18/0.67 % ( 2 <=>; 7 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% 0.18/0.67 % Maximal formula depth : 21 ( 13 avg)
% 0.18/0.67 % Maximal term depth : 1 ( 1 avg)
% 0.18/0.67 % Number of predicates : 8 ( 8 usr; 0 prp; 2-3 aty)
% 0.18/0.67 % Number of functors : 0 ( 0 usr; 0 con; --- aty)
% 0.18/0.67 % Number of variables : 45 ( 42 !; 3 ?)
% 0.18/0.67 % SPC : FOF_THM_RFO_NEQ
% 0.18/0.67
% 0.18/0.67 % Comments :
% 0.18/0.67 %--------------------------------------------------------------------------
% 0.18/0.67 fof(mp1,axiom,
% 0.18/0.67 ! [X,T] :
% 0.18/0.67 ( organization(X,T)
% 0.18/0.67 => ? [R] : reliability(X,R,T) ) ).
% 0.18/0.67
% 0.18/0.67 fof(mp2,axiom,
% 0.18/0.67 ! [X,T] :
% 0.18/0.67 ( organization(X,T)
% 0.18/0.67 => ? [A] : accountability(X,A,T) ) ).
% 0.18/0.67
% 0.18/0.67 fof(mp3,axiom,
% 0.18/0.67 ! [X,T] :
% 0.18/0.67 ( organization(X,T)
% 0.18/0.67 => ? [Rp] : reproducibility(X,Rp,T) ) ).
% 0.18/0.67
% 0.18/0.67 %----Selection in populations of organizations in modern societies favours
% 0.18/0.67 %----forms with high reliability of performance and high levels of
% 0.18/0.67 %----accountability.
% 0.18/0.67 fof(a1_FOL,hypothesis,
% 0.18/0.67 ! [X,Y,R1,R2,A1,A2,P1,P2,T1,T2] :
% 0.18/0.67 ( ( organization(X,T1)
% 0.18/0.67 & organization(Y,T2)
% 0.18/0.67 & reliability(X,R1,T1)
% 0.18/0.67 & reliability(Y,R2,T2)
% 0.18/0.67 & accountability(X,A1,T1)
% 0.18/0.67 & accountability(Y,A2,T2)
% 0.18/0.67 & survival_chance(X,P1,T1)
% 0.18/0.67 & survival_chance(Y,P2,T2)
% 0.18/0.67 & greater(R2,R1)
% 0.18/0.67 & greater(A2,A1) )
% 0.18/0.67 => greater(P2,P1) ) ).
% 0.18/0.67
% 0.18/0.67 %----Reliability and accountability require that organizational structures
% 0.18/0.67 %----be highly reproducible.
% 0.18/0.67 fof(a2_FOL,hypothesis,
% 0.18/0.67 ! [X,Y,T1,T2,R1,R2,A1,A2,Rp1,Rp2] :
% 0.18/0.67 ( ( organization(X,T1)
% 0.18/0.67 & organization(Y,T2)
% 0.18/0.67 & reliability(X,R1,T1)
% 0.18/0.67 & reliability(Y,R2,T2)
% 0.18/0.67 & accountability(X,A1,T1)
% 0.18/0.67 & accountability(Y,A2,T2)
% 0.18/0.67 & reproducibility(X,Rp1,T1)
% 0.18/0.67 & reproducibility(Y,Rp2,T2) )
% 0.18/0.67 => ( greater(Rp2,Rp1)
% 0.18/0.67 <=> ( greater(R2,R1)
% 0.18/0.67 & greater(A2,A1) ) ) ) ).
% 0.18/0.67
% 0.18/0.67 %----High levels of reproducibility of structure generate strong
% 0.18/0.67 %----inertial pressures.
% 0.18/0.67 fof(a3_FOL,hypothesis,
% 0.18/0.67 ! [X,Y,T1,T2,Rp1,Rp2,I1,I2] :
% 0.18/0.67 ( ( organization(X,T1)
% 0.18/0.67 & organization(Y,T2)
% 0.18/0.67 & reorganization_free(X,T1,T1)
% 0.18/0.67 & reorganization_free(Y,T2,T2)
% 0.18/0.67 & reproducibility(X,Rp1,T1)
% 0.18/0.67 & reproducibility(Y,Rp2,T2)
% 0.18/0.67 & inertia(X,I1,T1)
% 0.18/0.67 & inertia(Y,I2,T2) )
% 0.18/0.67 => ( greater(Rp2,Rp1)
% 0.18/0.67 <=> greater(I2,I1) ) ) ).
% 0.18/0.67
% 0.18/0.67 fof(t1_FOL,conjecture,
% 0.18/0.67 ! [X,Y,T1,T2,I1,I2,P1,P2] :
% 0.18/0.67 ( ( organization(X,T1)
% 0.18/0.67 & organization(Y,T2)
% 0.18/0.67 & reorganization_free(X,T1,T1)
% 0.18/0.67 & reorganization_free(Y,T2,T2)
% 0.18/0.67 & inertia(X,I1,T1)
% 0.18/0.67 & inertia(Y,I2,T2)
% 0.18/0.67 & survival_chance(X,P1,T1)
% 0.18/0.67 & survival_chance(Y,P2,T2)
% 0.18/0.67 & greater(I2,I1) )
% 0.18/0.67 => greater(P2,P1) ) ).
% 0.18/0.67
% 0.18/0.67 %--------------------------------------------------------------------------
% 0.18/0.67 %-------------------------------------------
% 0.18/0.67 % Proof found
% 0.18/0.67 % SZS status Theorem for theBenchmark
% 0.18/0.67 % SZS output start Proof
% 0.18/0.67 %ClaNum:19(EqnAxiom:0)
% 0.18/0.67 %VarNum:178(SingletonVarNum:62)
% 0.18/0.67 %MaxLitNum:11
% 0.18/0.67 %MaxfuncDepth:1
% 0.18/0.67 %SharedTerms:18
% 0.18/0.67 %goalClause: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
% 0.18/0.67 %singleGoalClaCount:10
% 0.18/0.67 [1]P1(a1,a7)
% 0.18/0.67 [2]P1(a8,a9)
% 0.18/0.67 [3]P2(a10,a11)
% 0.18/0.67 [4]P5(a1,a2,a7)
% 0.18/0.67 [5]P5(a8,a3,a9)
% 0.18/0.67 [6]P6(a1,a7,a7)
% 0.18/0.67 [7]P6(a8,a9,a9)
% 0.18/0.67 [8]P4(a1,a11,a7)
% 0.18/0.67 [9]P4(a8,a10,a9)
% 0.18/0.67 [10]~P2(a3,a2)
% 0.18/0.67 [11]~P1(x111,x112)+P7(x111,f4(x111,x112),x112)
% 0.18/0.67 [12]~P1(x121,x122)+P3(x121,f5(x121,x122),x122)
% 0.18/0.67 [13]~P1(x131,x132)+P8(x131,f6(x131,x132),x132)
% 0.18/0.67 [14]~P8(x143,x141,x144)+~P8(x145,x142,x146)+~P6(x143,x144,x144)+~P6(x145,x146,x146)+~P4(x143,x147,x144)+~P4(x145,x148,x146)+P2(x141,x142)+~P1(x143,x144)+~P1(x145,x146)+~P2(x147,x148)
% 0.18/0.67 [15]~P8(x153,x157,x154)+~P8(x155,x158,x156)+~P6(x153,x154,x154)+~P6(x155,x156,x156)+~P4(x153,x151,x154)+~P4(x155,x152,x156)+P2(x151,x152)+~P1(x153,x154)+~P1(x155,x156)+~P2(x157,x158)
% 0.18/0.67 [16]~P3(x163,x161,x164)+~P3(x165,x162,x166)+~P8(x163,x167,x164)+~P8(x165,x168,x166)+P2(x161,x162)+~P1(x163,x164)+~P7(x163,x169,x164)+~P1(x165,x166)+~P7(x165,x1610,x166)+~P2(x167,x168)
% 0.18/0.67 [17]~P7(x173,x171,x174)+~P7(x175,x172,x176)+~P8(x173,x177,x174)+~P8(x175,x178,x176)+P2(x171,x172)+~P1(x173,x174)+~P3(x173,x179,x174)+~P1(x175,x176)+~P3(x175,x1710,x176)+~P2(x177,x178)
% 0.18/0.67 [18]~P7(x183,x189,x184)+~P7(x185,x1810,x186)+~P3(x183,x187,x184)+~P3(x185,x188,x186)+~P5(x183,x181,x184)+~P5(x185,x182,x186)+P2(x181,x182)+~P1(x183,x184)+~P1(x185,x186)+~P2(x187,x188)+~P2(x189,x1810)
% 0.18/0.67 [19]~P7(x193,x199,x194)+~P7(x195,x1910,x196)+~P3(x193,x197,x194)+~P3(x195,x198,x196)+~P8(x193,x191,x194)+~P8(x195,x192,x196)+P2(x191,x192)+~P1(x193,x194)+~P1(x195,x196)+~P2(x197,x198)+~P2(x199,x1910)
% 0.18/0.67 %EqnAxiom
% 0.18/0.67
% 0.18/0.67 %-------------------------------------------
% 0.18/0.67 cnf(20,plain,
% 0.18/0.67 (P8(a1,f6(a1,a7),a7)),
% 0.18/0.67 inference(scs_inference,[],[1,13])).
% 0.18/0.67 cnf(21,plain,
% 0.18/0.67 (P3(a1,f5(a1,a7),a7)),
% 0.18/0.67 inference(scs_inference,[],[1,13,12])).
% 0.18/0.67 cnf(22,plain,
% 0.18/0.67 (P7(a1,f4(a1,a7),a7)),
% 0.18/0.67 inference(scs_inference,[],[1,13,12,11])).
% 0.18/0.67 cnf(43,plain,
% 0.18/0.67 (P8(a8,f6(a8,a9),a9)),
% 0.18/0.67 inference(scs_inference,[],[2,13])).
% 0.18/0.67 cnf(45,plain,
% 0.18/0.67 (P3(a8,f5(a8,a9),a9)),
% 0.18/0.67 inference(scs_inference,[],[2,13,12])).
% 0.18/0.67 cnf(47,plain,
% 0.18/0.67 (P7(a8,f4(a8,a9),a9)),
% 0.18/0.67 inference(scs_inference,[],[2,13,12,11])).
% 0.18/0.67 cnf(60,plain,
% 0.18/0.67 (P2(f6(a8,a9),f6(a1,a7))),
% 0.18/0.67 inference(scs_inference,[],[3,6,7,8,9,20,43,2,1,14])).
% 0.18/0.67 cnf(74,plain,
% 0.18/0.67 (P2(f5(a8,a9),f5(a1,a7))),
% 0.18/0.67 inference(scs_inference,[],[22,21,20,45,43,47,60,2,1,16])).
% 0.18/0.67 cnf(84,plain,
% 0.18/0.67 (~P2(f4(a8,a9),f4(a1,a7))),
% 0.18/0.67 inference(scs_inference,[],[5,22,10,21,74,45,47,4,2,1,18])).
% 0.18/0.67 cnf(115,plain,
% 0.18/0.67 ($false),
% 0.18/0.67 inference(scs_inference,[],[45,22,43,21,20,84,60,47,2,1,17]),
% 0.18/0.67 ['proof']).
% 0.18/0.67 % SZS output end Proof
% 0.18/0.67 % Total time :0.050000s
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------