TSTP Solution File: MGT008+1 by CSE---1.6
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : CSE---1.6
% Problem : MGT008+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 : n004.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 09:06:42 EDT 2023
% Result : Theorem 0.20s 0.61s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.20s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : -
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----WARNING: Could not form TPTP format derivation
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.12 % Problem : MGT008+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 : n004.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 06:01:22 EDT 2023
% 0.12/0.33 % CPUTime :
% 0.20/0.55 start to proof:theBenchmark
% 0.20/0.60 %-------------------------------------------
% 0.20/0.60 % File :CSE---1.6
% 0.20/0.60 % Problem :theBenchmark
% 0.20/0.60 % Transform :cnf
% 0.20/0.60 % Format :tptp:raw
% 0.20/0.60 % Command :java -jar mcs_scs.jar %d %s
% 0.20/0.60
% 0.20/0.60 % Result :Theorem 0.000000s
% 0.20/0.60 % Output :CNFRefutation 0.000000s
% 0.20/0.60 %-------------------------------------------
% 0.20/0.61 %--------------------------------------------------------------------------
% 0.20/0.61 % File : MGT008+1 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v2.0.0.
% 0.20/0.61 % Domain : Management (Organisation Theory)
% 0.20/0.61 % Problem : Organizational death rates decrease with size.
% 0.20/0.61 % Version : [PB+94] axioms.
% 0.20/0.61 % English :
% 0.20/0.61
% 0.20/0.61 % Refs : [PB+92] Peli et al. (1992), A Logical Approach to Formalizing
% 0.20/0.61 % : [PB+94] Peli et al. (1994), A Logical Approach to Formalizing
% 0.20/0.61 % : [Kam94] Kamps (1994), Email to G. Sutcliffe
% 0.20/0.61 % Source : [Kam94]
% 0.20/0.61 % Names : THEOREM 8 [PB+92]
% 0.20/0.61 % : T8FOL1 [PB+94]
% 0.20/0.61
% 0.20/0.61 % Status : Theorem
% 0.20/0.61 % Rating : 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
% 0.20/0.61 % Syntax : Number of formulae : 4 ( 0 unt; 0 def)
% 0.20/0.61 % Number of atoms : 34 ( 0 equ)
% 0.20/0.61 % Maximal formula atoms : 12 ( 8 avg)
% 0.20/0.61 % Number of connectives : 30 ( 0 ~; 0 |; 26 &)
% 0.20/0.61 % ( 0 <=>; 4 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% 0.20/0.61 % Maximal formula depth : 21 ( 16 avg)
% 0.20/0.61 % Maximal term depth : 1 ( 1 avg)
% 0.20/0.61 % Number of predicates : 7 ( 7 usr; 0 prp; 2-3 aty)
% 0.20/0.61 % Number of functors : 0 ( 0 usr; 0 con; --- aty)
% 0.20/0.61 % Number of variables : 29 ( 28 !; 1 ?)
% 0.20/0.61 % SPC : FOF_THM_RFO_NEQ
% 0.20/0.61
% 0.20/0.61 % Comments :
% 0.20/0.61 %--------------------------------------------------------------------------
% 0.20/0.61 fof(mp5,axiom,
% 0.20/0.61 ! [X,T] :
% 0.20/0.61 ( organization(X,T)
% 0.20/0.61 => ? [I] : inertia(X,I,T) ) ).
% 0.20/0.61
% 0.20/0.61 %----The level of structural inertia increases with size for each class
% 0.20/0.61 %----of organizations.
% 0.20/0.61 fof(a5_FOL,hypothesis,
% 0.20/0.61 ! [X,Y,C,S1,S2,I1,I2,T1,T2] :
% 0.20/0.61 ( ( organization(X,T1)
% 0.20/0.61 & organization(Y,T2)
% 0.20/0.61 & class(X,C,T1)
% 0.20/0.61 & class(Y,C,T2)
% 0.20/0.61 & size(X,S1,T1)
% 0.20/0.61 & size(Y,S2,T2)
% 0.20/0.61 & inertia(X,I1,T1)
% 0.20/0.61 & inertia(Y,I2,T2)
% 0.20/0.61 & greater(S2,S1) )
% 0.20/0.61 => greater(I2,I1) ) ).
% 0.20/0.61
% 0.20/0.61 fof(t1_FOL,hypothesis,
% 0.20/0.61 ! [X,Y,T1,T2,I1,I2,P1,P2] :
% 0.20/0.61 ( ( organization(X,T1)
% 0.20/0.61 & organization(Y,T2)
% 0.20/0.61 & reorganization_free(X,T1,T1)
% 0.20/0.61 & reorganization_free(Y,T2,T2)
% 0.20/0.61 & inertia(X,I1,T1)
% 0.20/0.61 & inertia(Y,I2,T2)
% 0.20/0.61 & survival_chance(X,P1,T1)
% 0.20/0.61 & survival_chance(Y,P2,T2)
% 0.20/0.61 & greater(I2,I1) )
% 0.20/0.61 => greater(P2,P1) ) ).
% 0.20/0.61
% 0.20/0.61 %----t8_FOL - alias a7_FOL
% 0.20/0.61 fof(t8_FOL,conjecture,
% 0.20/0.61 ! [X,Y,C,P1,P2,S1,S2,T1,T2] :
% 0.20/0.61 ( ( organization(X,T1)
% 0.20/0.61 & organization(Y,T2)
% 0.20/0.61 & reorganization_free(X,T1,T1)
% 0.20/0.61 & reorganization_free(Y,T2,T2)
% 0.20/0.61 & class(X,C,T1)
% 0.20/0.61 & class(Y,C,T2)
% 0.20/0.61 & survival_chance(X,P1,T1)
% 0.20/0.61 & survival_chance(Y,P2,T2)
% 0.20/0.61 & size(X,S1,T1)
% 0.20/0.61 & size(Y,S2,T2)
% 0.20/0.61 & greater(S2,S1) )
% 0.20/0.61 => greater(P2,P1) ) ).
% 0.20/0.61
% 0.20/0.61 %--------------------------------------------------------------------------
% 0.20/0.61 %-------------------------------------------
% 0.20/0.61 % Proof found
% 0.20/0.61 % SZS status Theorem for theBenchmark
% 0.20/0.61 % SZS output start Proof
% 0.20/0.61 %ClaNum:15(EqnAxiom:0)
% 0.20/0.61 %VarNum:58(SingletonVarNum:19)
% 0.20/0.61 %MaxLitNum:10
% 0.20/0.61 %MaxfuncDepth:1
% 0.20/0.61 %SharedTerms:21
% 0.20/0.61 %goalClause: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
% 0.20/0.61 %singleGoalClaCount:12
% 0.20/0.61 [1]P1(a1,a4)
% 0.20/0.61 [2]P1(a5,a2)
% 0.20/0.61 [3]P2(a6,a7)
% 0.20/0.61 [4]P3(a1,a8,a4)
% 0.20/0.61 [5]P3(a5,a8,a2)
% 0.20/0.61 [6]P5(a1,a7,a4)
% 0.20/0.61 [7]P5(a5,a6,a2)
% 0.20/0.61 [8]P6(a1,a4,a4)
% 0.20/0.61 [9]P6(a5,a2,a2)
% 0.20/0.61 [10]P7(a1,a9,a4)
% 0.20/0.61 [11]P7(a5,a10,a2)
% 0.20/0.61 [12]~P2(a10,a9)
% 0.20/0.61 [13]~P1(x131,x132)+P4(x131,f3(x131,x132),x132)
% 0.20/0.61 [15]~P4(x153,x157,x154)+~P4(x155,x158,x156)+~P6(x153,x154,x154)+~P6(x155,x156,x156)+~P7(x153,x151,x154)+~P7(x155,x152,x156)+P2(x151,x152)+~P1(x153,x154)+~P1(x155,x156)+~P2(x157,x158)
% 0.20/0.61 [14]~P4(x143,x141,x144)+~P4(x145,x142,x146)+~P3(x145,x149,x146)+~P5(x143,x147,x144)+~P5(x145,x148,x146)+P2(x141,x142)+~P1(x143,x144)+~P3(x143,x149,x144)+~P1(x145,x146)+~P2(x147,x148)
% 0.20/0.61 %EqnAxiom
% 0.20/0.61
% 0.20/0.61 %-------------------------------------------
% 0.20/0.61 cnf(16,plain,
% 0.20/0.61 (P4(a1,f3(a1,a4),a4)),
% 0.20/0.61 inference(scs_inference,[],[1,13])).
% 0.20/0.61 cnf(25,plain,
% 0.20/0.61 (P4(a5,f3(a5,a2),a2)),
% 0.20/0.61 inference(scs_inference,[],[2,13])).
% 0.20/0.61 cnf(29,plain,
% 0.20/0.61 (P2(f3(a5,a2),f3(a1,a4))),
% 0.20/0.61 inference(scs_inference,[],[3,25,6,7,4,16,5,1,2,14])).
% 0.20/0.61 cnf(31,plain,
% 0.20/0.61 ($false),
% 0.20/0.61 inference(scs_inference,[],[29,25,8,9,11,10,12,16,1,2,15]),
% 0.20/0.61 ['proof']).
% 0.20/0.61 % SZS output end Proof
% 0.20/0.61 % Total time :0.000000s
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------