TSTP Solution File: MGT009+1 by CSE---1.6
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : CSE---1.6
% Problem : MGT009+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 : n017.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 0.72s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.20s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : -
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----WARNING: Could not form TPTP format derivation
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.07/0.13 % Problem : MGT009+1 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v2.0.0.
% 0.07/0.14 % Command : java -jar /export/starexec/sandbox2/solver/bin/mcs_scs.jar %s %d
% 0.13/0.35 % Computer : n017.cluster.edu
% 0.13/0.35 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.13/0.35 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.13/0.35 % Memory : 8042.1875MB
% 0.13/0.35 % OS : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64
% 0.13/0.35 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.13/0.35 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.13/0.35 % DateTime : Mon Aug 28 05:47:57 EDT 2023
% 0.13/0.35 % CPUTime :
% 0.20/0.60 start to proof:theBenchmark
% 0.20/0.71 %-------------------------------------------
% 0.20/0.71 % File :CSE---1.6
% 0.20/0.71 % Problem :theBenchmark
% 0.20/0.71 % Transform :cnf
% 0.20/0.71 % Format :tptp:raw
% 0.20/0.71 % Command :java -jar mcs_scs.jar %d %s
% 0.20/0.71
% 0.20/0.71 % Result :Theorem 0.020000s
% 0.20/0.71 % Output :CNFRefutation 0.020000s
% 0.20/0.71 %-------------------------------------------
% 0.20/0.72 %--------------------------------------------------------------------------
% 0.20/0.72 % File : MGT009+1 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v2.0.0.
% 0.20/0.72 % Domain : Management (Organisation Theory)
% 0.20/0.72 % Problem : Large organization have higher reproducibility
% 0.20/0.72 % Version : [PB+94] axioms.
% 0.20/0.72 % English :
% 0.20/0.72
% 0.20/0.72 % Refs : [PB+92] Peli et al. (1992), A Logical Approach to Formalizing
% 0.20/0.72 % : [PB+94] Peli et al. (1994), A Logical Approach to Formalizing
% 0.20/0.72 % : [Kam94] Kamps (1994), Email to G. Sutcliffe
% 0.20/0.72 % Source : [Kam94]
% 0.20/0.72 % Names : THEOREM 9 [PB+92]
% 0.20/0.72 % : T9FOL1 [PB+94]
% 0.20/0.72
% 0.20/0.72 % Status : Theorem
% 0.20/0.72 % Rating : 0.00 v7.5.0, 0.05 v7.4.0, 0.00 v7.0.0, 0.07 v6.4.0, 0.00 v6.3.0, 0.08 v6.2.0, 0.00 v6.1.0, 0.12 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 v3.2.0, 0.11 v3.1.0, 0.00 v2.1.0
% 0.20/0.72 % Syntax : Number of formulae : 4 ( 0 unt; 0 def)
% 0.20/0.72 % Number of atoms : 34 ( 0 equ)
% 0.20/0.72 % Maximal formula atoms : 12 ( 8 avg)
% 0.20/0.72 % Number of connectives : 30 ( 0 ~; 0 |; 25 &)
% 0.20/0.72 % ( 1 <=>; 4 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% 0.20/0.72 % Maximal formula depth : 21 ( 16 avg)
% 0.20/0.72 % Maximal term depth : 1 ( 1 avg)
% 0.20/0.72 % Number of predicates : 7 ( 7 usr; 0 prp; 2-3 aty)
% 0.20/0.72 % Number of functors : 0 ( 0 usr; 0 con; --- aty)
% 0.20/0.72 % Number of variables : 29 ( 28 !; 1 ?)
% 0.20/0.72 % SPC : FOF_THM_RFO_NEQ
% 0.20/0.72
% 0.20/0.72 % Comments :
% 0.20/0.72 %--------------------------------------------------------------------------
% 0.20/0.72 fof(mp5,axiom,
% 0.20/0.72 ! [X,T] :
% 0.20/0.72 ( organization(X,T)
% 0.20/0.72 => ? [I] : inertia(X,I,T) ) ).
% 0.20/0.72
% 0.20/0.72 %----High levels of reproducibility of structure generate strong
% 0.20/0.72 %----inertial pressures.
% 0.20/0.72 fof(a3_FOL,hypothesis,
% 0.20/0.72 ! [X,Y,T1,T2,Rp1,Rp2,I1,I2] :
% 0.20/0.72 ( ( organization(X,T1)
% 0.20/0.72 & organization(Y,T2)
% 0.20/0.72 & reorganization_free(X,T1,T1)
% 0.20/0.72 & reorganization_free(Y,T2,T2)
% 0.20/0.72 & reproducibility(X,Rp1,T1)
% 0.20/0.72 & reproducibility(Y,Rp2,T2)
% 0.20/0.72 & inertia(X,I1,T1)
% 0.20/0.72 & inertia(Y,I2,T2) )
% 0.20/0.72 => ( greater(Rp2,Rp1)
% 0.20/0.72 <=> greater(I2,I1) ) ) ).
% 0.20/0.72
% 0.20/0.72 %----The level of structural inertia increases with size for each class
% 0.20/0.72 %----of organizations.
% 0.20/0.72 fof(a5_FOL,hypothesis,
% 0.20/0.72 ! [X,Y,C,S1,S2,I1,I2,T1,T2] :
% 0.20/0.72 ( ( organization(X,T1)
% 0.20/0.72 & organization(Y,T2)
% 0.20/0.72 & class(X,C,T1)
% 0.20/0.72 & class(Y,C,T2)
% 0.20/0.72 & size(X,S1,T1)
% 0.20/0.72 & size(Y,S2,T2)
% 0.20/0.72 & inertia(X,I1,T1)
% 0.20/0.72 & inertia(Y,I2,T2)
% 0.20/0.72 & greater(S2,S1) )
% 0.20/0.72 => greater(I2,I1) ) ).
% 0.20/0.72
% 0.20/0.72 fof(t9_FOL,conjecture,
% 0.20/0.72 ! [X,Y,C,Rp1,Rp2,S1,S2,T1,T2] :
% 0.20/0.72 ( ( organization(X,T1)
% 0.20/0.72 & organization(Y,T2)
% 0.20/0.72 & reorganization_free(X,T1,T1)
% 0.20/0.72 & reorganization_free(Y,T2,T2)
% 0.20/0.72 & class(X,C,T1)
% 0.20/0.72 & class(Y,C,T2)
% 0.20/0.72 & reproducibility(X,Rp1,T1)
% 0.20/0.72 & reproducibility(Y,Rp2,T2)
% 0.20/0.72 & size(X,S1,T1)
% 0.20/0.72 & size(Y,S2,T2)
% 0.20/0.72 & greater(S2,S1) )
% 0.20/0.72 => greater(Rp2,Rp1) ) ).
% 0.20/0.72
% 0.20/0.72 %--------------------------------------------------------------------------
% 0.20/0.72 %-------------------------------------------
% 0.20/0.72 % Proof found
% 0.20/0.72 % SZS status Theorem for theBenchmark
% 0.20/0.72 % SZS output start Proof
% 0.20/0.73 %ClaNum:16(EqnAxiom:0)
% 0.20/0.73 %VarNum:84(SingletonVarNum:27)
% 0.20/0.73 %MaxLitNum:10
% 0.20/0.73 %MaxfuncDepth:1
% 0.20/0.73 %SharedTerms:21
% 0.20/0.73 %goalClause: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
% 0.20/0.73 %singleGoalClaCount:12
% 0.20/0.73 [1]P1(a1,a4)
% 0.20/0.73 [2]P1(a5,a2)
% 0.20/0.73 [3]P2(a6,a7)
% 0.20/0.73 [4]P5(a1,a4,a4)
% 0.20/0.73 [5]P5(a5,a2,a2)
% 0.20/0.73 [6]P6(a1,a8,a4)
% 0.20/0.73 [7]P6(a5,a10,a2)
% 0.20/0.73 [8]P3(a1,a9,a4)
% 0.20/0.73 [9]P3(a5,a9,a2)
% 0.20/0.73 [10]P7(a1,a7,a4)
% 0.20/0.73 [11]P7(a5,a6,a2)
% 0.20/0.73 [12]~P2(a10,a8)
% 0.20/0.73 [13]~P1(x131,x132)+P4(x131,f3(x131,x132),x132)
% 0.20/0.73 [15]~P4(x153,x151,x154)+~P4(x155,x152,x156)+~P5(x153,x154,x154)+~P5(x155,x156,x156)+~P6(x153,x157,x154)+~P6(x155,x158,x156)+P2(x151,x152)+~P1(x153,x154)+~P1(x155,x156)+~P2(x157,x158)
% 0.20/0.73 [16]~P4(x163,x167,x164)+~P4(x165,x168,x166)+~P5(x163,x164,x164)+~P5(x165,x166,x166)+~P6(x163,x161,x164)+~P6(x165,x162,x166)+P2(x161,x162)+~P1(x163,x164)+~P1(x165,x166)+~P2(x167,x168)
% 0.20/0.73 [14]~P4(x143,x141,x144)+~P4(x145,x142,x146)+~P3(x145,x149,x146)+~P7(x143,x147,x144)+~P7(x145,x148,x146)+P2(x141,x142)+~P1(x143,x144)+~P3(x143,x149,x144)+~P1(x145,x146)+~P2(x147,x148)
% 0.20/0.73 %EqnAxiom
% 0.20/0.73
% 0.20/0.73 %-------------------------------------------
% 0.20/0.73 cnf(17,plain,
% 0.20/0.73 (P4(a1,f3(a1,a4),a4)),
% 0.20/0.73 inference(scs_inference,[],[1,13])).
% 0.20/0.73 cnf(31,plain,
% 0.20/0.73 (P4(a5,f3(a5,a2),a2)),
% 0.20/0.73 inference(scs_inference,[],[2,13])).
% 0.20/0.73 cnf(35,plain,
% 0.20/0.73 (P2(f3(a5,a2),f3(a1,a4))),
% 0.20/0.73 inference(scs_inference,[],[3,31,10,11,8,9,17,2,1,14])).
% 0.20/0.73 cnf(38,plain,
% 0.20/0.73 ($false),
% 0.20/0.73 inference(scs_inference,[],[4,35,31,12,6,7,5,17,2,1,16]),
% 0.20/0.73 ['proof']).
% 0.20/0.73 % SZS output end Proof
% 0.20/0.73 % Total time :0.020000s
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------