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 v2.4.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : java -jar /export/starexec/sandbox/solver/bin/mcs_scs.jar %s %d
% Computer : n009.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 : Unsatisfiable 0.60s 0.67s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.60s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : -
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----WARNING: Could not form TPTP format derivation
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.03/0.12 % Problem : MGT009-1 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v2.4.0.
% 0.03/0.13 % Command : java -jar /export/starexec/sandbox/solver/bin/mcs_scs.jar %s %d
% 0.13/0.34 % Computer : n009.cluster.edu
% 0.13/0.34 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.13/0.34 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.13/0.34 % Memory : 8042.1875MB
% 0.13/0.34 % OS : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64
% 0.13/0.34 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.13/0.34 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.13/0.34 % DateTime : Mon Aug 28 06:32:50 EDT 2023
% 0.13/0.34 % CPUTime :
% 0.50/0.61 start to proof:theBenchmark
% 0.59/0.67 %-------------------------------------------
% 0.59/0.67 % File :CSE---1.6
% 0.59/0.67 % Problem :theBenchmark
% 0.59/0.67 % Transform :cnf
% 0.59/0.67 % Format :tptp:raw
% 0.59/0.67 % Command :java -jar mcs_scs.jar %d %s
% 0.59/0.67
% 0.59/0.67 % Result :Theorem 0.010000s
% 0.59/0.67 % Output :CNFRefutation 0.010000s
% 0.59/0.67 %-------------------------------------------
% 0.59/0.67 %--------------------------------------------------------------------------
% 0.59/0.67 % File : MGT009-1 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v2.4.0.
% 0.59/0.67 % Domain : Management (Organisation Theory)
% 0.59/0.67 % Problem : Large organization have higher reproducibility
% 0.59/0.67 % Version : [PB+94] axioms.
% 0.59/0.67 % English :
% 0.59/0.67
% 0.59/0.67 % Refs : [PB+92] Peli et al. (1992), A Logical Approach to Formalizing
% 0.59/0.67 % : [PB+94] Peli et al. (1994), A Logical Approach to Formalizing
% 0.59/0.67 % : [Kam94] Kamps (1994), Email to G. Sutcliffe
% 0.59/0.67 % Source : [TPTP]
% 0.59/0.67 % Names :
% 0.59/0.67
% 0.59/0.67 % Status : Unsatisfiable
% 0.59/0.67 % Rating : 0.00 v5.4.0, 0.06 v5.3.0, 0.10 v5.2.0, 0.00 v2.4.0
% 0.59/0.67 % Syntax : Number of clauses : 16 ( 12 unt; 0 nHn; 16 RR)
% 0.59/0.67 % Number of literals : 44 ( 0 equ; 29 neg)
% 0.59/0.67 % Maximal clause size : 10 ( 2 avg)
% 0.59/0.67 % Maximal term depth : 2 ( 1 avg)
% 0.59/0.67 % Number of predicates : 7 ( 7 usr; 0 prp; 2-3 aty)
% 0.59/0.67 % Number of functors : 10 ( 10 usr; 9 con; 0-2 aty)
% 0.59/0.67 % Number of variables : 27 ( 0 sgn)
% 0.59/0.67 % SPC : CNF_UNS_RFO_NEQ_HRN
% 0.59/0.67
% 0.59/0.67 % Comments : Created with tptp2X -f tptp -t clausify:otter MGT009+1.p
% 0.59/0.67 %--------------------------------------------------------------------------
% 0.59/0.67 cnf(mp5_1,axiom,
% 0.59/0.67 ( ~ organization(A,B)
% 0.59/0.67 | inertia(A,sk1(B,A),B) ) ).
% 0.59/0.67
% 0.59/0.67 cnf(a3_FOL_2,hypothesis,
% 0.59/0.67 ( ~ organization(A,B)
% 0.59/0.67 | ~ organization(C,D)
% 0.59/0.67 | ~ reorganization_free(A,B,B)
% 0.59/0.67 | ~ reorganization_free(C,D,D)
% 0.59/0.67 | ~ reproducibility(A,E,B)
% 0.59/0.67 | ~ reproducibility(C,F,D)
% 0.59/0.67 | ~ inertia(A,G,B)
% 0.59/0.67 | ~ inertia(C,H,D)
% 0.60/0.67 | ~ greater(F,E)
% 0.60/0.67 | greater(H,G) ) ).
% 0.60/0.67
% 0.60/0.67 cnf(a3_FOL_3,hypothesis,
% 0.60/0.67 ( ~ organization(A,B)
% 0.60/0.67 | ~ organization(C,D)
% 0.60/0.67 | ~ reorganization_free(A,B,B)
% 0.60/0.67 | ~ reorganization_free(C,D,D)
% 0.60/0.67 | ~ reproducibility(A,E,B)
% 0.60/0.67 | ~ reproducibility(C,F,D)
% 0.60/0.67 | ~ inertia(A,G,B)
% 0.60/0.67 | ~ inertia(C,H,D)
% 0.60/0.67 | ~ greater(H,G)
% 0.60/0.67 | greater(F,E) ) ).
% 0.60/0.67
% 0.60/0.67 cnf(a5_FOL_4,hypothesis,
% 0.60/0.67 ( ~ organization(A,B)
% 0.60/0.67 | ~ organization(C,D)
% 0.60/0.67 | ~ class(A,E,B)
% 0.60/0.67 | ~ class(C,E,D)
% 0.60/0.67 | ~ size(A,F,B)
% 0.60/0.67 | ~ size(C,G,D)
% 0.60/0.67 | ~ inertia(A,H,B)
% 0.60/0.67 | ~ inertia(C,I,D)
% 0.60/0.67 | ~ greater(G,F)
% 0.60/0.67 | greater(I,H) ) ).
% 0.60/0.67
% 0.60/0.67 cnf(t9_FOL_5,negated_conjecture,
% 0.60/0.67 organization(sk2,sk9) ).
% 0.60/0.67
% 0.60/0.67 cnf(t9_FOL_6,negated_conjecture,
% 0.60/0.67 organization(sk3,sk10) ).
% 0.60/0.67
% 0.60/0.67 cnf(t9_FOL_7,negated_conjecture,
% 0.60/0.67 reorganization_free(sk2,sk9,sk9) ).
% 0.60/0.67
% 0.60/0.67 cnf(t9_FOL_8,negated_conjecture,
% 0.60/0.67 reorganization_free(sk3,sk10,sk10) ).
% 0.60/0.67
% 0.60/0.67 cnf(t9_FOL_9,negated_conjecture,
% 0.60/0.67 class(sk2,sk4,sk9) ).
% 0.60/0.67
% 0.60/0.67 cnf(t9_FOL_10,negated_conjecture,
% 0.60/0.67 class(sk3,sk4,sk10) ).
% 0.60/0.67
% 0.60/0.67 cnf(t9_FOL_11,negated_conjecture,
% 0.60/0.67 reproducibility(sk2,sk5,sk9) ).
% 0.60/0.67
% 0.60/0.67 cnf(t9_FOL_12,negated_conjecture,
% 0.60/0.67 reproducibility(sk3,sk6,sk10) ).
% 0.60/0.67
% 0.60/0.67 cnf(t9_FOL_13,negated_conjecture,
% 0.60/0.67 size(sk2,sk7,sk9) ).
% 0.60/0.67
% 0.60/0.67 cnf(t9_FOL_14,negated_conjecture,
% 0.60/0.67 size(sk3,sk8,sk10) ).
% 0.60/0.67
% 0.60/0.67 cnf(t9_FOL_15,negated_conjecture,
% 0.60/0.67 greater(sk8,sk7) ).
% 0.60/0.67
% 0.60/0.67 cnf(t9_FOL_16,negated_conjecture,
% 0.60/0.67 ~ greater(sk6,sk5) ).
% 0.60/0.67
% 0.60/0.67 %--------------------------------------------------------------------------
% 0.60/0.67 %-------------------------------------------
% 0.60/0.67 % Proof found
% 0.60/0.67 % SZS status Theorem for theBenchmark
% 0.60/0.67 % SZS output start Proof
% 0.60/0.67 %ClaNum:16(EqnAxiom:0)
% 0.60/0.67 %VarNum:84(SingletonVarNum:27)
% 0.60/0.67 %MaxLitNum:10
% 0.60/0.67 %MaxfuncDepth:1
% 0.60/0.67 %SharedTerms:21
% 0.60/0.67 %goalClause: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
% 0.60/0.67 %singleGoalClaCount:12
% 0.60/0.67 [1]P1(a1,a4)
% 0.60/0.67 [2]P1(a5,a2)
% 0.60/0.67 [3]P2(a6,a7)
% 0.60/0.67 [4]P5(a1,a4,a4)
% 0.60/0.67 [5]P5(a5,a2,a2)
% 0.60/0.67 [6]P6(a1,a8,a4)
% 0.60/0.67 [7]P6(a5,a10,a2)
% 0.60/0.67 [8]P3(a1,a9,a4)
% 0.60/0.67 [9]P3(a5,a9,a2)
% 0.60/0.67 [10]P7(a1,a7,a4)
% 0.60/0.67 [11]P7(a5,a6,a2)
% 0.60/0.67 [12]~P2(a10,a8)
% 0.60/0.67 [13]~P1(x131,x132)+P4(x131,f3(x132,x131),x132)
% 0.60/0.67 [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)
% 0.60/0.67 [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)
% 0.60/0.67 [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)
% 0.60/0.67 %EqnAxiom
% 0.60/0.67
% 0.60/0.67 %-------------------------------------------
% 0.60/0.68 cnf(17,plain,
% 0.60/0.68 (P4(a1,f3(a4,a1),a4)),
% 0.60/0.68 inference(scs_inference,[],[1,13])).
% 0.60/0.68 cnf(31,plain,
% 0.60/0.68 (P4(a5,f3(a2,a5),a2)),
% 0.60/0.68 inference(scs_inference,[],[2,13])).
% 0.60/0.68 cnf(35,plain,
% 0.60/0.68 (P2(f3(a2,a5),f3(a4,a1))),
% 0.60/0.68 inference(scs_inference,[],[3,31,10,11,8,9,17,2,1,14])).
% 0.60/0.68 cnf(42,plain,
% 0.60/0.68 ($false),
% 0.60/0.68 inference(scs_inference,[],[4,35,31,12,7,5,6,17,2,1,16]),
% 0.60/0.68 ['proof']).
% 0.60/0.68 % SZS output end Proof
% 0.60/0.68 % Total time :0.010000s
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------