TSTP Solution File: MGT016-1 by CSE---1.6
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : CSE---1.6
% Problem : MGT016-1 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v2.4.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : java -jar /export/starexec/sandbox2/solver/bin/mcs_scs.jar %s %d
% Computer : n002.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 09:06:45 EDT 2023
% Result : Unsatisfiable 0.20s 0.63s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.20s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : -
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----WARNING: Could not form TPTP format derivation
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.07/0.13 % Problem : MGT016-1 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v2.4.0.
% 0.07/0.14 % Command : java -jar /export/starexec/sandbox2/solver/bin/mcs_scs.jar %s %d
% 0.14/0.35 % Computer : n002.cluster.edu
% 0.14/0.35 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.14/0.35 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.14/0.35 % Memory : 8042.1875MB
% 0.14/0.35 % OS : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64
% 0.14/0.35 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.14/0.35 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.14/0.35 % DateTime : Mon Aug 28 06:27:19 EDT 2023
% 0.20/0.35 % CPUTime :
% 0.20/0.56 start to proof:theBenchmark
% 0.20/0.62 %-------------------------------------------
% 0.20/0.62 % File :CSE---1.6
% 0.20/0.62 % Problem :theBenchmark
% 0.20/0.62 % Transform :cnf
% 0.20/0.62 % Format :tptp:raw
% 0.20/0.62 % Command :java -jar mcs_scs.jar %d %s
% 0.20/0.62
% 0.20/0.62 % Result :Theorem 0.010000s
% 0.20/0.62 % Output :CNFRefutation 0.010000s
% 0.20/0.62 %-------------------------------------------
% 0.20/0.62 %--------------------------------------------------------------------------
% 0.20/0.62 % File : MGT016-1 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v2.4.0.
% 0.20/0.62 % Domain : Management (Organisation Theory)
% 0.20/0.62 % Problem : More complex organizations have shorter reorganization
% 0.20/0.62 % Version : [PB+94] axioms.
% 0.20/0.62 % English : The more complex an organization is at the beginning of
% 0.20/0.62 % reorganization, the sooner disbanding due to reorganization
% 0.20/0.62 % (possibly) happens - i.e., the shorter is the reorganization.
% 0.20/0.62
% 0.20/0.62 % Refs : [PB+94] Peli et al. (1994), A Logical Approach to Formalizing
% 0.20/0.62 % : [Kam94] Kamps (1994), Email to G. Sutcliffe
% 0.20/0.62 % : [Kam95] Kamps (1995), Email to G. Sutcliffe
% 0.20/0.62 % Source : [TPTP]
% 0.20/0.62 % Names :
% 0.20/0.62
% 0.20/0.62 % Status : Unsatisfiable
% 0.20/0.62 % Rating : 0.00 v7.1.0, 0.17 v7.0.0, 0.12 v6.3.0, 0.14 v6.2.0, 0.00 v2.4.0
% 0.20/0.62 % Syntax : Number of clauses : 16 ( 13 unt; 1 nHn; 16 RR)
% 0.20/0.62 % Number of literals : 38 ( 0 equ; 23 neg)
% 0.20/0.62 % Maximal clause size : 13 ( 2 avg)
% 0.20/0.62 % Maximal term depth : 2 ( 1 avg)
% 0.20/0.62 % Number of predicates : 7 ( 7 usr; 0 prp; 2-3 aty)
% 0.20/0.63 % Number of functors : 10 ( 10 usr; 9 con; 0-2 aty)
% 0.20/0.63 % Number of variables : 20 ( 0 sgn)
% 0.20/0.63 % SPC : CNF_UNS_RFO_NEQ_NHN
% 0.20/0.63
% 0.20/0.63 % Comments : "Not published due to publication constraints." [Kam95].
% 0.20/0.63 % : Created with tptp2X -f tptp -t clausify:otter MGT016+1.p
% 0.20/0.63 %--------------------------------------------------------------------------
% 0.20/0.63 cnf(mp5_1,axiom,
% 0.20/0.63 ( ~ organization(A,B)
% 0.20/0.63 | inertia(A,sk1(B,A),B) ) ).
% 0.20/0.63
% 0.20/0.63 cnf(a12_FOL_2,hypothesis,
% 0.20/0.63 ( ~ organization(A,B)
% 0.20/0.63 | ~ organization(C,D)
% 0.20/0.63 | ~ class(A,E,B)
% 0.20/0.63 | ~ class(C,E,D)
% 0.20/0.63 | ~ complexity(A,F,B)
% 0.20/0.63 | ~ complexity(C,G,D)
% 0.20/0.63 | ~ inertia(A,H,B)
% 0.20/0.63 | ~ inertia(C,I,D)
% 0.20/0.63 | ~ greater(G,F)
% 0.20/0.63 | greater(I,H) ) ).
% 0.20/0.63
% 0.20/0.63 cnf(a14_FOL_3,hypothesis,
% 0.20/0.63 ( ~ organization(A,B)
% 0.20/0.63 | ~ organization(C,B)
% 0.20/0.63 | organization(C,D)
% 0.20/0.63 | ~ class(A,E,B)
% 0.20/0.63 | ~ class(C,E,B)
% 0.20/0.63 | ~ reorganization(A,B,F)
% 0.20/0.63 | ~ reorganization(C,B,D)
% 0.20/0.63 | ~ reorganization_type(A,G,B)
% 0.20/0.63 | ~ reorganization_type(C,G,B)
% 0.20/0.63 | ~ inertia(A,H,B)
% 0.20/0.63 | ~ inertia(C,I,B)
% 0.20/0.63 | ~ greater(I,H)
% 0.20/0.63 | greater(F,D) ) ).
% 0.20/0.63
% 0.20/0.63 cnf(t16_FOL_4,negated_conjecture,
% 0.20/0.63 organization(sk2,sk8) ).
% 0.20/0.63
% 0.20/0.63 cnf(t16_FOL_5,negated_conjecture,
% 0.20/0.63 organization(sk3,sk8) ).
% 0.20/0.63
% 0.20/0.63 cnf(t16_FOL_6,negated_conjecture,
% 0.20/0.63 ~ organization(sk3,sk10) ).
% 0.20/0.63
% 0.20/0.63 cnf(t16_FOL_7,negated_conjecture,
% 0.20/0.63 class(sk2,sk5,sk8) ).
% 0.20/0.63
% 0.20/0.63 cnf(t16_FOL_8,negated_conjecture,
% 0.20/0.63 class(sk3,sk5,sk8) ).
% 0.20/0.63
% 0.20/0.63 cnf(t16_FOL_9,negated_conjecture,
% 0.20/0.63 reorganization(sk2,sk8,sk9) ).
% 0.20/0.63
% 0.20/0.63 cnf(t16_FOL_10,negated_conjecture,
% 0.20/0.63 reorganization(sk3,sk8,sk10) ).
% 0.20/0.63
% 0.20/0.63 cnf(t16_FOL_11,negated_conjecture,
% 0.20/0.63 reorganization_type(sk2,sk4,sk8) ).
% 0.20/0.63
% 0.20/0.63 cnf(t16_FOL_12,negated_conjecture,
% 0.20/0.63 reorganization_type(sk3,sk4,sk8) ).
% 0.20/0.63
% 0.20/0.63 cnf(t16_FOL_13,negated_conjecture,
% 0.20/0.63 complexity(sk2,sk6,sk8) ).
% 0.20/0.63
% 0.20/0.63 cnf(t16_FOL_14,negated_conjecture,
% 0.20/0.63 complexity(sk3,sk7,sk8) ).
% 0.20/0.63
% 0.20/0.63 cnf(t16_FOL_15,negated_conjecture,
% 0.20/0.63 greater(sk7,sk6) ).
% 0.20/0.63
% 0.20/0.63 cnf(t16_FOL_16,negated_conjecture,
% 0.20/0.63 ~ greater(sk9,sk10) ).
% 0.20/0.63
% 0.20/0.63 %--------------------------------------------------------------------------
% 0.20/0.63 %-------------------------------------------
% 0.20/0.63 % Proof found
% 0.20/0.63 % SZS status Theorem for theBenchmark
% 0.20/0.63 % SZS output start Proof
% 0.20/0.63 %ClaNum:16(EqnAxiom:0)
% 0.20/0.63 %VarNum:66(SingletonVarNum:20)
% 0.20/0.63 %MaxLitNum:13
% 0.20/0.63 %MaxfuncDepth:1
% 0.20/0.63 %SharedTerms:22
% 0.20/0.63 %goalClause: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
% 0.20/0.63 %singleGoalClaCount:13
% 0.20/0.63 [1]P1(a1,a4)
% 0.20/0.63 [2]P1(a5,a4)
% 0.20/0.63 [3]P2(a6,a7)
% 0.20/0.63 [4]P3(a1,a8,a4)
% 0.20/0.63 [5]P3(a5,a8,a4)
% 0.20/0.63 [6]P4(a1,a7,a4)
% 0.20/0.63 [7]P4(a5,a6,a4)
% 0.20/0.63 [8]P6(a1,a4,a10)
% 0.20/0.63 [9]P6(a5,a4,a2)
% 0.20/0.63 [10]P7(a1,a9,a4)
% 0.20/0.63 [11]P7(a5,a9,a4)
% 0.20/0.63 [12]~P1(a5,a2)
% 0.20/0.63 [13]~P2(a10,a2)
% 0.20/0.63 [14]~P1(x141,x142)+P5(x141,f3(x142,x141),x142)
% 0.20/0.63 [15]~P5(x153,x151,x154)+~P5(x155,x152,x156)+~P3(x155,x159,x156)+~P4(x153,x157,x154)+~P4(x155,x158,x156)+P2(x151,x152)+~P1(x153,x154)+~P3(x153,x159,x154)+~P1(x155,x156)+~P2(x157,x158)
% 0.20/0.63 [16]~P5(x161,x166,x164)+~P5(x165,x167,x164)+~P3(x165,x168,x164)+~P6(x161,x164,x162)+~P6(x165,x164,x163)+~P7(x165,x169,x164)+P1(x161,x162)+P2(x163,x162)+~P1(x161,x164)+~P1(x165,x164)+~P3(x161,x168,x164)+~P7(x161,x169,x164)+~P2(x166,x167)
% 0.20/0.63 %EqnAxiom
% 0.20/0.63
% 0.20/0.63 %-------------------------------------------
% 0.20/0.63 cnf(17,plain,
% 0.20/0.63 (P5(a1,f3(a4,a1),a4)),
% 0.20/0.63 inference(scs_inference,[],[1,14])).
% 0.20/0.63 cnf(28,plain,
% 0.20/0.63 (P5(a5,f3(a4,a5),a4)),
% 0.20/0.63 inference(scs_inference,[],[2,14])).
% 0.20/0.63 cnf(31,plain,
% 0.20/0.63 (~P2(f3(a4,a5),f3(a4,a1))),
% 0.20/0.63 inference(scs_inference,[],[3,7,13,10,12,9,11,17,8,5,6,1,4,2,14,15,16])).
% 0.20/0.63 cnf(34,plain,
% 0.20/0.63 ($false),
% 0.20/0.63 inference(scs_inference,[],[4,31,28,7,17,6,5,3,1,2,15]),
% 0.20/0.63 ['proof']).
% 0.20/0.63 % SZS output end Proof
% 0.20/0.63 % Total time :0.010000s
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------