TSTP Solution File: MGT022+1 by CSE---1.6
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : CSE---1.6
% Problem : MGT022+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 : n019.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 09:06:49 EDT 2023
% Result : Theorem 0.20s 0.64s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.20s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : -
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----WARNING: Could not form TPTP format derivation
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.12 % Problem : MGT022+1 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v2.0.0.
% 0.00/0.13 % Command : java -jar /export/starexec/sandbox2/solver/bin/mcs_scs.jar %s %d
% 0.13/0.35 % Computer : n019.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 06:33:13 EDT 2023
% 0.13/0.35 % CPUTime :
% 0.20/0.55 start to proof:theBenchmark
% 0.20/0.64 %-------------------------------------------
% 0.20/0.64 % File :CSE---1.6
% 0.20/0.64 % Problem :theBenchmark
% 0.20/0.64 % Transform :cnf
% 0.20/0.64 % Format :tptp:raw
% 0.20/0.64 % Command :java -jar mcs_scs.jar %d %s
% 0.20/0.64
% 0.20/0.64 % Result :Theorem 0.040000s
% 0.20/0.64 % Output :CNFRefutation 0.040000s
% 0.20/0.64 %-------------------------------------------
% 0.20/0.64 %--------------------------------------------------------------------------
% 0.20/0.64 % File : MGT022+1 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v2.0.0.
% 0.20/0.64 % Domain : Management (Organisation Theory)
% 0.20/0.64 % Problem : Decreasing resource availability affects FMS more than EPs
% 0.20/0.64 % Version : [PB+94] axioms.
% 0.20/0.64 % English : Decreasing resource availability affects the disbanding rate
% 0.20/0.64 % of first movers more than the disbanding rate of efficient
% 0.20/0.64 % producers.
% 0.20/0.64
% 0.20/0.64 % Refs : [PM93] Peli & Masuch (1993), The Logic of Propogation Strateg
% 0.20/0.64 % : [PM94] Peli & Masuch (1994), The Logic of Propogation Strateg
% 0.20/0.64 % : [PB+94] Peli et al. (1994), A Logical Approach to Formalizing
% 0.20/0.64 % : [Kam95] Kamps (1995), Email to G. Sutcliffe
% 0.20/0.64 % Source : [Kam95]
% 0.20/0.64 % Names : LEMMA 4 [PM93]
% 0.20/0.64 % : L4 [PB+94]
% 0.20/0.64
% 0.20/0.64 % Status : Theorem
% 0.20/0.64 % Rating : 0.00 v6.1.0, 0.04 v6.0.0, 0.25 v5.5.0, 0.04 v5.3.0, 0.13 v5.2.0, 0.00 v2.1.0
% 0.20/0.64 % Syntax : Number of formulae : 4 ( 1 unt; 0 def)
% 0.20/0.64 % Number of atoms : 16 ( 0 equ)
% 0.20/0.64 % Maximal formula atoms : 7 ( 4 avg)
% 0.20/0.64 % Number of connectives : 14 ( 2 ~; 0 |; 5 &)
% 0.20/0.64 % ( 0 <=>; 7 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% 0.20/0.64 % Maximal formula depth : 8 ( 5 avg)
% 0.20/0.64 % Maximal term depth : 3 ( 1 avg)
% 0.20/0.64 % Number of predicates : 6 ( 6 usr; 0 prp; 1-4 aty)
% 0.20/0.64 % Number of functors : 6 ( 6 usr; 2 con; 0-2 aty)
% 0.20/0.64 % Number of variables : 7 ( 7 !; 0 ?)
% 0.20/0.64 % SPC : FOF_THM_RFO_NEQ
% 0.20/0.64
% 0.20/0.64 % Comments : Same as version with [PM93] axioms.
% 0.20/0.64 %--------------------------------------------------------------------------
% 0.20/0.64 %----MP. If something is constant, then it does not decreases.
% 0.20/0.64 fof(mp_constant_not_decrease,axiom,
% 0.20/0.64 ! [X] :
% 0.20/0.64 ( constant(X)
% 0.20/0.64 => ~ decreases(X) ) ).
% 0.20/0.64
% 0.20/0.64 %----A5. Less resilient subpopulations are more affected by decreasing
% 0.20/0.64 %----resource availability.
% 0.20/0.64 fof(a5,hypothesis,
% 0.20/0.64 ! [E,S1,S2,T] :
% 0.20/0.64 ( ( environment(E)
% 0.20/0.64 & subpopulations(S1,S2,E,T)
% 0.20/0.64 & greater(resilience(S2),resilience(S1)) )
% 0.20/0.64 => ( ( decreases(resources(E,T))
% 0.20/0.64 => increases(difference(disbanding_rate(S1,T),disbanding_rate(S2,T))) )
% 0.20/0.64 & ( constant(resources(E,T))
% 0.20/0.64 => constant(difference(disbanding_rate(S1,T),disbanding_rate(S2,T))) ) ) ) ).
% 0.20/0.64
% 0.20/0.64 %----A2. Efficient producers are more resilient than first movers.
% 0.20/0.64 fof(a2,hypothesis,
% 0.20/0.64 greater(resilience(efficient_producers),resilience(first_movers)) ).
% 0.20/0.64
% 0.20/0.64 %----GOAL: L4. A decreasing resource availability affects the disbanding
% 0.20/0.64 %----rate of first movers more than the disbanding rate of efficient
% 0.20/0.64 %----producers.
% 0.20/0.64 fof(prove_l4,conjecture,
% 0.20/0.64 ! [E,T] :
% 0.20/0.64 ( ( environment(E)
% 0.20/0.64 & subpopulations(first_movers,efficient_producers,E,T) )
% 0.20/0.64 => ( ( decreases(resources(E,T))
% 0.20/0.64 => increases(difference(disbanding_rate(first_movers,T),disbanding_rate(efficient_producers,T))) )
% 0.20/0.64 & ( constant(resources(E,T))
% 0.20/0.64 => ~ decreases(difference(disbanding_rate(first_movers,T),disbanding_rate(efficient_producers,T))) ) ) ) ).
% 0.20/0.64
% 0.20/0.64 %--------------------------------------------------------------------------
% 0.20/0.64 %-------------------------------------------
% 0.20/0.64 % Proof found
% 0.20/0.64 % SZS status Theorem for theBenchmark
% 0.20/0.64 % SZS output start Proof
% 0.20/0.65 %ClaNum:10(EqnAxiom:0)
% 0.20/0.65 %VarNum:28(SingletonVarNum:9)
% 0.20/0.65 %MaxLitNum:5
% 0.20/0.65 %MaxfuncDepth:2
% 0.20/0.65 %SharedTerms:17
% 0.20/0.65 %goalClause: 1 3 5 6 7 8
% 0.20/0.65 %singleGoalClaCount:2
% 0.20/0.65 [1]P1(a1)
% 0.20/0.65 [3]P5(a6,a2,a1,a7)
% 0.20/0.65 [2]P4(f5(a2),f5(a6))
% 0.20/0.65 [5]P3(f8(a1,a7))+P2(f8(a1,a7))
% 0.20/0.65 [6]P3(f8(a1,a7))+P3(f4(f3(a6,a7),f3(a2,a7)))
% 0.20/0.65 [7]~P6(f4(f3(a6,a7),f3(a2,a7)))+P2(f8(a1,a7))
% 0.20/0.65 [8]~P6(f4(f3(a6,a7),f3(a2,a7)))+P3(f4(f3(a6,a7),f3(a2,a7)))
% 0.20/0.65 [4]~P3(x41)+~P2(x41)
% 0.20/0.65 [9]~P5(x91,x93,x94,x92)+~P1(x94)+~P4(f5(x93),f5(x91))+~P2(f8(x94,x92))+P2(f4(f3(x91,x92),f3(x93,x92)))
% 0.20/0.65 [10]~P5(x101,x103,x104,x102)+~P1(x104)+~P4(f5(x103),f5(x101))+~P3(f8(x104,x102))+P6(f4(f3(x101,x102),f3(x103,x102)))
% 0.20/0.65 %EqnAxiom
% 0.20/0.65
% 0.20/0.65 %-------------------------------------------
% 0.20/0.65 cnf(11,plain,
% 0.20/0.65 (~P3(f8(a1,a7))+P6(f4(f3(a6,a7),f3(a2,a7)))),
% 0.20/0.65 inference(scs_inference,[],[1,3,2,10])).
% 0.20/0.65 cnf(12,plain,
% 0.20/0.65 (~P2(f8(a1,a7))+P2(f4(f3(a6,a7),f3(a2,a7)))),
% 0.20/0.65 inference(scs_inference,[],[1,3,2,10,9])).
% 0.20/0.65 cnf(14,plain,
% 0.20/0.65 (~P2(f8(a1,a7))+P3(f4(f3(a6,a7),f3(a2,a7)))),
% 0.20/0.65 inference(scs_inference,[],[6,4])).
% 0.20/0.65 cnf(15,plain,
% 0.20/0.65 (P2(f4(f3(a6,a7),f3(a2,a7)))+~P6(f4(f3(a6,a7),f3(a2,a7)))),
% 0.20/0.65 inference(scs_inference,[],[7,12])).
% 0.20/0.65 cnf(17,plain,
% 0.20/0.65 (~P2(f4(f3(a6,a7),f3(a2,a7)))+~P2(f8(a1,a7))),
% 0.20/0.65 inference(scs_inference,[],[14,4])).
% 0.20/0.65 cnf(19,plain,
% 0.20/0.65 (~P2(f8(a1,a7))+~P6(f4(f3(a6,a7),f3(a2,a7)))),
% 0.20/0.65 inference(scs_inference,[],[17,15])).
% 0.20/0.65 cnf(21,plain,
% 0.20/0.65 (P3(f8(a1,a7))+~P6(f4(f3(a6,a7),f3(a2,a7)))),
% 0.20/0.65 inference(scs_inference,[],[19,5])).
% 0.20/0.65 cnf(25,plain,
% 0.20/0.65 (~P3(f8(a1,a7))+~P6(f4(f3(a6,a7),f3(a2,a7)))),
% 0.20/0.65 inference(scs_inference,[],[4,7])).
% 0.20/0.65 cnf(26,plain,
% 0.20/0.65 (~P6(f4(f3(a6,a7),f3(a2,a7)))),
% 0.20/0.65 inference(scs_inference,[],[25,21])).
% 0.20/0.65 cnf(27,plain,
% 0.20/0.65 (~P3(f8(a1,a7))),
% 0.20/0.65 inference(scs_inference,[],[26,11])).
% 0.20/0.65 cnf(28,plain,
% 0.20/0.65 (P2(f8(a1,a7))),
% 0.20/0.65 inference(scs_inference,[],[27,5])).
% 0.20/0.65 cnf(32,plain,
% 0.20/0.65 (P2(f4(f3(a6,a7),f3(a2,a7)))),
% 0.20/0.65 inference(scs_inference,[],[28,12])).
% 0.20/0.65 cnf(34,plain,
% 0.20/0.65 (~P2(f4(f3(a6,a7),f3(a2,a7)))),
% 0.20/0.65 inference(scs_inference,[],[28,17])).
% 0.20/0.65 cnf(37,plain,
% 0.20/0.65 ($false),
% 0.20/0.65 inference(scs_inference,[],[34,32]),
% 0.20/0.65 ['proof']).
% 0.20/0.65 % SZS output end Proof
% 0.20/0.65 % Total time :0.040000s
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------