TSTP Solution File: MGT022-2 by Prover9---1109a
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : Prover9---1109a
% Problem : MGT022-2 : TPTP v8.1.0. Released v2.4.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : tptp2X_and_run_prover9 %d %s
% Computer : n021.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 : 600s
% DateTime : Sun Jul 17 22:22:53 EDT 2022
% Result : Unsatisfiable 0.66s 0.94s
% Output : Refutation 0.66s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : -
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----WARNING: Could not form TPTP format derivation
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.07/0.11 % Problem : MGT022-2 : TPTP v8.1.0. Released v2.4.0.
% 0.07/0.12 % Command : tptp2X_and_run_prover9 %d %s
% 0.11/0.33 % Computer : n021.cluster.edu
% 0.11/0.33 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.11/0.33 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.11/0.33 % Memory : 8042.1875MB
% 0.11/0.33 % OS : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64
% 0.11/0.33 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.11/0.33 % WCLimit : 600
% 0.11/0.33 % DateTime : Thu Jun 9 07:21:23 EDT 2022
% 0.11/0.33 % CPUTime :
% 0.66/0.94 ============================== Prover9 ===============================
% 0.66/0.94 Prover9 (32) version 2009-11A, November 2009.
% 0.66/0.94 Process 13686 was started by sandbox2 on n021.cluster.edu,
% 0.66/0.94 Thu Jun 9 07:21:23 2022
% 0.66/0.94 The command was "/export/starexec/sandbox2/solver/bin/prover9 -t 300 -f /tmp/Prover9_13533_n021.cluster.edu".
% 0.66/0.94 ============================== end of head ===========================
% 0.66/0.94
% 0.66/0.94 ============================== INPUT =================================
% 0.66/0.94
% 0.66/0.94 % Reading from file /tmp/Prover9_13533_n021.cluster.edu
% 0.66/0.94
% 0.66/0.94 set(prolog_style_variables).
% 0.66/0.94 set(auto2).
% 0.66/0.94 % set(auto2) -> set(auto).
% 0.66/0.94 % set(auto) -> set(auto_inference).
% 0.66/0.94 % set(auto) -> set(auto_setup).
% 0.66/0.94 % set(auto_setup) -> set(predicate_elim).
% 0.66/0.94 % set(auto_setup) -> assign(eq_defs, unfold).
% 0.66/0.94 % set(auto) -> set(auto_limits).
% 0.66/0.94 % set(auto_limits) -> assign(max_weight, "100.000").
% 0.66/0.94 % set(auto_limits) -> assign(sos_limit, 20000).
% 0.66/0.94 % set(auto) -> set(auto_denials).
% 0.66/0.94 % set(auto) -> set(auto_process).
% 0.66/0.94 % set(auto2) -> assign(new_constants, 1).
% 0.66/0.94 % set(auto2) -> assign(fold_denial_max, 3).
% 0.66/0.94 % set(auto2) -> assign(max_weight, "200.000").
% 0.66/0.94 % set(auto2) -> assign(max_hours, 1).
% 0.66/0.94 % assign(max_hours, 1) -> assign(max_seconds, 3600).
% 0.66/0.94 % set(auto2) -> assign(max_seconds, 0).
% 0.66/0.94 % set(auto2) -> assign(max_minutes, 5).
% 0.66/0.94 % assign(max_minutes, 5) -> assign(max_seconds, 300).
% 0.66/0.94 % set(auto2) -> set(sort_initial_sos).
% 0.66/0.94 % set(auto2) -> assign(sos_limit, -1).
% 0.66/0.94 % set(auto2) -> assign(lrs_ticks, 3000).
% 0.66/0.94 % set(auto2) -> assign(max_megs, 400).
% 0.66/0.94 % set(auto2) -> assign(stats, some).
% 0.66/0.94 % set(auto2) -> clear(echo_input).
% 0.66/0.94 % set(auto2) -> set(quiet).
% 0.66/0.94 % set(auto2) -> clear(print_initial_clauses).
% 0.66/0.94 % set(auto2) -> clear(print_given).
% 0.66/0.94 assign(lrs_ticks,-1).
% 0.66/0.94 assign(sos_limit,10000).
% 0.66/0.94 assign(order,kbo).
% 0.66/0.94 set(lex_order_vars).
% 0.66/0.94 clear(print_given).
% 0.66/0.94
% 0.66/0.94 % formulas(sos). % not echoed (10 formulas)
% 0.66/0.94
% 0.66/0.94 ============================== end of input ==========================
% 0.66/0.94
% 0.66/0.94 % From the command line: assign(max_seconds, 300).
% 0.66/0.94
% 0.66/0.94 ============================== PROCESS NON-CLAUSAL FORMULAS ==========
% 0.66/0.94
% 0.66/0.94 % Formulas that are not ordinary clauses:
% 0.66/0.94
% 0.66/0.94 ============================== end of process non-clausal formulas ===
% 0.66/0.94
% 0.66/0.94 ============================== PROCESS INITIAL CLAUSES ===============
% 0.66/0.94
% 0.66/0.94 ============================== PREDICATE ELIMINATION =================
% 0.66/0.94 1 -environment(A) | -subpopulations(B,C,A,D) | -greater(resilience(C),resilience(B)) | -decreases(resources(A,D)) | increases(difference(disbanding_rate(B,D),disbanding_rate(C,D))) # label(a6_2) # label(hypothesis). [assumption].
% 0.66/0.94 2 environment(sk1) # label(prove_l4_5) # label(negated_conjecture). [assumption].
% 0.66/0.94 Derived: -subpopulations(A,B,sk1,C) | -greater(resilience(B),resilience(A)) | -decreases(resources(sk1,C)) | increases(difference(disbanding_rate(A,C),disbanding_rate(B,C))). [resolve(1,a,2,a)].
% 0.66/0.94 3 -environment(A) | -subpopulations(B,C,A,D) | -greater(resilience(C),resilience(B)) | -constant(resources(A,D)) | constant(difference(disbanding_rate(B,D),disbanding_rate(C,D))) # label(a6_3) # label(hypothesis). [assumption].
% 0.66/0.94 Derived: -subpopulations(A,B,sk1,C) | -greater(resilience(B),resilience(A)) | -constant(resources(sk1,C)) | constant(difference(disbanding_rate(A,C),disbanding_rate(B,C))). [resolve(3,a,2,a)].
% 0.66/0.94 4 -subpopulations(A,B,sk1,C) | -greater(resilience(B),resilience(A)) | -decreases(resources(sk1,C)) | increases(difference(disbanding_rate(A,C),disbanding_rate(B,C))). [resolve(1,a,2,a)].
% 0.66/0.94 5 greater(resilience(efficient_producers),resilience(first_movers)) # label(a2_4) # label(hypothesis). [assumption].
% 0.66/0.94 Derived: -subpopulations(first_movers,efficient_producers,sk1,A) | -decreases(resources(sk1,A)) | increases(difference(disbanding_rate(first_movers,A),disbanding_rate(efficient_producers,A))). [resolve(4,b,5,a)].
% 0.66/0.94 6 -subpopulations(A,B,sk1,C) | -greater(resilience(B),resilience(A)) | -constant(resources(sk1,C)) | constant(difference(disbanding_rate(A,C),disbanding_rate(B,C))). [resolve(3,a,2,a)].
% 0.66/0.94 Derived: -subpopulations(first_movers,efficient_producers,sk1,A) | -constant(resources(sk1,A)) | constant(difference(disbanding_rate(first_movers,A),disbanding_rate(efficient_producers,A))). [resolve(6,b,5,a)].
% 0.66/0.94 7 -subpopulations(first_movers,efficient_producers,sk1,A) | -decreases(resources(sk1,A)) | increases(difference(disbanding_rate(first_movers,A),disbanding_rate(efficient_producers,A))). [resolve(4,b,5,a)].
% 0.66/0.94 8 subpopulations(first_movers,efficient_producers,sk1,sk2) # label(prove_l4_6) # label(negated_conjecture). [assumption].
% 0.66/0.94 Derived: -decreases(resources(sk1,sk2)) | increases(difference(disbanding_rate(first_movers,sk2),disbanding_rate(efficient_producers,sk2))). [resolve(7,a,8,a)].
% 0.66/0.94 9 -subpopulations(first_movers,efficient_producers,sk1,A) | -constant(resources(sk1,A)) | constant(difference(disbanding_rate(first_movers,A),disbanding_rate(efficient_producers,A))). [resolve(6,b,5,a)].
% 0.66/0.94 Derived: -constant(resources(sk1,sk2)) | constant(difference(disbanding_rate(first_movers,sk2),disbanding_rate(efficient_producers,sk2))). [resolve(9,a,8,a)].
% 0.66/0.94 10 -decreases(resources(sk1,sk2)) | increases(difference(disbanding_rate(first_movers,sk2),disbanding_rate(efficient_producers,sk2))). [resolve(7,a,8,a)].
% 0.66/0.94 11 -increases(difference(disbanding_rate(first_movers,sk2),disbanding_rate(efficient_producers,sk2))) | constant(resources(sk1,sk2)) # label(prove_l4_9) # label(negated_conjecture). [assumption].
% 0.66/0.94 12 -increases(difference(disbanding_rate(first_movers,sk2),disbanding_rate(efficient_producers,sk2))) | decreases(difference(disbanding_rate(first_movers,sk2),disbanding_rate(efficient_producers,sk2))) # label(prove_l4_10) # label(negated_conjecture). [assumption].
% 0.66/0.94 Derived: -decreases(resources(sk1,sk2)) | constant(resources(sk1,sk2)). [resolve(10,b,11,a)].
% 0.66/0.94 Derived: -decreases(resources(sk1,sk2)) | decreases(difference(disbanding_rate(first_movers,sk2),disbanding_rate(efficient_producers,sk2))). [resolve(10,b,12,a)].
% 0.66/0.94
% 0.66/0.94 ============================== end predicate elimination =============
% 0.66/0.94
% 0.66/0.94 Auto_denials: (non-Horn, no changes).
% 0.66/0.94
% 0.66/0.94 Term ordering decisions:
% 0.66/0.94 Function symbol KB weights: sk2=1. sk1=1. efficient_producers=1. first_movers=1. resources=1. disbanding_rate=1. difference=1.
% 0.66/0.94
% 0.66/0.94 ============================== end of process initial clauses ========
% 0.66/0.94
% 0.66/0.94 ============================== CLAUSES FOR SEARCH ====================
% 0.66/0.94
% 0.66/0.94 ============================== end of clauses for search =============
% 0.66/0.94
% 0.66/0.94 ============================== SEARCH ================================
% 0.66/0.94
% 0.66/0.94 % Starting search at 0.01 seconds.
% 0.66/0.94
% 0.66/0.94 ============================== PROOF =================================
% 0.66/0.94 % SZS status Unsatisfiable
% 0.66/0.94 % SZS output start Refutation
% 0.66/0.94
% 0.66/0.94 % Proof 1 at 0.01 (+ 0.00) seconds.
% 0.66/0.94 % Length of proof is 21.
% 0.66/0.94 % Level of proof is 8.
% 0.66/0.94 % Maximum clause weight is 12.000.
% 0.66/0.94 % Given clauses 9.
% 0.66/0.94
% 0.66/0.94 1 -environment(A) | -subpopulations(B,C,A,D) | -greater(resilience(C),resilience(B)) | -decreases(resources(A,D)) | increases(difference(disbanding_rate(B,D),disbanding_rate(C,D))) # label(a6_2) # label(hypothesis). [assumption].
% 0.66/0.94 2 environment(sk1) # label(prove_l4_5) # label(negated_conjecture). [assumption].
% 0.66/0.94 3 -environment(A) | -subpopulations(B,C,A,D) | -greater(resilience(C),resilience(B)) | -constant(resources(A,D)) | constant(difference(disbanding_rate(B,D),disbanding_rate(C,D))) # label(a6_3) # label(hypothesis). [assumption].
% 0.66/0.94 4 -subpopulations(A,B,sk1,C) | -greater(resilience(B),resilience(A)) | -decreases(resources(sk1,C)) | increases(difference(disbanding_rate(A,C),disbanding_rate(B,C))). [resolve(1,a,2,a)].
% 0.66/0.94 5 greater(resilience(efficient_producers),resilience(first_movers)) # label(a2_4) # label(hypothesis). [assumption].
% 0.66/0.94 6 -subpopulations(A,B,sk1,C) | -greater(resilience(B),resilience(A)) | -constant(resources(sk1,C)) | constant(difference(disbanding_rate(A,C),disbanding_rate(B,C))). [resolve(3,a,2,a)].
% 0.66/0.94 7 -subpopulations(first_movers,efficient_producers,sk1,A) | -decreases(resources(sk1,A)) | increases(difference(disbanding_rate(first_movers,A),disbanding_rate(efficient_producers,A))). [resolve(4,b,5,a)].
% 0.66/0.94 8 subpopulations(first_movers,efficient_producers,sk1,sk2) # label(prove_l4_6) # label(negated_conjecture). [assumption].
% 0.66/0.94 9 -subpopulations(first_movers,efficient_producers,sk1,A) | -constant(resources(sk1,A)) | constant(difference(disbanding_rate(first_movers,A),disbanding_rate(efficient_producers,A))). [resolve(6,b,5,a)].
% 0.66/0.94 10 -decreases(resources(sk1,sk2)) | increases(difference(disbanding_rate(first_movers,sk2),disbanding_rate(efficient_producers,sk2))). [resolve(7,a,8,a)].
% 0.66/0.94 11 -increases(difference(disbanding_rate(first_movers,sk2),disbanding_rate(efficient_producers,sk2))) | constant(resources(sk1,sk2)) # label(prove_l4_9) # label(negated_conjecture). [assumption].
% 0.66/0.94 13 decreases(resources(sk1,sk2)) | constant(resources(sk1,sk2)) # label(prove_l4_7) # label(negated_conjecture). [assumption].
% 0.66/0.94 14 decreases(resources(sk1,sk2)) | decreases(difference(disbanding_rate(first_movers,sk2),disbanding_rate(efficient_producers,sk2))) # label(prove_l4_8) # label(negated_conjecture). [assumption].
% 0.66/0.94 15 -constant(A) | -decreases(A) # label(mp_constant_not_decrease_1) # label(axiom). [assumption].
% 0.66/0.94 16 -constant(resources(sk1,sk2)) | constant(difference(disbanding_rate(first_movers,sk2),disbanding_rate(efficient_producers,sk2))). [resolve(9,a,8,a)].
% 0.66/0.94 17 -decreases(resources(sk1,sk2)) | constant(resources(sk1,sk2)). [resolve(10,b,11,a)].
% 0.66/0.94 19 constant(difference(disbanding_rate(first_movers,sk2),disbanding_rate(efficient_producers,sk2))) | decreases(resources(sk1,sk2)). [resolve(16,a,13,b)].
% 0.66/0.94 20 decreases(resources(sk1,sk2)) | -decreases(difference(disbanding_rate(first_movers,sk2),disbanding_rate(efficient_producers,sk2))). [resolve(19,a,15,a)].
% 0.66/0.94 21 decreases(resources(sk1,sk2)). [resolve(20,b,14,b),merge(b)].
% 0.66/0.94 23 constant(resources(sk1,sk2)). [back_unit_del(17),unit_del(a,21)].
% 0.66/0.94 25 $F. [ur(15,b,21,a),unit_del(a,23)].
% 0.66/0.94
% 0.66/0.94 % SZS output end Refutation
% 0.66/0.94 ============================== end of proof ==========================
% 0.66/0.94
% 0.66/0.94 ============================== STATISTICS ============================
% 0.66/0.94
% 0.66/0.94 Given=9. Generated=14. Kept=12. proofs=1.
% 0.66/0.94 Usable=2. Sos=3. Demods=0. Limbo=0, Disabled=25. Hints=0.
% 0.66/0.94 Megabytes=0.04.
% 0.66/0.94 User_CPU=0.01, System_CPU=0.00, Wall_clock=0.
% 0.66/0.94
% 0.66/0.94 ============================== end of statistics =====================
% 0.66/0.94
% 0.66/0.94 ============================== end of search =========================
% 0.66/0.94
% 0.66/0.94 THEOREM PROVED
% 0.66/0.94 % SZS status Unsatisfiable
% 0.66/0.94
% 0.66/0.94 Exiting with 1 proof.
% 0.66/0.94
% 0.66/0.94 Process 13686 exit (max_proofs) Thu Jun 9 07:21:23 2022
% 0.66/0.94 Prover9 interrupted
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------