TSTP Solution File: MGT023+1 by CSE---1.6
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : CSE---1.6
% Problem : MGT023+1 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v2.0.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : java -jar /export/starexec/sandbox/solver/bin/mcs_scs.jar %s %d
% 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 : 300s
% DateTime : Thu Aug 31 09:06:49 EDT 2023
% Result : Theorem 61.72s 61.80s
% Output : CNFRefutation 61.72s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : -
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----WARNING: Could not form TPTP format derivation
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.12 % Problem : MGT023+1 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v2.0.0.
% 0.00/0.13 % Command : java -jar /export/starexec/sandbox/solver/bin/mcs_scs.jar %s %d
% 0.12/0.34 % Computer : n021.cluster.edu
% 0.12/0.34 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.12/0.34 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.12/0.34 % Memory : 8042.1875MB
% 0.12/0.34 % OS : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64
% 0.12/0.34 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.12/0.34 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.12/0.34 % DateTime : Mon Aug 28 06:21:13 EDT 2023
% 0.12/0.34 % CPUTime :
% 0.19/0.54 start to proof:theBenchmark
% 61.72/61.79 %-------------------------------------------
% 61.72/61.79 % File :CSE---1.6
% 61.72/61.79 % Problem :theBenchmark
% 61.72/61.79 % Transform :cnf
% 61.72/61.79 % Format :tptp:raw
% 61.72/61.79 % Command :java -jar mcs_scs.jar %d %s
% 61.72/61.79
% 61.72/61.79 % Result :Theorem 61.200000s
% 61.72/61.79 % Output :CNFRefutation 61.200000s
% 61.72/61.79 %-------------------------------------------
% 61.72/61.80 %--------------------------------------------------------------------------
% 61.72/61.80 % File : MGT023+1 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v2.0.0.
% 61.72/61.80 % Domain : Management (Organisation Theory)
% 61.72/61.80 % Problem : Stable environments have a critical point.
% 61.72/61.80 % Version : [PB+94] axioms : Reduced & Augmented > Complete.
% 61.72/61.80 % English :
% 61.72/61.80
% 61.72/61.80 % Refs : [PM93] Peli & Masuch (1993), The Logic of Propogation Strateg
% 61.72/61.80 % : [PM94] Peli & Masuch (1994), The Logic of Propogation Strateg
% 61.72/61.80 % : [Kam95] Kamps (1995), Email to G. Sutcliffe
% 61.72/61.80 % Source : [Kam95]
% 61.72/61.80 % Names :
% 61.72/61.80
% 61.72/61.80 % Status : Theorem
% 61.72/61.80 % Rating : 0.08 v7.5.0, 0.09 v7.4.0, 0.10 v7.2.0, 0.07 v7.1.0, 0.09 v7.0.0, 0.10 v6.4.0, 0.15 v6.3.0, 0.04 v6.2.0, 0.08 v6.1.0, 0.10 v6.0.0, 0.04 v5.3.0, 0.07 v5.2.0, 0.00 v5.0.0, 0.04 v3.7.0, 0.00 v3.4.0, 0.05 v3.3.0, 0.07 v3.2.0, 0.09 v3.1.0, 0.11 v2.7.0, 0.17 v2.6.0, 0.29 v2.5.0, 0.25 v2.4.0, 0.00 v2.1.0
% 61.72/61.80 % Syntax : Number of formulae : 3 ( 0 unt; 0 def)
% 61.72/61.80 % Number of atoms : 17 ( 1 equ)
% 61.72/61.80 % Maximal formula atoms : 7 ( 5 avg)
% 61.72/61.80 % Number of connectives : 16 ( 2 ~; 0 |; 9 &)
% 61.72/61.80 % ( 0 <=>; 5 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% 61.72/61.80 % Maximal formula depth : 10 ( 8 avg)
% 61.72/61.80 % Maximal term depth : 2 ( 1 avg)
% 61.72/61.80 % Number of predicates : 6 ( 5 usr; 0 prp; 1-4 aty)
% 61.72/61.80 % Number of functors : 4 ( 4 usr; 2 con; 0-2 aty)
% 61.72/61.80 % Number of variables : 7 ( 6 !; 1 ?)
% 61.72/61.80 % SPC : FOF_THM_RFO_SEQ
% 61.72/61.80
% 61.72/61.80 % Comments :
% 61.72/61.80 %--------------------------------------------------------------------------
% 61.72/61.80 %----Subsitution axioms
% 61.72/61.80 %----Problem axioms
% 61.72/61.80 %----D1=>. A time point is the critical point of an environmental patch,
% 61.72/61.80 %----if and only if, it is the earliest time past which the growth rate of
% 61.72/61.80 %----efficient producers permanently exceeds growth rate of first movers.
% 61.72/61.80 fof(d1,hypothesis,
% 61.72/61.80 ! [E,To] :
% 61.72/61.80 ( ( environment(E)
% 61.72/61.80 & ~ greater(growth_rate(efficient_producers,To),growth_rate(first_movers,To))
% 61.72/61.80 & in_environment(E,To)
% 61.72/61.80 & ! [T] :
% 61.72/61.80 ( ( subpopulations(first_movers,efficient_producers,E,T)
% 61.72/61.80 & greater(T,To) )
% 61.72/61.80 => greater(growth_rate(efficient_producers,T),growth_rate(first_movers,T)) ) )
% 61.72/61.80 => To = critical_point(E) ) ).
% 61.72/61.80
% 61.72/61.80 %----L12. There is an earliest time point, past which FM's growth rate
% 61.72/61.80 %----exceeds EP's growth rate.
% 61.72/61.80 fof(l12,hypothesis,
% 61.72/61.80 ! [E] :
% 61.72/61.80 ( ( environment(E)
% 61.72/61.80 & stable(E) )
% 61.72/61.80 => ? [To] :
% 61.72/61.80 ( in_environment(E,To)
% 61.72/61.80 & ~ greater(growth_rate(efficient_producers,To),growth_rate(first_movers,To))
% 61.72/61.80 & ! [T] :
% 61.72/61.80 ( ( subpopulations(first_movers,efficient_producers,E,T)
% 61.72/61.80 & greater(T,To) )
% 61.72/61.80 => greater(growth_rate(efficient_producers,T),growth_rate(first_movers,T)) ) ) ) ).
% 61.72/61.80
% 61.72/61.80 %----GOAL: L5. Stable environments have a critical point.
% 61.72/61.80 fof(prove_l5,conjecture,
% 61.72/61.80 ! [E] :
% 61.72/61.80 ( ( environment(E)
% 61.72/61.80 & stable(E) )
% 61.72/61.80 => in_environment(E,critical_point(E)) ) ).
% 61.72/61.80
% 61.72/61.80 %--------------------------------------------------------------------------
% 61.72/61.80 %-------------------------------------------
% 61.72/61.80 % Proof found
% 61.72/61.80 % SZS status Theorem for theBenchmark
% 61.72/61.80 % SZS output start Proof
% 61.72/61.80 %ClaNum:28(EqnAxiom:19)
% 61.72/61.80 %VarNum:47(SingletonVarNum:10)
% 61.72/61.80 %MaxLitNum:5
% 61.72/61.80 %MaxfuncDepth:2
% 61.72/61.80 %SharedTerms:7
% 61.72/61.80 %goalClause: 20 21 22
% 61.72/61.80 %singleGoalClaCount:3
% 61.72/61.80 [20]P1(a1)
% 61.72/61.80 [21]P2(a1)
% 61.72/61.80 [22]~P3(a1,f2(a1))
% 61.72/61.80 [23]~P1(x231)+~P2(x231)+P3(x231,f3(x231))
% 61.72/61.80 [25]~P2(x251)+~P1(x251)+~P4(f6(a5,f3(x251)),f6(a7,f3(x251)))
% 61.72/61.80 [24]~P1(x242)+~P3(x242,x241)+P4(f4(x242,x241),x241)+E(x241,f2(x242))+P4(f6(a5,x241),f6(a7,x241))
% 61.72/61.80 [27]~P1(x272)+~P3(x272,x271)+E(x271,f2(x272))+P5(a7,a5,x272,f4(x272,x271))+P4(f6(a5,x271),f6(a7,x271))
% 61.72/61.80 [28]~P2(x282)+~P1(x282)+~P4(x281,f3(x282))+~P5(a7,a5,x282,x281)+P4(f6(a5,x281),f6(a7,x281))
% 61.72/61.80 [26]~P1(x262)+~P3(x262,x261)+E(x261,f2(x262))+P4(f6(a5,x261),f6(a7,x261))+~P4(f6(a5,f4(x262,x261)),f6(a7,f4(x262,x261)))
% 61.72/61.80 %EqnAxiom
% 61.72/61.80 [1]E(x11,x11)
% 61.72/61.80 [2]E(x22,x21)+~E(x21,x22)
% 61.72/61.80 [3]E(x31,x33)+~E(x31,x32)+~E(x32,x33)
% 61.72/61.80 [4]~E(x41,x42)+E(f2(x41),f2(x42))
% 61.72/61.80 [5]~E(x51,x52)+E(f3(x51),f3(x52))
% 61.72/61.80 [6]~E(x61,x62)+E(f6(x61,x63),f6(x62,x63))
% 61.72/61.80 [7]~E(x71,x72)+E(f6(x73,x71),f6(x73,x72))
% 61.72/61.80 [8]~E(x81,x82)+E(f4(x81,x83),f4(x82,x83))
% 61.72/61.80 [9]~E(x91,x92)+E(f4(x93,x91),f4(x93,x92))
% 61.72/61.80 [10]~P1(x101)+P1(x102)+~E(x101,x102)
% 61.72/61.80 [11]~P2(x111)+P2(x112)+~E(x111,x112)
% 61.72/61.80 [12]P3(x122,x123)+~E(x121,x122)+~P3(x121,x123)
% 61.72/61.80 [13]P3(x133,x132)+~E(x131,x132)+~P3(x133,x131)
% 61.72/61.80 [14]P4(x142,x143)+~E(x141,x142)+~P4(x141,x143)
% 61.72/61.80 [15]P4(x153,x152)+~E(x151,x152)+~P4(x153,x151)
% 61.72/61.80 [16]P5(x162,x163,x164,x165)+~E(x161,x162)+~P5(x161,x163,x164,x165)
% 61.72/61.80 [17]P5(x173,x172,x174,x175)+~E(x171,x172)+~P5(x173,x171,x174,x175)
% 61.72/61.80 [18]P5(x183,x184,x182,x185)+~E(x181,x182)+~P5(x183,x184,x181,x185)
% 61.72/61.80 [19]P5(x193,x194,x195,x192)+~E(x191,x192)+~P5(x193,x194,x195,x191)
% 61.72/61.80
% 61.72/61.80 %-------------------------------------------
% 61.72/61.81 cnf(33,plain,
% 61.72/61.81 (P3(a1,f3(a1))),
% 61.72/61.81 inference(scs_inference,[],[20,21,23])).
% 61.72/61.81 cnf(34,plain,
% 61.72/61.81 (~P4(f6(a5,f3(a1)),f6(a7,f3(a1)))),
% 61.72/61.81 inference(scs_inference,[],[20,21,23,25])).
% 61.72/61.81 cnf(36,plain,
% 61.72/61.81 (~E(f3(a1),f2(a1))),
% 61.72/61.81 inference(scs_inference,[],[20,22,21,23,25,15,13])).
% 61.72/61.81 cnf(40,plain,
% 61.72/61.81 (P5(a7,a5,a1,f4(a1,f3(a1)))),
% 61.72/61.81 inference(scs_inference,[],[20,22,21,23,25,15,13,2,28,27])).
% 61.72/61.81 cnf(42,plain,
% 61.72/61.81 (P4(f4(a1,f3(a1)),f3(a1))),
% 61.72/61.81 inference(scs_inference,[],[20,22,21,23,25,15,13,2,28,27,24])).
% 61.72/61.81 cnf(51,plain,
% 61.72/61.81 (~E(a1,x511)+P2(x511)),
% 61.72/61.81 inference(scs_inference,[],[21,11])).
% 61.72/61.81 cnf(59,plain,
% 61.72/61.81 (~E(x591,f2(a1))+~E(f3(a1),x591)),
% 61.72/61.81 inference(scs_inference,[],[36,3])).
% 61.72/61.81 cnf(63,plain,
% 61.72/61.81 (~E(x631,x632)+E(f2(x632),f2(x631))),
% 61.72/61.81 inference(scs_inference,[],[4,2])).
% 61.72/61.81 cnf(65,plain,
% 61.72/61.81 (~E(x651,f3(a1))+~E(x651,f2(a1))),
% 61.72/61.81 inference(scs_inference,[],[59,2])).
% 61.72/61.81 cnf(67,plain,
% 61.72/61.81 (~E(a1,x671)+~E(f2(x671),f3(a1))),
% 61.72/61.81 inference(scs_inference,[],[65,63])).
% 61.72/61.81 cnf(71,plain,
% 61.72/61.81 (~E(f3(a1),f2(x711))+~E(a1,x711)),
% 61.72/61.81 inference(scs_inference,[],[67,2])).
% 61.72/61.81 cnf(74,plain,
% 61.72/61.81 (~P4(f6(a5,f4(a1,f3(a1))),f6(a7,f4(a1,f3(a1))))),
% 61.72/61.81 inference(scs_inference,[],[33,34,20,71,26])).
% 61.72/61.81 cnf(123,plain,
% 61.72/61.81 (P4(f6(a5,f4(a1,f3(a1))),f6(a7,f4(a1,f3(a1))))),
% 61.72/61.81 inference(scs_inference,[],[42,20,40,51,28])).
% 61.72/61.81 cnf(905,plain,
% 61.72/61.81 ($false),
% 61.72/61.81 inference(scs_inference,[],[74,123]),
% 61.72/61.81 ['proof']).
% 61.72/61.81 % SZS output end Proof
% 61.72/61.81 % Total time :61.200000s
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------