TSTP Solution File: MGT034+2 by SOS---2.0
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : SOS---2.0
% Problem : MGT034+2 : TPTP v8.1.0. Released v2.0.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : sos-script %s
% Computer : n028.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 22:25:55 EDT 2022
% Result : Theorem 52.30s 52.51s
% Output : Refutation 52.30s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : -
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----WARNING: Could not form TPTP format derivation
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.06/0.11 % Problem : MGT034+2 : TPTP v8.1.0. Released v2.0.0.
% 0.06/0.12 % Command : sos-script %s
% 0.12/0.33 % Computer : n028.cluster.edu
% 0.12/0.33 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.12/0.33 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.12/0.33 % Memory : 8042.1875MB
% 0.12/0.33 % OS : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64
% 0.12/0.33 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.12/0.33 % WCLimit : 600
% 0.12/0.33 % DateTime : Thu Jun 9 10:29:17 EDT 2022
% 0.12/0.33 % CPUTime :
% 0.12/0.35 ----- Otter 3.2, August 2001 -----
% 0.12/0.35 The process was started by sandbox on n028.cluster.edu,
% 0.12/0.35 Thu Jun 9 10:29:17 2022
% 0.12/0.35 The command was "./sos". The process ID is 11692.
% 0.12/0.35
% 0.12/0.35 set(prolog_style_variables).
% 0.12/0.35 set(auto).
% 0.12/0.35 dependent: set(auto1).
% 0.12/0.35 dependent: set(process_input).
% 0.12/0.35 dependent: clear(print_kept).
% 0.12/0.35 dependent: clear(print_new_demod).
% 0.12/0.35 dependent: clear(print_back_demod).
% 0.12/0.35 dependent: clear(print_back_sub).
% 0.12/0.35 dependent: set(control_memory).
% 0.12/0.35 dependent: assign(max_mem, 12000).
% 0.12/0.35 dependent: assign(pick_given_ratio, 4).
% 0.12/0.35 dependent: assign(stats_level, 1).
% 0.12/0.35 dependent: assign(pick_semantic_ratio, 3).
% 0.12/0.35 dependent: assign(sos_limit, 5000).
% 0.12/0.35 dependent: assign(max_weight, 60).
% 0.12/0.35 clear(print_given).
% 0.12/0.35
% 0.12/0.35 formula_list(usable).
% 0.12/0.35
% 0.12/0.35 SCAN INPUT: prop=0, horn=0, equality=1, symmetry=0, max_lits=7.
% 0.12/0.35
% 0.12/0.35 This ia a non-Horn set with equality. The strategy will be
% 0.12/0.35 Knuth-Bendix, ordered hyper_res, ur_res, factoring, and
% 0.12/0.35 unit deletion, with positive clauses in sos and nonpositive
% 0.12/0.35 clauses in usable.
% 0.12/0.35
% 0.12/0.35 dependent: set(knuth_bendix).
% 0.12/0.35 dependent: set(para_from).
% 0.12/0.35 dependent: set(para_into).
% 0.12/0.35 dependent: clear(para_from_right).
% 0.12/0.35 dependent: clear(para_into_right).
% 0.12/0.35 dependent: set(para_from_vars).
% 0.12/0.35 dependent: set(eq_units_both_ways).
% 0.12/0.35 dependent: set(dynamic_demod_all).
% 0.12/0.35 dependent: set(dynamic_demod).
% 0.12/0.35 dependent: set(order_eq).
% 0.12/0.35 dependent: set(back_demod).
% 0.12/0.35 dependent: set(lrpo).
% 0.12/0.35 dependent: set(hyper_res).
% 0.12/0.35 dependent: set(unit_deletion).
% 0.12/0.35 dependent: set(factor).
% 0.12/0.35
% 0.12/0.35 ------------> process usable:
% 0.12/0.35
% 0.12/0.35 ------------> process sos:
% 0.12/0.35 Following clause subsumed by 33 during input processing: 0 [copy,33,flip.1] {-} A=A.
% 0.12/0.35
% 0.12/0.35 ======= end of input processing =======
% 0.36/0.53
% 0.36/0.53 Model 1 (0.00 seconds, 0 Inserts)
% 0.36/0.53
% 0.36/0.53 Stopped by limit on number of solutions
% 0.36/0.53
% 0.36/0.53
% 0.36/0.53 -------------- Softie stats --------------
% 0.36/0.53
% 0.36/0.53 UPDATE_STOP: 300
% 0.36/0.53 SFINDER_TIME_LIMIT: 2
% 0.36/0.53 SHORT_CLAUSE_CUTOFF: 4
% 0.36/0.53 number of clauses in intial UL: 28
% 0.36/0.53 number of clauses initially in problem: 33
% 0.36/0.53 percentage of clauses intially in UL: 84
% 0.36/0.53 percentage of distinct symbols occuring in initial UL: 95
% 0.36/0.53 percent of all initial clauses that are short: 96
% 0.36/0.53 absolute distinct symbol count: 21
% 0.36/0.53 distinct predicate count: 8
% 0.36/0.53 distinct function count: 8
% 0.36/0.53 distinct constant count: 5
% 0.36/0.53
% 0.36/0.53 ---------- no more Softie stats ----------
% 0.36/0.53
% 0.36/0.53
% 0.36/0.53
% 0.36/0.53 Stopped by limit on insertions
% 0.36/0.53
% 0.36/0.53 =========== start of search ===========
% 43.14/43.32
% 43.14/43.32
% 43.14/43.32 Changing weight limit from 60 to 36.
% 43.14/43.32
% 43.14/43.32 Stopped by limit on insertions
% 43.14/43.32
% 43.14/43.32 Stopped by limit on insertions
% 43.14/43.32
% 43.14/43.32 Stopped by limit on insertions
% 43.14/43.32
% 43.14/43.32 Modelling stopped after 300 given clauses and 0.00 seconds
% 43.14/43.32
% 43.14/43.32
% 43.14/43.32 Resetting weight limit to 36 after 510 givens.
% 43.14/43.32
% 52.30/52.51
% 52.30/52.51 -- HEY sandbox, WE HAVE A PROOF!! --
% 52.30/52.51
% 52.30/52.51 -----> EMPTY CLAUSE at 52.14 sec ----> 9409 [hyper,9388,22,29,33] {-} $F.
% 52.30/52.51
% 52.30/52.51 Length of proof is 18. Level of proof is 14.
% 52.30/52.51
% 52.30/52.51 ---------------- PROOF ----------------
% 52.30/52.51 % SZS status Theorem
% 52.30/52.51 % SZS output start Refutation
% 52.30/52.51
% 52.30/52.51 1 [] {+} -environment(A)| -subpopulations(B,C,A,D)| -greater(growth_rate(C,D),growth_rate(B,D))|selection_favors(C,B,D).
% 52.30/52.51 2 [] {+} -environment(A)| -subpopulations(first_movers,efficient_producers,A,B)| -decreases(difference(disbanding_rate(first_movers,B),disbanding_rate(efficient_producers,B))).
% 52.30/52.51 3 [] {+} -environment(A)| -in_environment(A,critical_point(A))|subpopulations(first_movers,efficient_producers,A,critical_point(A)).
% 52.30/52.51 4 [] {+} -environment(A)| -in_environment(A,appear(efficient_producers,A))|subpopulations(first_movers,efficient_producers,A,appear(efficient_producers,A)).
% 52.30/52.51 5 [] {+} -decreases(difference(founding_rate(first_movers,A),founding_rate(efficient_producers,A)))|decreases(difference(disbanding_rate(first_movers,A),disbanding_rate(efficient_producers,A)))|decreases(difference(growth_rate(first_movers,A),growth_rate(efficient_producers,A))).
% 52.30/52.51 6 [] {+} -environment(A)| -in_environment(A,B)| -greater_or_equal(difference(growth_rate(first_movers,B),growth_rate(efficient_producers,B)),zero)| -greater_or_equal(C,appear(efficient_producers,A))| -greater(B,C)| -decreases(difference(growth_rate(first_movers,C),growth_rate(efficient_producers,C)))|greater(difference(growth_rate(first_movers,C),growth_rate(efficient_producers,C)),zero).
% 52.30/52.51 7 [] {+} -greater(zero,difference(growth_rate(first_movers,A),growth_rate(efficient_producers,A)))|greater(growth_rate(efficient_producers,A),growth_rate(first_movers,A)).
% 52.30/52.51 9 [] {+} -greater(difference(growth_rate(first_movers,A),growth_rate(efficient_producers,A)),zero)|greater(growth_rate(first_movers,A),growth_rate(efficient_producers,A)).
% 52.30/52.51 14 [] {+} -environment(A)| -in_environment(A,critical_point(A))| -greater_or_equal(B,appear(efficient_producers,A))| -greater(critical_point(A),B)|in_environment(A,B).
% 52.30/52.51 16 [] {+} -environment(A)| -subpopulations(first_movers,efficient_producers,A,B)|subpopulations(efficient_producers,first_movers,A,B).
% 52.30/52.51 17 [] {+} -environment(A)| -subpopulations(first_movers,efficient_producers,A,B)|greater_or_equal(B,appear(efficient_producers,A)).
% 52.30/52.51 18 [] {+} -greater_or_equal(A,B)|greater(A,B)|A=B.
% 52.30/52.51 19 [] {+} greater_or_equal(A,B)| -greater(A,B).
% 52.30/52.51 20 [] {+} greater_or_equal(A,B)|A!=B.
% 52.30/52.51 21 [] {+} -environment(A)| -subpopulations(first_movers,efficient_producers,A,B)|greater(zero,difference(growth_rate(first_movers,B),growth_rate(efficient_producers,B)))|greater_or_equal(difference(growth_rate(first_movers,B),growth_rate(efficient_producers,B)),zero).
% 52.30/52.51 22 [] {+} -environment(A)|B!=critical_point(A)| -greater(growth_rate(efficient_producers,B),growth_rate(first_movers,B)).
% 52.30/52.51 24 [] {+} -environment(A)| -subpopulations(first_movers,efficient_producers,A,B)| -subpopulations(first_movers,efficient_producers,A,C)| -greater_or_equal(D,B)| -greater_or_equal(C,D)|subpopulations(first_movers,efficient_producers,A,D).
% 52.30/52.51 25 [] {+} -environment(A)| -subpopulations(first_movers,efficient_producers,A,B)|decreases(difference(founding_rate(first_movers,B),founding_rate(efficient_producers,B))).
% 52.30/52.51 26 [] {+} -selection_favors(first_movers,efficient_producers,$c1).
% 52.30/52.51 29 [] {-} environment($c2).
% 52.30/52.51 30 [] {+} in_environment($c2,critical_point($c2)).
% 52.30/52.51 31 [] {+} greater_or_equal($c1,appear(efficient_producers,$c2)).
% 52.30/52.51 32 [] {+} greater(critical_point($c2),$c1).
% 52.30/52.51 33 [] {+} A=A.
% 52.30/52.51 47 [hyper,33,20] {+} greater_or_equal(A,A).
% 52.30/52.51 48 [hyper,30,3,29] {+} subpopulations(first_movers,efficient_producers,$c2,critical_point($c2)).
% 52.30/52.51 69 [hyper,32,19] {+} greater_or_equal(critical_point($c2),$c1).
% 52.30/52.51 148 [hyper,48,21,29] {-} greater(zero,difference(growth_rate(first_movers,critical_point($c2)),growth_rate(efficient_producers,critical_point($c2))))|greater_or_equal(difference(growth_rate(first_movers,critical_point($c2)),growth_rate(efficient_producers,critical_point($c2))),zero).
% 52.30/52.51 149 [hyper,48,17,29] {+} greater_or_equal(critical_point($c2),appear(efficient_producers,$c2)).
% 52.30/52.51 172 [hyper,149,18] {+} greater(critical_point($c2),appear(efficient_producers,$c2))|critical_point($c2)=appear(efficient_producers,$c2).
% 52.30/52.51 992 [hyper,172,14,29,30,47] {-} critical_point($c2)=appear(efficient_producers,$c2)|in_environment($c2,appear(efficient_producers,$c2)).
% 52.30/52.51 1047 [para_from,992.1.1,30.1.2,factor_simp] {-} in_environment($c2,appear(efficient_producers,$c2)).
% 52.30/52.51 1048 [hyper,1047,4,29] {+} subpopulations(first_movers,efficient_producers,$c2,appear(efficient_producers,$c2)).
% 52.30/52.51 1066 [hyper,1048,24,29,48,31,69] {+} subpopulations(first_movers,efficient_producers,$c2,$c1).
% 52.30/52.51 1123 [hyper,1066,25,29] {+} decreases(difference(founding_rate(first_movers,$c1),founding_rate(efficient_producers,$c1))).
% 52.30/52.51 1125 [hyper,1066,16,29] {+} subpopulations(efficient_producers,first_movers,$c2,$c1).
% 52.30/52.51 1248 [hyper,1123,5] {+} decreases(difference(disbanding_rate(first_movers,$c1),disbanding_rate(efficient_producers,$c1)))|decreases(difference(growth_rate(first_movers,$c1),growth_rate(efficient_producers,$c1))).
% 52.30/52.51 9273 [hyper,1248,2,29,1066] {+} decreases(difference(growth_rate(first_movers,$c1),growth_rate(efficient_producers,$c1))).
% 52.30/52.51 9316 [hyper,9273,6,29,30,148,31,32] {-} greater(difference(growth_rate(first_movers,$c1),growth_rate(efficient_producers,$c1)),zero)|greater(zero,difference(growth_rate(first_movers,critical_point($c2)),growth_rate(efficient_producers,critical_point($c2)))).
% 52.30/52.51 9352 [hyper,9316,9] {-} greater(zero,difference(growth_rate(first_movers,critical_point($c2)),growth_rate(efficient_producers,critical_point($c2))))|greater(growth_rate(first_movers,$c1),growth_rate(efficient_producers,$c1)).
% 52.30/52.51 9386 [hyper,9352,1,29,1125,unit_del,26] {-} greater(zero,difference(growth_rate(first_movers,critical_point($c2)),growth_rate(efficient_producers,critical_point($c2)))).
% 52.30/52.51 9388 [hyper,9386,7] {-} greater(growth_rate(efficient_producers,critical_point($c2)),growth_rate(first_movers,critical_point($c2))).
% 52.30/52.51 9409 [hyper,9388,22,29,33] {-} $F.
% 52.30/52.51
% 52.30/52.51 % SZS output end Refutation
% 52.30/52.51 ------------ end of proof -------------
% 52.30/52.51
% 52.30/52.51
% 52.30/52.51 Search stopped by max_proofs option.
% 52.30/52.51
% 52.30/52.51
% 52.30/52.51 Search stopped by max_proofs option.
% 52.30/52.51
% 52.30/52.51 ============ end of search ============
% 52.30/52.51
% 52.30/52.51 ----------- soft-scott stats ----------
% 52.30/52.51
% 52.30/52.51 true clauses given 241 (34.9%)
% 52.30/52.51 false clauses given 449
% 52.30/52.51
% 52.30/52.51 FALSE TRUE
% 52.30/52.51 11 1 0
% 52.30/52.51 14 0 4
% 52.30/52.51 16 0 53
% 52.30/52.51 17 3 96
% 52.30/52.51 18 0 128
% 52.30/52.51 19 0 162
% 52.30/52.51 20 1 134
% 52.30/52.51 21 0 242
% 52.30/52.51 22 0 214
% 52.30/52.51 23 0 249
% 52.30/52.51 24 0 122
% 52.30/52.51 25 1 182
% 52.30/52.51 26 15 209
% 52.30/52.51 27 1 278
% 52.30/52.51 28 400 244
% 52.30/52.51 29 385 183
% 52.30/52.51 30 11 0
% 52.30/52.51 32 365 0
% 52.30/52.51 34 41 0
% 52.30/52.51 36 8 0
% 52.30/52.51 tot: 1232 2500 (67.0% true)
% 52.30/52.51
% 52.30/52.51
% 52.30/52.51 Model 1 (0.01 seconds, 0 Inserts)
% 52.30/52.51
% 52.30/52.51 That finishes the proof of the theorem.
% 52.30/52.51
% 52.30/52.51 Process 11692 finished Thu Jun 9 10:30:09 2022
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------