TSTP Solution File: MGT059+1 by CSE---1.6
View Problem
- Process Solution
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : CSE---1.6
% Problem : MGT059+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 : n020.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 09:07:07 EDT 2023
% Result : Theorem 0.17s 0.61s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.17s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : -
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----WARNING: Could not form TPTP format derivation
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.12 % Problem : MGT059+1 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v2.4.0.
% 0.00/0.12 % Command : java -jar /export/starexec/sandbox2/solver/bin/mcs_scs.jar %s %d
% 0.12/0.32 % Computer : n020.cluster.edu
% 0.12/0.32 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.12/0.32 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.12/0.32 % Memory : 8042.1875MB
% 0.12/0.32 % OS : Linux 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64
% 0.12/0.32 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.12/0.32 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.12/0.32 % DateTime : Mon Aug 28 06:11:59 EDT 2023
% 0.12/0.33 % CPUTime :
% 0.17/0.55 start to proof:theBenchmark
% 0.17/0.60 %-------------------------------------------
% 0.17/0.60 % File :CSE---1.6
% 0.17/0.60 % Problem :theBenchmark
% 0.17/0.60 % Transform :cnf
% 0.17/0.60 % Format :tptp:raw
% 0.17/0.60 % Command :java -jar mcs_scs.jar %d %s
% 0.17/0.60
% 0.17/0.60 % Result :Theorem 0.010000s
% 0.17/0.60 % Output :CNFRefutation 0.010000s
% 0.17/0.60 %-------------------------------------------
% 0.17/0.61 %--------------------------------------------------------------------------
% 0.17/0.61 % File : MGT059+1 : TPTP v8.1.2. Released v2.4.0.
% 0.17/0.61 % Domain : Management (Organisation Theory)
% 0.17/0.61 % Problem : Hazard of mortality is constant during periods of immunity
% 0.17/0.61 % Version : [Han98] axioms.
% 0.17/0.61 % English : An organization's hazard of mortality is constant during periods
% 0.17/0.61 % in which it has immunity.
% 0.17/0.61
% 0.17/0.61 % Refs : [Kam00] Kamps (2000), Email to G. Sutcliffe
% 0.17/0.61 % : [CH00] Carroll & Hannan (2000), The Demography of Corporation
% 0.17/0.61 % : [Han98] Hannan (1998), Rethinking Age Dependence in Organizati
% 0.17/0.61 % Source : [Kam00]
% 0.17/0.61 % Names : ASSUMPTION 2 [Han98]
% 0.17/0.61
% 0.17/0.61 % Status : Theorem
% 0.17/0.61 % Rating : 0.06 v8.1.0, 0.03 v7.1.0, 0.04 v7.0.0, 0.03 v6.4.0, 0.08 v6.3.0, 0.04 v6.2.0, 0.08 v6.1.0, 0.13 v6.0.0, 0.09 v5.5.0, 0.07 v5.4.0, 0.04 v5.3.0, 0.11 v5.2.0, 0.05 v5.0.0, 0.04 v3.7.0, 0.00 v2.4.0
% 0.17/0.61 % Syntax : Number of formulae : 8 ( 0 unt; 0 def)
% 0.17/0.61 % Number of atoms : 36 ( 9 equ)
% 0.17/0.61 % Maximal formula atoms : 16 ( 4 avg)
% 0.17/0.61 % Number of connectives : 34 ( 6 ~; 4 |; 12 &)
% 0.17/0.61 % ( 3 <=>; 9 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% 0.17/0.61 % Maximal formula depth : 12 ( 6 avg)
% 0.17/0.61 % Maximal term depth : 2 ( 1 avg)
% 0.17/0.61 % Number of predicates : 9 ( 8 usr; 0 prp; 1-2 aty)
% 0.17/0.61 % Number of functors : 6 ( 6 usr; 5 con; 0-2 aty)
% 0.17/0.61 % Number of variables : 18 ( 18 !; 0 ?)
% 0.17/0.61 % SPC : FOF_THM_RFO_SEQ
% 0.17/0.61
% 0.17/0.61 % Comments : See MGT042+1.p for the mnemonic names.
% 0.17/0.61 %--------------------------------------------------------------------------
% 0.17/0.61 include('Axioms/MGT001+0.ax').
% 0.17/0.61 %--------------------------------------------------------------------------
% 0.17/0.61 %----Problem Axioms
% 0.17/0.61 %----An organization's immunity. alignment of capability with the
% 0.17/0.61 %----current state of the environment and positional advantage jointly
% 0.17/0.61 %----affect the hazard of mortality with the following ordinal scaling:
% 0.17/0.61 fof(assumption_17,axiom,
% 0.17/0.61 ! [X,T] :
% 0.17/0.61 ( organization(X)
% 0.17/0.61 => ( ( has_immunity(X,T)
% 0.17/0.61 => hazard_of_mortality(X,T) = very_low )
% 0.17/0.61 & ( ~ has_immunity(X,T)
% 0.17/0.61 => ( ( ( is_aligned(X,T)
% 0.17/0.61 & positional_advantage(X,T) )
% 0.17/0.61 => hazard_of_mortality(X,T) = low )
% 0.17/0.61 & ( ( ~ is_aligned(X,T)
% 0.17/0.61 & positional_advantage(X,T) )
% 0.17/0.61 => hazard_of_mortality(X,T) = mod1 )
% 0.17/0.61 & ( ( is_aligned(X,T)
% 0.17/0.61 & ~ positional_advantage(X,T) )
% 0.17/0.61 => hazard_of_mortality(X,T) = mod2 )
% 0.17/0.61 & ( ( ~ is_aligned(X,T)
% 0.17/0.61 & ~ positional_advantage(X,T) )
% 0.17/0.61 => hazard_of_mortality(X,T) = high ) ) ) ) ) ).
% 0.17/0.61
% 0.17/0.61 %----Problem theorems
% 0.17/0.61 %----Text says on p.152 ``These assumptions [A17,A18] have the same effect
% 0.17/0.61 %---- as assumptions 2 and 3 in the formalization used in section III.''
% 0.17/0.61 %----This is indeed the case for these assumptions are now derivable.
% 0.17/0.61 %----A2 from A17 (no inequalities needed).
% 0.17/0.61 %----
% 0.17/0.61 %----An organization's hazard of mortality is constant during periods
% 0.17/0.61 %----in which it has immunity.
% 0.17/0.61 fof(assumption_2,conjecture,
% 0.17/0.61 ! [X,T0,T] :
% 0.17/0.61 ( ( organization(X)
% 0.17/0.61 & has_immunity(X,T0)
% 0.17/0.61 & has_immunity(X,T) )
% 0.17/0.61 => hazard_of_mortality(X,T0) = hazard_of_mortality(X,T) ) ).
% 0.17/0.61
% 0.17/0.61 %--------------------------------------------------------------------------
% 0.17/0.61 %-------------------------------------------
% 0.17/0.61 % Proof found
% 0.17/0.61 % SZS status Theorem for theBenchmark
% 0.17/0.61 % SZS output start Proof
% 0.17/0.61 %ClaNum:43(EqnAxiom:22)
% 0.17/0.61 %VarNum:94(SingletonVarNum:35)
% 0.17/0.61 %MaxLitNum:4
% 0.17/0.61 %MaxfuncDepth:1
% 0.17/0.61 %SharedTerms:14
% 0.17/0.61 %goalClause: 23 24 25 26
% 0.17/0.61 %singleGoalClaCount:4
% 0.17/0.61 [23]P1(a1)
% 0.17/0.61 [24]P2(a1,a2)
% 0.17/0.61 [25]P2(a1,a3)
% 0.17/0.61 [26]~E(f4(a1,a3),f4(a1,a2))
% 0.17/0.61 [27]~E(x271,x272)+P7(x271,x272)
% 0.17/0.61 [28]~E(x281,x282)+P3(x281,x282)
% 0.17/0.61 [31]~P8(x311,x312)+P7(x311,x312)
% 0.17/0.61 [32]~P4(x322,x321)+P8(x321,x322)
% 0.17/0.61 [33]~P4(x331,x332)+P3(x331,x332)
% 0.17/0.61 [34]~P8(x342,x341)+P4(x341,x342)
% 0.17/0.61 [38]~P4(x382,x381)+~P4(x381,x382)
% 0.17/0.61 [29]P8(x291,x292)+P4(x291,x292)+E(x291,x292)
% 0.17/0.61 [30]P5(x301,x302)+~P1(x301)+P2(x301,x302)
% 0.17/0.61 [35]P8(x351,x352)+~P7(x351,x352)+E(x351,x352)
% 0.17/0.61 [36]P4(x361,x362)+~P3(x361,x362)+E(x361,x362)
% 0.17/0.61 [37]~P1(x371)+~P2(x371,x372)+E(f4(x371,x372),a5)
% 0.17/0.61 [39]~P4(x391,x393)+P4(x391,x392)+~P4(x393,x392)
% 0.17/0.61 [40]P6(x401,x402)+P9(x401,x402)+~P5(x401,x402)+E(f4(x401,x402),a6)
% 0.17/0.61 [41]P6(x411,x412)+~P9(x411,x412)+~P5(x411,x412)+E(f4(x411,x412),a7)
% 0.17/0.61 [42]P9(x421,x422)+~P6(x421,x422)+~P5(x421,x422)+E(f4(x421,x422),a9)
% 0.17/0.61 [43]~P6(x431,x432)+~P9(x431,x432)+~P5(x431,x432)+E(f4(x431,x432),a8)
% 0.17/0.61 %EqnAxiom
% 0.17/0.61 [1]E(x11,x11)
% 0.17/0.61 [2]E(x22,x21)+~E(x21,x22)
% 0.17/0.61 [3]E(x31,x33)+~E(x31,x32)+~E(x32,x33)
% 0.17/0.61 [4]~E(x41,x42)+E(f4(x41,x43),f4(x42,x43))
% 0.17/0.61 [5]~E(x51,x52)+E(f4(x53,x51),f4(x53,x52))
% 0.17/0.61 [6]~P1(x61)+P1(x62)+~E(x61,x62)
% 0.17/0.61 [7]P2(x72,x73)+~E(x71,x72)+~P2(x71,x73)
% 0.17/0.61 [8]P2(x83,x82)+~E(x81,x82)+~P2(x83,x81)
% 0.17/0.61 [9]P6(x92,x93)+~E(x91,x92)+~P6(x91,x93)
% 0.17/0.61 [10]P6(x103,x102)+~E(x101,x102)+~P6(x103,x101)
% 0.17/0.61 [11]P7(x112,x113)+~E(x111,x112)+~P7(x111,x113)
% 0.17/0.61 [12]P7(x123,x122)+~E(x121,x122)+~P7(x123,x121)
% 0.17/0.61 [13]P3(x132,x133)+~E(x131,x132)+~P3(x131,x133)
% 0.17/0.61 [14]P3(x143,x142)+~E(x141,x142)+~P3(x143,x141)
% 0.17/0.61 [15]P8(x152,x153)+~E(x151,x152)+~P8(x151,x153)
% 0.17/0.61 [16]P8(x163,x162)+~E(x161,x162)+~P8(x163,x161)
% 0.17/0.61 [17]P4(x172,x173)+~E(x171,x172)+~P4(x171,x173)
% 0.17/0.61 [18]P4(x183,x182)+~E(x181,x182)+~P4(x183,x181)
% 0.17/0.61 [19]P5(x192,x193)+~E(x191,x192)+~P5(x191,x193)
% 0.17/0.61 [20]P5(x203,x202)+~E(x201,x202)+~P5(x203,x201)
% 0.17/0.61 [21]P9(x212,x213)+~E(x211,x212)+~P9(x211,x213)
% 0.17/0.61 [22]P9(x223,x222)+~E(x221,x222)+~P9(x223,x221)
% 0.17/0.61
% 0.17/0.61 %-------------------------------------------
% 0.17/0.61 cnf(44,plain,
% 0.17/0.61 (~E(a3,a2)),
% 0.17/0.61 inference(scs_inference,[],[26,5])).
% 0.17/0.61 cnf(47,plain,
% 0.17/0.61 (E(f4(a1,a2),a5)),
% 0.17/0.61 inference(scs_inference,[],[23,24,26,5,2,6,37])).
% 0.17/0.61 cnf(68,plain,
% 0.17/0.61 (E(f4(a1,a3),a5)),
% 0.17/0.61 inference(scs_inference,[],[23,25,47,28,27,4,37])).
% 0.17/0.61 cnf(70,plain,
% 0.17/0.61 (E(a5,f4(a1,a2))),
% 0.17/0.61 inference(scs_inference,[],[23,25,47,28,27,4,37,2])).
% 0.17/0.61 cnf(91,plain,
% 0.17/0.61 ($false),
% 0.17/0.61 inference(scs_inference,[],[44,26,70,68,2,3]),
% 0.17/0.61 ['proof']).
% 0.17/0.61 % SZS output end Proof
% 0.17/0.61 % Total time :0.010000s
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------