%------------------------------------------------------------------------------ % File : CSE---1.7 % Problem : MGT001+1 : TPTP v9.3.0. Released v2.0.0. % Transfm : none % Format : tptp:raw % Command : java -jar /export/starexec/sandbox/solver/bin/mcs_scs.jar %d %s % Computer : n005.cluster.edu % Model : x86_64 x86_64 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 2.10GHz % Memory : 8046.5625MB % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic % CPULimit : 300s % WCLimit : 300s % DateTime : Tue Sep 8 06:04:13 AM UTC 2026 % Result : Theorem 58.38s 58.53s % Output : Assurance 0s % Verified : % SZS Type : - % Comments : %------------------------------------------------------------------------------ %----No solution output by system %------------------------------------------------------------------------------ %----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT % 0.00/0.02 % Problem : MGT001+1 : TPTP v9.3.0. Released v2.0.0. % 0.00/0.02 % Command : java -jar /export/starexec/sandbox/solver/bin/mcs_scs.jar %d %s % 0.06/0.34 % Computer : n005.cluster.edu % 0.06/0.34 % Model : x86_64 x86_64 % 0.06/0.34 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz % 0.06/0.34 % Memory : 8046.5625MB % 0.06/0.34 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic % 0.06/0.34 % CPULimit : 300 % 0.06/0.34 % WCLimit : 300 % 0.06/0.34 % DateTime : Mon Sep 7 11:33:05 UTC 2026 % 0.06/0.34 % CPUTime : % 0.25/0.51 start to proof:theBenchmark % 58.38/58.52 %------------------------------------------- % 58.38/58.52 % File :CSE---1.7 % 58.38/58.52 % Problem :theBenchmark % 58.38/58.52 % Transform :cnf % 58.38/58.52 % Format :tptp:raw % 58.38/58.52 % Command :java -jar mcs_scs.jar %d %s % 58.38/58.52 % 58.38/58.52 % Result :Theorem 58.024405s % 58.38/58.52 % Output :CNFRefutation 58.024405s % 58.38/58.52 %------------------------------------------- % 58.38/58.53 %-------------------------------------------------------------------------- % 58.38/58.53 % File : MGT001+1 : TPTP v9.3.0. Released v2.0.0. % 58.38/58.53 % Domain : Management (Organisation Theory) % 58.38/58.53 % Problem : Selection favors organizations with high inertia % 58.38/58.53 % Version : [PB+94] axioms. % 58.38/58.53 % English : Selection within populations of organizations in modern % 58.38/58.53 % societies favours organizations whose structure have high % 58.38/58.53 % inertia. % 58.38/58.53 % 58.38/58.53 % Refs : [PB+92] Peli et al. (1992), A Logical Approach to Formalizing % 58.38/58.53 % : [PB+94] Peli et al. (1994), A Logical Approach to Formalizing % 58.38/58.53 % : [Kam94] Kamps (1994), Email to G. Sutcliffe % 58.38/58.53 % Source : [Kam94] % 58.38/58.53 % Names : THEOREM 1 [PB+92] % 58.38/58.53 % : T1FOL3 [PB+94] % 58.38/58.53 % 58.38/58.53 % Status : Theorem % 58.38/58.53 % Rating : 0.00 v9.3.0, 0.10 v9.1.0, 0.00 v7.5.0, 0.05 v7.4.0, 0.00 v7.0.0, 0.07 v6.4.0, 0.00 v6.1.0, 0.12 v6.0.0, 0.50 v5.5.0, 0.12 v5.4.0, 0.17 v5.3.0, 0.26 v5.2.0, 0.00 v5.0.0, 0.05 v4.1.0, 0.06 v4.0.1, 0.05 v3.7.0, 0.00 v3.2.0, 0.11 v3.1.0, 0.00 v2.1.0 % 58.38/58.53 % Syntax : Number of formulae : 7 ( 0 unt; 0 def) % 58.38/58.53 % Number of atoms : 48 ( 0 equ) % 58.38/58.53 % Maximal formula atoms : 11 ( 6 avg) % 58.38/58.53 % Number of connectives : 41 ( 0 ~; 0 |; 32 &) % 58.38/58.53 % ( 2 <=>; 7 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>) % 58.38/58.53 % Maximal formula depth : 21 ( 13 avg) % 58.38/58.53 % Maximal term depth : 1 ( 1 avg) % 58.38/58.53 % Number of predicates : 8 ( 8 usr; 0 prp; 2-3 aty) % 58.38/58.53 % Number of functors : 0 ( 0 usr; 0 con; --- aty) % 58.38/58.53 % Number of variables : 45 ( 42 !; 3 ?) % 58.38/58.53 % SPC : FOF_THM_RFO_NEQ % 58.38/58.53 % 58.38/58.53 % Comments : % 58.38/58.53 %-------------------------------------------------------------------------- % 58.38/58.53 fof(mp1,axiom, % 58.38/58.53 ! [X,T] : % 58.38/58.53 ( organization(X,T) % 58.38/58.53 => ? [R] : reliability(X,R,T) ) ). % 58.38/58.53 % 58.38/58.53 fof(mp2,axiom, % 58.38/58.53 ! [X,T] : % 58.38/58.53 ( organization(X,T) % 58.38/58.53 => ? [A] : accountability(X,A,T) ) ). % 58.38/58.53 % 58.38/58.53 fof(mp3,axiom, % 58.38/58.53 ! [X,T] : % 58.38/58.53 ( organization(X,T) % 58.38/58.53 => ? [Rp] : reproducibility(X,Rp,T) ) ). % 58.38/58.53 % 58.38/58.53 %----Selection in populations of organizations in modern societies favours % 58.38/58.53 %----forms with high reliability of performance and high levels of % 58.38/58.53 %----accountability. % 58.38/58.53 fof(a1_FOL,hypothesis, % 58.38/58.53 ! [X,Y,R1,R2,A1,A2,P1,P2,T1,T2] : % 58.38/58.53 ( ( organization(X,T1) % 58.38/58.53 & organization(Y,T2) % 58.38/58.53 & reliability(X,R1,T1) % 58.38/58.53 & reliability(Y,R2,T2) % 58.38/58.53 & accountability(X,A1,T1) % 58.38/58.53 & accountability(Y,A2,T2) % 58.38/58.53 & survival_chance(X,P1,T1) % 58.38/58.53 & survival_chance(Y,P2,T2) % 58.38/58.53 & greater(R2,R1) % 58.38/58.53 & greater(A2,A1) ) % 58.38/58.53 => greater(P2,P1) ) ). % 58.38/58.53 % 58.38/58.53 %----Reliability and accountability require that organizational structures % 58.38/58.53 %----be highly reproducible. % 58.38/58.53 fof(a2_FOL,hypothesis, % 58.38/58.53 ! [X,Y,T1,T2,R1,R2,A1,A2,Rp1,Rp2] : % 58.38/58.53 ( ( organization(X,T1) % 58.38/58.53 & organization(Y,T2) % 58.38/58.53 & reliability(X,R1,T1) % 58.38/58.53 & reliability(Y,R2,T2) % 58.38/58.53 & accountability(X,A1,T1) % 58.38/58.53 & accountability(Y,A2,T2) % 58.38/58.53 & reproducibility(X,Rp1,T1) % 58.38/58.53 & reproducibility(Y,Rp2,T2) ) % 58.38/58.53 => ( greater(Rp2,Rp1) % 58.38/58.53 <=> ( greater(R2,R1) % 58.38/58.53 & greater(A2,A1) ) ) ) ). % 58.38/58.53 % 58.38/58.53 %----High levels of reproducibility of structure generate strong % 58.38/58.53 %----inertial pressures. % 58.38/58.53 fof(a3_FOL,hypothesis, % 58.38/58.53 ! [X,Y,T1,T2,Rp1,Rp2,I1,I2] : % 58.38/58.53 ( ( organization(X,T1) % 58.38/58.53 & organization(Y,T2) % 58.38/58.53 & reorganization_free(X,T1,T1) % 58.38/58.53 & reorganization_free(Y,T2,T2) % 58.38/58.53 & reproducibility(X,Rp1,T1) % 58.38/58.53 & reproducibility(Y,Rp2,T2) % 58.38/58.53 & inertia(X,I1,T1) % 58.38/58.53 & inertia(Y,I2,T2) ) % 58.38/58.53 => ( greater(Rp2,Rp1) % 58.38/58.53 <=> greater(I2,I1) ) ) ). % 58.38/58.53 % 58.38/58.53 fof(t1_FOL,conjecture, % 58.38/58.53 ! [X,Y,T1,T2,I1,I2,P1,P2] : % 58.38/58.53 ( ( organization(X,T1) % 58.38/58.53 & organization(Y,T2) % 58.38/58.53 & reorganization_free(X,T1,T1) % 58.38/58.53 & reorganization_free(Y,T2,T2) % 58.38/58.53 & inertia(X,I1,T1) % 58.38/58.53 & inertia(Y,I2,T2) % 58.38/58.53 & survival_chance(X,P1,T1) % 58.38/58.53 & survival_chance(Y,P2,T2) % 58.38/58.53 & greater(I2,I1) ) % 58.38/58.53 => greater(P2,P1) ) ). % 58.38/58.53 % 58.38/58.53 %-------------------------------------------------------------------------- % 58.38/58.53 %------------------------------------------- % 58.38/58.53 % Proof found % 58.38/58.53 % SZS status Theorem for theBenchmark % 58.38/58.53 % SZS output start Proof % 58.38/58.53 %ClaNum:19(EqnAxiom:0) % 58.38/58.54 %VarNum:178(SingletonVarNum:62) % 58.38/58.54 %MaxLitNum:11 % 58.38/58.54 %MaxfuncDepth:1 % 58.38/58.54 %SharedTerms:18 % 58.38/58.54 %goalClause: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 % 58.38/58.54 %singleGoalClaCount:10 % 58.38/58.54 [1]P1(a1,a7) % 58.38/58.54 [2]P1(a8,a9) % 58.38/58.54 [3]P2(a10,a11) % 58.38/58.54 [4]P5(a1,a2,a7) % 58.38/58.54 [5]P5(a8,a3,a9) % 58.38/58.54 [6]P6(a1,a7,a7) % 58.38/58.54 [7]P6(a8,a9,a9) % 58.38/58.54 [8]P4(a1,a11,a7) % 58.38/58.54 [9]P4(a8,a10,a9) % 58.38/58.54 [10]~P2(a3,a2) % 58.38/58.54 [11]~P1(x111,x112)+P7(x111,f4(x111,x112),x112) % 58.38/58.54 [12]~P1(x121,x122)+P3(x121,f5(x121,x122),x122) % 58.38/58.54 [13]~P1(x131,x132)+P8(x131,f6(x131,x132),x132) % 58.38/58.54 [14]~P8(x143,x141,x144)+~P8(x145,x142,x146)+~P6(x143,x144,x144)+~P6(x145,x146,x146)+~P4(x143,x147,x144)+~P4(x145,x148,x146)+P2(x141,x142)+~P1(x143,x144)+~P1(x145,x146)+~P2(x147,x148) % 58.38/58.54 [15]~P8(x153,x157,x154)+~P8(x155,x158,x156)+~P6(x153,x154,x154)+~P6(x155,x156,x156)+~P4(x153,x151,x154)+~P4(x155,x152,x156)+P2(x151,x152)+~P1(x153,x154)+~P1(x155,x156)+~P2(x157,x158) % 58.38/58.54 [16]~P3(x163,x161,x164)+~P3(x165,x162,x166)+~P8(x163,x167,x164)+~P8(x165,x168,x166)+P2(x161,x162)+~P1(x163,x164)+~P7(x163,x169,x164)+~P1(x165,x166)+~P7(x165,x1610,x166)+~P2(x167,x168) % 58.38/58.54 [17]~P7(x173,x171,x174)+~P7(x175,x172,x176)+~P8(x173,x177,x174)+~P8(x175,x178,x176)+P2(x171,x172)+~P1(x173,x174)+~P3(x173,x179,x174)+~P1(x175,x176)+~P3(x175,x1710,x176)+~P2(x177,x178) % 58.38/58.54 [18]~P7(x183,x189,x184)+~P7(x185,x1810,x186)+~P3(x183,x187,x184)+~P3(x185,x188,x186)+~P5(x183,x181,x184)+~P5(x185,x182,x186)+P2(x181,x182)+~P1(x183,x184)+~P1(x185,x186)+~P2(x187,x188)+~P2(x189,x1810) % 58.38/58.54 [19]~P7(x193,x199,x194)+~P7(x195,x1910,x196)+~P3(x193,x197,x194)+~P3(x195,x198,x196)+~P8(x193,x191,x194)+~P8(x195,x192,x196)+P2(x191,x192)+~P1(x193,x194)+~P1(x195,x196)+~P2(x197,x198)+~P2(x199,x1910) % 58.38/58.54 %EqnAxiom % 58.38/58.54 % 58.38/58.54 %------------------------------------------- % 58.38/58.59 cnf(51993,plain, % 58.38/58.59 (P7(a1,f4(a1,a7),a7)), % 58.38/58.59 inference(scs_inference,[],[1,11])). % 58.38/58.59 cnf(51995,plain, % 58.38/58.59 (P3(a1,f5(a1,a7),a7)), % 58.38/58.59 inference(scs_inference,[],[1,11,12])). % 58.38/58.59 cnf(51997,plain, % 58.38/58.59 (P8(a1,f6(a1,a7),a7)), % 58.38/58.59 inference(scs_inference,[],[1,11,12,13])). % 58.38/58.59 cnf(52000,plain, % 58.38/58.59 (P3(a8,f5(a8,a9),a9)), % 58.38/58.59 inference(scs_inference,[],[2,12])). % 58.38/58.59 cnf(52002,plain, % 58.38/58.59 (P8(a8,f6(a8,a9),a9)), % 58.38/58.59 inference(scs_inference,[],[2,12,13])). % 58.38/58.59 cnf(52004,plain, % 58.38/58.59 (P7(a8,f4(a8,a9),a9)), % 58.38/58.59 inference(scs_inference,[],[2,12,13,11])). % 58.38/58.59 cnf(52016,plain, % 58.38/58.59 (P2(f6(a8,a9),f6(a1,a7))), % 58.38/58.59 inference(scs_inference,[],[1,52002,51997,3,2,9,7,6,8,14])). % 58.38/58.59 cnf(52026,plain, % 58.38/58.59 (P2(f5(a8,a9),f5(a1,a7))), % 58.38/58.59 inference(scs_inference,[],[1,52016,52000,52004,51993,51995,52002,51997,2,16])). % 58.38/58.59 cnf(52034,plain, % 58.38/58.59 (~P2(f4(a8,a9),f4(a1,a7))), % 58.38/58.59 inference(scs_inference,[],[1,4,5,52026,51993,51995,52000,52004,10,3,2,9,6,7,8,14,18])). % 58.38/58.59 cnf(52038,plain, % 58.38/58.59 ($false), % 58.38/58.59 inference(scs_inference,[],[1,52034,52016,52000,52004,51993,51995,52002,51997,2,17]), % 58.38/58.59 ['proof']). % 58.52/58.60 % SZS output end Proof % 58.52/58.60 % Total time :58.024405s %------------------------------------------------------------------------------