%------------------------------------------------------------------------------ % File : CSE---1.7 % Problem : MGT002+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 : n026.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 06:04:14 AM UTC 2026 % Result : Theorem 58.34s 58.57s % Output : Assurance 0s % Verified : % SZS Type : - % Comments : %------------------------------------------------------------------------------ %----No solution output by system %------------------------------------------------------------------------------ %----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT % 0.00/0.03 % Problem : MGT002+1 : TPTP v9.3.0. Released v2.0.0. % 0.00/0.03 % Command : java -jar /export/starexec/sandbox/solver/bin/mcs_scs.jar %d %s % 0.07/0.37 % Computer : n026.cluster.edu % 0.07/0.37 % Model : x86_64 x86_64 % 0.07/0.37 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz % 0.07/0.37 % Memory : 8046.5625MB % 0.07/0.37 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic % 0.07/0.37 % CPULimit : 300 % 0.07/0.37 % WCLimit : 300 % 0.07/0.37 % DateTime : Mon Sep 7 11:35:12 UTC 2026 % 0.07/0.37 % CPUTime : % 0.21/0.53 start to proof:theBenchmark % 58.34/58.56 %------------------------------------------- % 58.34/58.56 % File :CSE---1.7 % 58.34/58.56 % Problem :theBenchmark % 58.34/58.56 % Transform :cnf % 58.34/58.56 % Format :tptp:raw % 58.34/58.56 % Command :java -jar mcs_scs.jar %d %s % 58.34/58.56 % 58.34/58.56 % Result :Theorem 58.005983s % 58.34/58.56 % Output :CNFRefutation 58.005983s % 58.34/58.56 %------------------------------------------- % 58.34/58.56 %-------------------------------------------------------------------------- % 58.34/58.56 % File : MGT002+1 : TPTP v9.3.0. Released v2.0.0. % 58.34/58.57 % Domain : Management (Organisation Theory) % 58.34/58.57 % Problem : Structural inertia increases monotonically with age. % 58.34/58.57 % Version : [PB+94] axioms. % 58.34/58.57 % English : % 58.34/58.57 % 58.34/58.57 % Refs : [PB+92] Peli et al. (1992), A Logical Approach to Formalizing % 58.34/58.57 % : [PB+94] Peli et al. (1994), A Logical Approach to Formalizing % 58.34/58.57 % : [Kam94] Kamps (1994), Email to G. Sutcliffe % 58.34/58.57 % Source : [Kam94] % 58.34/58.57 % Names : THEOREM 2 [PB+92] % 58.34/58.57 % : T2FOL2 [PB+94] % 58.34/58.57 % 58.34/58.57 % Status : Theorem % 58.34/58.57 % Rating : 0.00 v6.1.0, 0.04 v6.0.0, 0.50 v5.5.0, 0.08 v5.4.0, 0.09 v5.3.0, 0.17 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 % 58.34/58.57 % Syntax : Number of formulae : 5 ( 0 unt; 0 def) % 58.34/58.57 % Number of atoms : 29 ( 0 equ) % 58.34/58.57 % Maximal formula atoms : 10 ( 5 avg) % 58.34/58.57 % Number of connectives : 24 ( 0 ~; 0 |; 18 &) % 58.34/58.57 % ( 1 <=>; 5 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>) % 58.34/58.57 % Maximal formula depth : 17 ( 10 avg) % 58.34/58.57 % Maximal term depth : 1 ( 1 avg) % 58.34/58.57 % Number of predicates : 5 ( 5 usr; 0 prp; 2-3 aty) % 58.34/58.57 % Number of functors : 0 ( 0 usr; 0 con; --- aty) % 58.34/58.57 % Number of variables : 24 ( 23 !; 1 ?) % 58.34/58.57 % SPC : FOF_THM_RFO_NEQ % 58.34/58.57 % 58.34/58.57 % Comments : % 58.34/58.57 %-------------------------------------------------------------------------- % 58.34/58.57 fof(mp3,axiom, % 58.34/58.57 ! [X,T] : % 58.34/58.57 ( organization(X,T) % 58.34/58.57 => ? [Rp] : reproducibility(X,Rp,T) ) ). % 58.34/58.57 % 58.34/58.57 fof(mp4,axiom, % 58.34/58.57 ! [X,T1,T2] : % 58.34/58.57 ( reorganization_free(X,T1,T2) % 58.34/58.57 => ( reorganization_free(X,T1,T1) % 58.34/58.57 & reorganization_free(X,T2,T2) ) ) ). % 58.34/58.57 % 58.34/58.57 %----High levels of reproducibility of structure generate strong % 58.34/58.57 %----inertial pressures. % 58.34/58.57 fof(a3_FOL,hypothesis, % 58.34/58.57 ! [X,Y,T1,T2,Rp1,Rp2,I1,I2] : % 58.34/58.57 ( ( organization(X,T1) % 58.34/58.57 & organization(Y,T2) % 58.34/58.57 & reorganization_free(X,T1,T1) % 58.34/58.57 & reorganization_free(Y,T2,T2) % 58.34/58.57 & reproducibility(X,Rp1,T1) % 58.34/58.57 & reproducibility(Y,Rp2,T2) % 58.34/58.57 & inertia(X,I1,T1) % 58.34/58.57 & inertia(Y,I2,T2) ) % 58.34/58.57 => ( greater(Rp2,Rp1) % 58.34/58.57 <=> greater(I2,I1) ) ) ). % 58.34/58.57 % 58.34/58.57 %----Reproducibility of structure increases monotonically with age. % 58.34/58.57 fof(a4_FOL,hypothesis, % 58.34/58.57 ! [X,Rp1,Rp2,T1,T2] : % 58.34/58.57 ( ( organization(X,T1) % 58.34/58.57 & organization(X,T2) % 58.34/58.57 & reorganization_free(X,T1,T2) % 58.34/58.57 & reproducibility(X,Rp1,T1) % 58.34/58.57 & reproducibility(X,Rp2,T2) % 58.34/58.57 & greater(T2,T1) ) % 58.34/58.57 => greater(Rp2,Rp1) ) ). % 58.34/58.57 % 58.34/58.57 fof(t2_FOL,conjecture, % 58.34/58.57 ! [X,I1,I2,T1,T2] : % 58.34/58.57 ( ( organization(X,T1) % 58.34/58.57 & organization(X,T2) % 58.34/58.57 & reorganization_free(X,T1,T2) % 58.34/58.57 & inertia(X,I1,T1) % 58.34/58.57 & inertia(X,I2,T2) % 58.34/58.57 & greater(T2,T1) ) % 58.34/58.57 => greater(I2,I1) ) ). % 58.34/58.57 % 58.34/58.57 %-------------------------------------------------------------------------- % 58.34/58.57 %------------------------------------------- % 58.34/58.57 % Proof found % 58.34/58.57 % SZS status Theorem for theBenchmark % 58.34/58.57 % SZS output start Proof % 58.34/58.57 %ClaNum:13(EqnAxiom:0) % 58.34/58.57 %VarNum:87(SingletonVarNum:29) % 58.34/58.57 %MaxLitNum:10 % 58.34/58.57 %MaxfuncDepth:1 % 58.34/58.57 %SharedTerms:12 % 58.34/58.57 %goalClause: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 % 58.34/58.57 %singleGoalClaCount:7 % 58.34/58.57 [1]P1(a1,a3) % 58.34/58.57 [2]P1(a1,a6) % 58.34/58.57 [3]P2(a6,a3) % 58.34/58.57 [4]P4(a1,a3,a6) % 58.34/58.57 [5]P3(a1,a4,a3) % 58.34/58.57 [6]P3(a1,a5,a6) % 58.34/58.57 [7]~P2(a5,a4) % 58.34/58.57 [8]~P1(x81,x82)+P5(x81,f2(x81,x82),x82) % 58.34/58.57 [9]P4(x91,x92,x92)+~P4(x91,x93,x92) % 58.34/58.57 [10]P4(x101,x102,x102)+~P4(x101,x102,x103) % 58.34/58.57 [11]~P2(x114,x115)+~P5(x113,x111,x114)+~P5(x113,x112,x115)+~P4(x113,x115,x114)+P2(x111,x112)+~P1(x113,x114)+~P1(x113,x115) % 58.34/58.57 [12]~P5(x123,x121,x124)+~P5(x125,x122,x126)+~P4(x123,x124,x124)+~P4(x125,x126,x126)+~P3(x123,x127,x124)+~P3(x125,x128,x126)+P2(x121,x122)+~P1(x123,x124)+~P1(x125,x126)+~P2(x127,x128) % 58.34/58.57 [13]~P5(x133,x137,x134)+~P5(x135,x138,x136)+~P4(x133,x134,x134)+~P4(x135,x136,x136)+~P3(x133,x131,x134)+~P3(x135,x132,x136)+P2(x131,x132)+~P1(x133,x134)+~P1(x135,x136)+~P2(x137,x138) % 58.34/58.57 %EqnAxiom % 58.34/58.57 % 58.34/58.57 %------------------------------------------- % 58.56/58.79 cnf(225736,plain, % 58.56/58.80 (P4(a1,a6,a6)), % 58.56/58.80 inference(scs_inference,[],[4,9])). % 58.56/58.80 cnf(225738,plain, % 58.56/58.80 (P4(a1,a3,a3)), % 58.56/58.80 inference(scs_inference,[],[4,9,10])). % 58.56/58.80 cnf(225740,plain, % 58.56/58.80 (P5(a1,f2(a1,a3),a3)), % 58.56/58.80 inference(scs_inference,[],[1,4,9,10,8])). % 58.56/58.80 cnf(225748,plain, % 58.56/58.80 ($false), % 58.56/58.80 inference(scs_inference,[],[1,5,6,225736,225738,225740,2,3,7,4,8,11,13]), % 58.56/58.80 ['proof']). % 58.66/58.87 % SZS output end Proof % 58.66/58.87 % Total time :58.005983s %------------------------------------------------------------------------------