%------------------------------------------------------------------------------ % File : CSE---1.7 % Problem : MGT003+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 : n010.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 58.31s 58.58s % Output : Assurance 0s % Verified : % SZS Type : - % Comments : %------------------------------------------------------------------------------ %----No solution output by system %------------------------------------------------------------------------------ %----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT % 0.00/0.02 % Problem : MGT003+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 % 0.09/0.35 % Computer : n010.cluster.edu % 0.09/0.35 % Model : x86_64 x86_64 % 0.09/0.35 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz % 0.09/0.35 % Memory : 8046.5625MB % 0.09/0.35 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic % 0.09/0.35 % CPULimit : 300 % 0.09/0.35 % WCLimit : 300 % 0.09/0.35 % DateTime : Mon Sep 7 11:34:11 UTC 2026 % 0.09/0.35 % CPUTime : % 0.20/0.53 start to proof:theBenchmark % 58.31/58.57 %------------------------------------------- % 58.31/58.57 % File :CSE---1.7 % 58.31/58.57 % Problem :theBenchmark % 58.31/58.57 % Transform :cnf % 58.31/58.57 % Format :tptp:raw % 58.31/58.57 % Command :java -jar mcs_scs.jar %d %s % 58.31/58.57 % 58.31/58.57 % Result :Theorem 58.014346s % 58.31/58.57 % Output :CNFRefutation 58.014346s % 58.31/58.57 %------------------------------------------- % 58.31/58.57 %-------------------------------------------------------------------------- % 58.31/58.57 % File : MGT003+1 : TPTP v9.3.0. Released v2.0.0. % 58.31/58.57 % Domain : Management (Organisation Theory) % 58.31/58.57 % Problem : Organizational death rates decrease with age. % 58.31/58.57 % Version : [PB+94] axioms. % 58.31/58.57 % English : % 58.31/58.57 % 58.31/58.57 % Refs : [PB+92] Peli et al. (1992), A Logical Approach to Formalizing % 58.31/58.57 % : [PB+94] Peli et al. (1994), A Logical Approach to Formalizing % 58.31/58.57 % : [Kam94] Kamps (1994), Email to G. Sutcliffe % 58.31/58.57 % Source : [Kam94] % 58.31/58.57 % Names : THEOREM 3 [PB+92] % 58.31/58.57 % : T3FOL2 [PB+94] % 58.31/58.57 % 58.31/58.57 % Status : Theorem % 58.31/58.57 % Rating : 0.00 v6.1.0, 0.04 v6.0.0, 0.50 v5.5.0, 0.12 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 % 58.31/58.57 % Syntax : Number of formulae : 5 ( 0 unt; 0 def) % 58.31/58.57 % Number of atoms : 29 ( 0 equ) % 58.31/58.57 % Maximal formula atoms : 10 ( 5 avg) % 58.31/58.57 % Number of connectives : 24 ( 0 ~; 0 |; 19 &) % 58.31/58.57 % ( 0 <=>; 5 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>) % 58.31/58.57 % Maximal formula depth : 18 ( 11 avg) % 58.31/58.57 % Maximal term depth : 1 ( 1 avg) % 58.31/58.57 % Number of predicates : 5 ( 5 usr; 0 prp; 2-3 aty) % 58.31/58.57 % Number of functors : 0 ( 0 usr; 0 con; --- aty) % 58.31/58.57 % Number of variables : 24 ( 23 !; 1 ?) % 58.31/58.57 % SPC : FOF_THM_RFO_NEQ % 58.31/58.57 % 58.31/58.57 % Comments : % 58.31/58.57 %-------------------------------------------------------------------------- % 58.31/58.57 fof(mp4,axiom, % 58.31/58.57 ! [X,T1,T2] : % 58.31/58.57 ( reorganization_free(X,T1,T2) % 58.31/58.57 => ( reorganization_free(X,T1,T1) % 58.31/58.57 & reorganization_free(X,T2,T2) ) ) ). % 58.31/58.57 % 58.31/58.57 fof(mp5,axiom, % 58.31/58.57 ! [X,T] : % 58.31/58.57 ( organization(X,T) % 58.31/58.57 => ? [I] : inertia(X,I,T) ) ). % 58.31/58.57 % 58.31/58.57 fof(t1_FOL,hypothesis, % 58.31/58.57 ! [X,Y,T1,T2,I1,I2,P1,P2] : % 58.31/58.57 ( ( organization(X,T1) % 58.31/58.57 & organization(Y,T2) % 58.31/58.57 & reorganization_free(X,T1,T1) % 58.31/58.57 & reorganization_free(Y,T2,T2) % 58.31/58.57 & inertia(X,I1,T1) % 58.31/58.57 & inertia(Y,I2,T2) % 58.31/58.57 & survival_chance(X,P1,T1) % 58.31/58.57 & survival_chance(Y,P2,T2) % 58.31/58.57 & greater(I2,I1) ) % 58.31/58.57 => greater(P2,P1) ) ). % 58.31/58.57 % 58.31/58.57 fof(t2_FOL,hypothesis, % 58.31/58.57 ! [X,I1,I2,T1,T2] : % 58.31/58.57 ( ( organization(X,T1) % 58.31/58.58 & organization(X,T2) % 58.31/58.58 & reorganization_free(X,T1,T2) % 58.31/58.58 & inertia(X,I1,T1) % 58.31/58.58 & inertia(X,I2,T2) % 58.31/58.58 & greater(T2,T1) ) % 58.31/58.58 => greater(I2,I1) ) ). % 58.31/58.58 % 58.31/58.58 fof(t3_FOL,conjecture, % 58.31/58.58 ! [X,P1,P2,T1,T2] : % 58.31/58.58 ( ( organization(X,T1) % 58.31/58.58 & organization(X,T2) % 58.31/58.58 & reorganization_free(X,T1,T2) % 58.31/58.58 & survival_chance(X,P1,T1) % 58.31/58.58 & survival_chance(X,P2,T2) % 58.31/58.58 & greater(T2,T1) ) % 58.31/58.58 => greater(P2,P1) ) ). % 58.31/58.58 % 58.31/58.58 %-------------------------------------------------------------------------- % 58.31/58.58 %------------------------------------------- % 58.31/58.58 % Proof found % 58.31/58.58 % SZS status Theorem for theBenchmark % 58.31/58.58 % SZS output start Proof % 58.31/58.58 %ClaNum:12(EqnAxiom:0) % 58.31/58.58 %VarNum:61(SingletonVarNum:21) % 58.31/58.58 %MaxLitNum:10 % 58.31/58.58 %MaxfuncDepth:1 % 58.31/58.58 %SharedTerms:12 % 58.31/58.58 %goalClause: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 % 58.31/58.58 %singleGoalClaCount:7 % 58.31/58.58 [1]P1(a1,a3) % 58.31/58.58 [2]P1(a1,a6) % 58.31/58.58 [3]P2(a6,a3) % 58.31/58.58 [4]P4(a1,a3,a6) % 58.31/58.58 [5]P5(a1,a4,a3) % 58.31/58.58 [6]P5(a1,a5,a6) % 58.31/58.58 [7]~P2(a5,a4) % 58.31/58.58 [8]~P1(x81,x82)+P3(x81,f2(x81,x82),x82) % 58.31/58.58 [9]P4(x91,x92,x92)+~P4(x91,x93,x92) % 58.31/58.58 [10]P4(x101,x102,x102)+~P4(x101,x102,x103) % 58.31/58.58 [11]~P2(x114,x115)+~P4(x113,x115,x114)+~P3(x113,x111,x114)+~P3(x113,x112,x115)+P2(x111,x112)+~P1(x113,x114)+~P1(x113,x115) % 58.31/58.58 [12]~P4(x123,x124,x124)+~P4(x125,x126,x126)+~P3(x123,x127,x124)+~P3(x125,x128,x126)+~P5(x123,x121,x124)+~P5(x125,x122,x126)+P2(x121,x122)+~P1(x123,x124)+~P1(x125,x126)+~P2(x127,x128) % 58.31/58.58 %EqnAxiom % 58.31/58.58 % 58.31/58.58 %------------------------------------------- % 58.52/58.70 cnf(122326,plain, % 58.52/58.70 (P4(a1,a6,a6)), % 58.52/58.70 inference(scs_inference,[],[4,9])). % 58.52/58.70 cnf(122328,plain, % 58.52/58.70 (P4(a1,a3,a3)), % 58.52/58.70 inference(scs_inference,[],[4,9,10])). % 58.52/58.70 cnf(122330,plain, % 58.52/58.70 (P3(a1,f2(a1,a3),a3)), % 58.52/58.70 inference(scs_inference,[],[1,4,9,10,8])). % 58.52/58.70 cnf(122334,plain, % 58.52/58.70 (P3(a1,f2(a1,a6),a6)), % 58.52/58.70 inference(scs_inference,[],[2,8])). % 58.52/58.70 cnf(122336,plain, % 58.52/58.70 (P2(f2(a1,a6),f2(a1,a3))), % 58.52/58.70 inference(scs_inference,[],[1,122330,4,3,2,8,11])). % 58.52/58.70 cnf(122358,plain, % 58.52/58.70 ($false), % 58.52/58.70 inference(scs_inference,[],[1,122336,122326,122334,122328,122330,5,7,6,2,12]), % 58.52/58.70 ['proof']). % 58.52/58.74 % SZS output end Proof % 58.52/58.74 % Total time :58.014346s %------------------------------------------------------------------------------