%------------------------------------------------------------------------------ % File : CSE---1.7 % Problem : MGT004+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 : n007.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 58.36s 58.53s % Output : Assurance 0s % Verified : % SZS Type : - % Comments : %------------------------------------------------------------------------------ %----No solution output by system %------------------------------------------------------------------------------ %----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT % 0.00/0.03 % Problem : MGT004+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 % 0.07/0.34 % Computer : n007.cluster.edu % 0.07/0.34 % Model : x86_64 x86_64 % 0.07/0.34 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz % 0.07/0.34 % Memory : 8046.5625MB % 0.07/0.34 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic % 0.07/0.34 % CPULimit : 300 % 0.07/0.34 % WCLimit : 300 % 0.07/0.34 % DateTime : Mon Sep 7 11:33:26 UTC 2026 % 0.07/0.34 % CPUTime : % 0.23/0.51 start to proof:theBenchmark % 58.36/58.52 %------------------------------------------- % 58.36/58.52 % File :CSE---1.7 % 58.36/58.52 % Problem :theBenchmark % 58.36/58.52 % Transform :cnf % 58.36/58.52 % Format :tptp:raw % 58.36/58.52 % Command :java -jar mcs_scs.jar %d %s % 58.36/58.52 % 58.36/58.52 % Result :Theorem 58.013050s % 58.36/58.52 % Output :CNFRefutation 58.013050s % 58.36/58.52 %------------------------------------------- % 58.36/58.52 %-------------------------------------------------------------------------- % 58.36/58.52 % File : MGT004+1 : TPTP v9.3.0. Released v2.0.0. % 58.36/58.52 % Domain : Management (Organisation Theory) % 58.36/58.52 % Problem : Attempts at reorganization increase death rates. % 58.36/58.52 % Version : [PB+94] axioms. % 58.36/58.52 % English : % 58.36/58.52 % 58.36/58.52 % Refs : [PB+92] Peli et al. (1992), A Logical Approach to Formalizing % 58.36/58.52 % : [PB+94] Peli et al. (1994), A Logical Approach to Formalizing % 58.36/58.52 % : [Kam94] Kamps (1994), Email to G. Sutcliffe % 58.36/58.52 % Source : [Kam94] % 58.36/58.52 % Names : THEOREM 4 [PB+92] % 58.36/58.52 % : T4FOL1 [PB+94] % 58.36/58.52 % 58.36/58.52 % Status : Theorem % 58.36/58.53 % Rating : 0.00 v9.3.0, 0.05 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, 0.17 v5.4.0, 0.13 v5.3.0, 0.22 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 % 58.36/58.53 % Syntax : Number of formulae : 5 ( 0 unt; 0 def) % 58.36/58.53 % Number of atoms : 36 ( 0 equ) % 58.36/58.53 % Maximal formula atoms : 12 ( 7 avg) % 58.36/58.53 % Number of connectives : 35 ( 4 ~; 0 |; 26 &) % 58.36/58.53 % ( 0 <=>; 5 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>) % 58.36/58.53 % Maximal formula depth : 21 ( 14 avg) % 58.36/58.53 % Maximal term depth : 1 ( 1 avg) % 58.36/58.53 % Number of predicates : 6 ( 6 usr; 0 prp; 2-3 aty) % 58.36/58.53 % Number of functors : 0 ( 0 usr; 0 con; --- aty) % 58.36/58.53 % Number of variables : 32 ( 30 !; 2 ?) % 58.36/58.53 % SPC : FOF_THM_RFO_NEQ % 58.36/58.53 % 58.36/58.53 % Comments : % 58.36/58.53 %-------------------------------------------------------------------------- % 58.36/58.53 fof(mp1,axiom, % 58.36/58.53 ! [X,T] : % 58.36/58.53 ( organization(X,T) % 58.36/58.53 => ? [R] : reliability(X,R,T) ) ). % 58.36/58.53 % 58.36/58.53 fof(mp2,axiom, % 58.36/58.53 ! [X,T] : % 58.36/58.53 ( organization(X,T) % 58.36/58.53 => ? [A] : accountability(X,A,T) ) ). % 58.36/58.53 % 58.36/58.53 %----Selection in populations of organizations in modern societies % 58.36/58.53 %----favours forms with high reliability of performance and high levels % 58.36/58.53 %----of accountability. % 58.36/58.53 fof(a1_FOL,hypothesis, % 58.36/58.53 ! [X,Y,R1,R2,A1,A2,P1,P2,T1,T2] : % 58.36/58.53 ( ( organization(X,T1) % 58.36/58.53 & organization(Y,T2) % 58.36/58.53 & reliability(X,R1,T1) % 58.36/58.53 & reliability(Y,R2,T2) % 58.36/58.53 & accountability(X,A1,T1) % 58.36/58.53 & accountability(Y,A2,T2) % 58.36/58.53 & survival_chance(X,P1,T1) % 58.36/58.53 & survival_chance(Y,P2,T2) % 58.36/58.53 & greater(R2,R1) % 58.36/58.53 & greater(A2,A1) ) % 58.36/58.53 => greater(P2,P1) ) ). % 58.36/58.53 % 58.36/58.53 %----The process of attempting reorganization lowers reliability of % 58.36/58.53 %----performance. % 58.36/58.53 fof(a6_FOL,hypothesis, % 58.36/58.53 ! [X,R1,R2,A1,A2,T1,T2,Ta,Tb] : % 58.36/58.53 ( ( organization(X,T1) % 58.36/58.53 & organization(X,T2) % 58.36/58.53 & reorganization(X,Ta,Tb) % 58.36/58.53 & reliability(X,R1,T1) % 58.36/58.53 & reliability(X,R2,T2) % 58.36/58.53 & accountability(X,A1,T1) % 58.36/58.53 & accountability(X,A2,T2) % 58.36/58.53 & ~ greater(Ta,T1) % 58.36/58.53 & greater(T2,T1) % 58.36/58.53 & ~ greater(T2,Tb) ) % 58.36/58.53 => ( greater(R1,R2) % 58.36/58.53 & greater(A1,A2) ) ) ). % 58.36/58.53 % 58.36/58.53 %----t4_FOL - alias a9_FOL % 58.36/58.53 fof(t4_FOL,conjecture, % 58.36/58.53 ! [X,P1,P2,T1,T2,Ta,Tb] : % 58.36/58.53 ( ( organization(X,T1) % 58.36/58.53 & organization(X,T2) % 58.36/58.53 & reorganization(X,Ta,Tb) % 58.36/58.53 & survival_chance(X,P1,T1) % 58.36/58.53 & survival_chance(X,P2,T2) % 58.36/58.53 & ~ greater(Ta,T1) % 58.36/58.53 & greater(T2,T1) % 58.36/58.53 & ~ greater(T2,Tb) ) % 58.36/58.53 => greater(P1,P2) ) ). % 58.36/58.53 % 58.36/58.53 %-------------------------------------------------------------------------- % 58.36/58.53 %------------------------------------------- % 58.36/58.53 % Proof found % 58.36/58.53 % SZS status Theorem for theBenchmark % 58.36/58.53 % SZS output start Proof % 58.36/58.53 %ClaNum:14(EqnAxiom:0) % 58.36/58.53 %VarNum:94(SingletonVarNum:32) % 58.36/58.53 %MaxLitNum:11 % 58.36/58.53 %MaxfuncDepth:1 % 58.36/58.53 %SharedTerms:16 % 58.36/58.53 %goalClause: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 % 58.36/58.53 %singleGoalClaCount:9 % 58.36/58.53 [1]P1(a1,a4) % 58.36/58.53 [2]P1(a1,a7) % 58.36/58.53 [3]P2(a7,a4) % 58.36/58.53 [4]P4(a1,a5,a4) % 58.36/58.53 [5]P4(a1,a6,a7) % 58.36/58.53 [6]P5(a1,a8,a9) % 58.36/58.53 [7]~P2(a5,a6) % 58.36/58.53 [8]~P2(a7,a9) % 58.36/58.53 [9]~P2(a8,a4) % 58.36/58.53 [10]~P1(x101,x102)+P6(x101,f2(x101,x102),x102) % 58.36/58.53 [11]~P1(x111,x112)+P3(x111,f3(x111,x112),x112) % 58.36/58.53 [12]~P1(x127,x122)+~P2(x123,x122)+~P3(x127,x126,x123)+~P3(x127,x125,x122)+~P5(x127,x121,x124)+P2(x121,x122)+P2(x123,x124)+~P6(x127,x128,x123)+~P6(x127,x129,x122)+P2(x125,x126)+~P1(x127,x123) % 58.36/58.53 [13]~P1(x137,x132)+~P2(x133,x132)+~P6(x137,x136,x133)+~P6(x137,x135,x132)+~P5(x137,x131,x134)+P2(x131,x132)+P2(x133,x134)+~P3(x137,x138,x133)+~P3(x137,x139,x132)+P2(x135,x136)+~P1(x137,x133) % 58.36/58.53 [14]~P6(x143,x149,x144)+~P6(x145,x1410,x146)+~P3(x143,x147,x144)+~P3(x145,x148,x146)+~P4(x143,x141,x144)+~P4(x145,x142,x146)+P2(x141,x142)+~P1(x143,x144)+~P1(x145,x146)+~P2(x147,x148)+~P2(x149,x1410) % 58.36/58.53 %EqnAxiom % 58.36/58.53 % 58.36/58.53 %------------------------------------------- % 58.36/58.59 cnf(55109,plain, % 58.36/58.59 (P6(a1,f2(a1,a4),a4)), % 58.36/58.59 inference(scs_inference,[],[1,10])). % 58.36/58.59 cnf(55111,plain, % 58.36/58.59 (P3(a1,f3(a1,a4),a4)), % 58.36/58.59 inference(scs_inference,[],[1,10,11])). % 58.36/58.59 cnf(55114,plain, % 58.36/58.59 (P6(a1,f2(a1,a7),a7)), % 58.36/58.59 inference(scs_inference,[],[2,10])). % 58.36/58.59 cnf(55116,plain, % 58.36/58.59 (P3(a1,f3(a1,a7),a7)), % 58.36/58.59 inference(scs_inference,[],[2,10,11])). % 58.36/58.59 cnf(55118,plain, % 58.36/58.59 (P2(f3(a1,a4),f3(a1,a7))), % 58.36/58.59 inference(scs_inference,[],[1,55109,55111,6,8,9,2,3,10,11,12])). % 58.36/58.59 cnf(55121,plain, % 58.36/58.59 (P2(f2(a1,a4),f2(a1,a7))), % 58.36/58.59 inference(scs_inference,[],[1,55114,55116,55109,6,55111,8,9,2,3,13])). % 58.36/58.59 cnf(55129,plain, % 58.36/58.59 ($false), % 58.36/58.59 inference(scs_inference,[],[1,55121,55114,55118,55116,55109,55111,5,4,7,2,14]), % 58.36/58.59 ['proof']). % 58.49/58.60 % SZS output end Proof % 58.49/58.60 % Total time :58.013050s %------------------------------------------------------------------------------