%------------------------------------------------------------------------------ % File : CSE---1.7 % Problem : MGT008+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 : n016.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 58.38s 58.51s % Output : Assurance 0s % Verified : % SZS Type : - % Comments : %------------------------------------------------------------------------------ %----No solution output by system %------------------------------------------------------------------------------ %----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT % 0.00/0.02 % Problem : MGT008+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 % 0.05/0.33 % Computer : n016.cluster.edu % 0.05/0.33 % Model : x86_64 x86_64 % 0.05/0.33 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz % 0.05/0.33 % Memory : 8046.5625MB % 0.05/0.33 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic % 0.05/0.33 % CPULimit : 300 % 0.05/0.33 % WCLimit : 300 % 0.05/0.33 % DateTime : Mon Sep 7 11:49:32 UTC 2026 % 0.05/0.33 % CPUTime : % 0.26/0.50 start to proof:theBenchmark % 58.38/58.50 %------------------------------------------- % 58.38/58.50 % File :CSE---1.7 % 58.38/58.50 % Problem :theBenchmark % 58.38/58.50 % Transform :cnf % 58.38/58.50 % Format :tptp:raw % 58.38/58.50 % Command :java -jar mcs_scs.jar %d %s % 58.38/58.50 % 58.38/58.50 % Result :Theorem 58.010372s % 58.38/58.50 % Output :CNFRefutation 58.010372s % 58.38/58.50 %------------------------------------------- % 58.38/58.50 %-------------------------------------------------------------------------- % 58.38/58.50 % File : MGT008+1 : TPTP v9.3.0. Released v2.0.0. % 58.38/58.50 % Domain : Management (Organisation Theory) % 58.38/58.50 % Problem : Organizational death rates decrease with size. % 58.38/58.50 % Version : [PB+94] axioms. % 58.38/58.50 % English : % 58.38/58.50 % 58.38/58.50 % Refs : [PB+92] Peli et al. (1992), A Logical Approach to Formalizing % 58.38/58.50 % : [PB+94] Peli et al. (1994), A Logical Approach to Formalizing % 58.38/58.50 % : [Kam94] Kamps (1994), Email to G. Sutcliffe % 58.38/58.50 % Source : [Kam94] % 58.38/58.50 % Names : THEOREM 8 [PB+92] % 58.38/58.50 % : T8FOL1 [PB+94] % 58.38/58.50 % 58.38/58.50 % Status : Theorem % 58.38/58.50 % Rating : 0.00 v6.1.0, 0.04 v6.0.0, 0.50 v5.5.0, 0.12 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 % 58.38/58.50 % Syntax : Number of formulae : 4 ( 0 unt; 0 def) % 58.38/58.50 % Number of atoms : 34 ( 0 equ) % 58.38/58.50 % Maximal formula atoms : 12 ( 8 avg) % 58.38/58.50 % Number of connectives : 30 ( 0 ~; 0 |; 26 &) % 58.38/58.50 % ( 0 <=>; 4 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>) % 58.38/58.50 % Maximal formula depth : 21 ( 16 avg) % 58.38/58.50 % Maximal term depth : 1 ( 1 avg) % 58.38/58.50 % Number of predicates : 7 ( 7 usr; 0 prp; 2-3 aty) % 58.38/58.50 % Number of functors : 0 ( 0 usr; 0 con; --- aty) % 58.38/58.50 % Number of variables : 29 ( 28 !; 1 ?) % 58.38/58.50 % SPC : FOF_THM_RFO_NEQ % 58.38/58.50 % 58.38/58.50 % Comments : % 58.38/58.50 %-------------------------------------------------------------------------- % 58.38/58.50 fof(mp5,axiom, % 58.38/58.50 ! [X,T] : % 58.38/58.50 ( organization(X,T) % 58.38/58.50 => ? [I] : inertia(X,I,T) ) ). % 58.38/58.50 % 58.38/58.50 %----The level of structural inertia increases with size for each class % 58.38/58.50 %----of organizations. % 58.38/58.50 fof(a5_FOL,hypothesis, % 58.38/58.50 ! [X,Y,C,S1,S2,I1,I2,T1,T2] : % 58.38/58.50 ( ( organization(X,T1) % 58.38/58.50 & organization(Y,T2) % 58.38/58.50 & class(X,C,T1) % 58.38/58.50 & class(Y,C,T2) % 58.38/58.50 & size(X,S1,T1) % 58.38/58.50 & size(Y,S2,T2) % 58.38/58.50 & inertia(X,I1,T1) % 58.38/58.50 & inertia(Y,I2,T2) % 58.38/58.51 & greater(S2,S1) ) % 58.38/58.51 => greater(I2,I1) ) ). % 58.38/58.51 % 58.38/58.51 fof(t1_FOL,hypothesis, % 58.38/58.51 ! [X,Y,T1,T2,I1,I2,P1,P2] : % 58.38/58.51 ( ( organization(X,T1) % 58.38/58.51 & organization(Y,T2) % 58.38/58.51 & reorganization_free(X,T1,T1) % 58.38/58.51 & reorganization_free(Y,T2,T2) % 58.38/58.51 & inertia(X,I1,T1) % 58.38/58.51 & inertia(Y,I2,T2) % 58.38/58.51 & survival_chance(X,P1,T1) % 58.38/58.51 & survival_chance(Y,P2,T2) % 58.38/58.51 & greater(I2,I1) ) % 58.38/58.51 => greater(P2,P1) ) ). % 58.38/58.51 % 58.38/58.51 %----t8_FOL - alias a7_FOL % 58.38/58.51 fof(t8_FOL,conjecture, % 58.38/58.51 ! [X,Y,C,P1,P2,S1,S2,T1,T2] : % 58.38/58.51 ( ( organization(X,T1) % 58.38/58.51 & organization(Y,T2) % 58.38/58.51 & reorganization_free(X,T1,T1) % 58.38/58.51 & reorganization_free(Y,T2,T2) % 58.38/58.51 & class(X,C,T1) % 58.38/58.51 & class(Y,C,T2) % 58.38/58.51 & survival_chance(X,P1,T1) % 58.38/58.51 & survival_chance(Y,P2,T2) % 58.38/58.51 & size(X,S1,T1) % 58.38/58.51 & size(Y,S2,T2) % 58.38/58.51 & greater(S2,S1) ) % 58.38/58.51 => greater(P2,P1) ) ). % 58.38/58.51 % 58.38/58.51 %-------------------------------------------------------------------------- % 58.38/58.51 %------------------------------------------- % 58.38/58.51 % Proof found % 58.38/58.51 % SZS status Theorem for theBenchmark % 58.38/58.51 % SZS output start Proof % 58.38/58.51 %ClaNum:15(EqnAxiom:0) % 58.38/58.51 %VarNum:58(SingletonVarNum:19) % 58.38/58.51 %MaxLitNum:10 % 58.38/58.51 %MaxfuncDepth:1 % 58.38/58.51 %SharedTerms:21 % 58.38/58.51 %goalClause: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 % 58.38/58.51 %singleGoalClaCount:12 % 58.38/58.51 [1]P1(a1,a4) % 58.38/58.51 [2]P1(a5,a2) % 58.38/58.51 [3]P2(a6,a7) % 58.38/58.51 [4]P3(a1,a8,a4) % 58.38/58.51 [5]P3(a5,a8,a2) % 58.38/58.51 [6]P5(a1,a7,a4) % 58.38/58.51 [7]P5(a5,a6,a2) % 58.38/58.51 [8]P6(a1,a4,a4) % 58.38/58.51 [9]P6(a5,a2,a2) % 58.38/58.51 [10]P7(a1,a9,a4) % 58.38/58.51 [11]P7(a5,a10,a2) % 58.38/58.51 [12]~P2(a10,a9) % 58.38/58.51 [13]~P1(x131,x132)+P4(x131,f3(x131,x132),x132) % 58.38/58.51 [15]~P4(x153,x157,x154)+~P4(x155,x158,x156)+~P6(x153,x154,x154)+~P6(x155,x156,x156)+~P7(x153,x151,x154)+~P7(x155,x152,x156)+P2(x151,x152)+~P1(x153,x154)+~P1(x155,x156)+~P2(x157,x158) % 58.38/58.51 [14]~P4(x143,x141,x144)+~P4(x145,x142,x146)+~P3(x145,x149,x146)+~P5(x143,x147,x144)+~P5(x145,x148,x146)+P2(x141,x142)+~P1(x143,x144)+~P3(x143,x149,x144)+~P1(x145,x146)+~P2(x147,x148) % 58.38/58.51 %EqnAxiom % 58.38/58.51 % 58.38/58.51 %------------------------------------------- % 58.50/58.61 cnf(101260,plain, % 58.50/58.61 (P4(a1,f3(a1,a4),a4)), % 58.50/58.61 inference(scs_inference,[],[1,13])). % 58.50/58.61 cnf(101264,plain, % 58.50/58.61 (P4(a5,f3(a5,a2),a2)), % 58.50/58.61 inference(scs_inference,[],[2,13])). % 58.50/58.61 cnf(101270,plain, % 58.50/58.61 (~P2(f3(a5,a2),f3(a1,a4))), % 58.50/58.61 inference(scs_inference,[],[1,101264,101260,9,11,8,10,2,12,15])). % 58.50/58.61 cnf(101279,plain, % 58.50/58.61 ($false), % 58.50/58.61 inference(scs_inference,[],[2,101270,101264,101260,7,6,5,4,1,3,14]), % 58.50/58.61 ['proof']). % 58.50/58.64 % SZS output end Proof % 58.50/58.64 % Total time :58.010372s %------------------------------------------------------------------------------