%------------------------------------------------------------------------------ % File : CSE---1.7 % Problem : MGT009+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 06:04:15 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 : MGT009+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 % 0.09/0.35 % Computer : n005.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 11:46:20 UTC 2026 % 0.09/0.35 % CPUTime : % 0.26/0.51 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 58.015381s % 58.36/58.52 % Output :CNFRefutation 58.015381s % 58.36/58.52 %------------------------------------------- % 58.36/58.53 %-------------------------------------------------------------------------- % 58.36/58.53 % File : MGT009+1 : TPTP v9.3.0. Released v2.0.0. % 58.36/58.53 % Domain : Management (Organisation Theory) % 58.36/58.53 % Problem : Large organization have higher reproducibility % 58.36/58.53 % Version : [PB+94] axioms. % 58.36/58.53 % English : % 58.36/58.53 % 58.36/58.53 % Refs : [PB+92] Peli et al. (1992), A Logical Approach to Formalizing % 58.36/58.53 % : [PB+94] Peli et al. (1994), A Logical Approach to Formalizing % 58.36/58.53 % : [Kam94] Kamps (1994), Email to G. Sutcliffe % 58.36/58.53 % Source : [Kam94] % 58.36/58.53 % Names : THEOREM 9 [PB+92] % 58.36/58.53 % : T9FOL1 [PB+94] % 58.36/58.53 % 58.36/58.53 % 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 v6.3.0, 0.08 v6.2.0, 0.00 v6.1.0, 0.12 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 v3.2.0, 0.11 v3.1.0, 0.00 v2.1.0 % 58.36/58.53 % Syntax : Number of formulae : 4 ( 0 unt; 0 def) % 58.36/58.53 % Number of atoms : 34 ( 0 equ) % 58.36/58.53 % Maximal formula atoms : 12 ( 8 avg) % 58.36/58.53 % Number of connectives : 30 ( 0 ~; 0 |; 25 &) % 58.36/58.53 % ( 1 <=>; 4 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>) % 58.36/58.53 % Maximal formula depth : 21 ( 16 avg) % 58.36/58.53 % Maximal term depth : 1 ( 1 avg) % 58.36/58.53 % Number of predicates : 7 ( 7 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 : 29 ( 28 !; 1 ?) % 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(mp5,axiom, % 58.36/58.53 ! [X,T] : % 58.36/58.53 ( organization(X,T) % 58.36/58.53 => ? [I] : inertia(X,I,T) ) ). % 58.36/58.53 % 58.36/58.53 %----High levels of reproducibility of structure generate strong % 58.36/58.53 %----inertial pressures. % 58.36/58.53 fof(a3_FOL,hypothesis, % 58.36/58.53 ! [X,Y,T1,T2,Rp1,Rp2,I1,I2] : % 58.36/58.53 ( ( organization(X,T1) % 58.36/58.53 & organization(Y,T2) % 58.36/58.53 & reorganization_free(X,T1,T1) % 58.36/58.53 & reorganization_free(Y,T2,T2) % 58.36/58.53 & reproducibility(X,Rp1,T1) % 58.36/58.53 & reproducibility(Y,Rp2,T2) % 58.36/58.53 & inertia(X,I1,T1) % 58.36/58.53 & inertia(Y,I2,T2) ) % 58.36/58.53 => ( greater(Rp2,Rp1) % 58.36/58.53 <=> greater(I2,I1) ) ) ). % 58.36/58.53 % 58.36/58.53 %----The level of structural inertia increases with size for each class % 58.36/58.53 %----of organizations. % 58.36/58.53 fof(a5_FOL,hypothesis, % 58.36/58.53 ! [X,Y,C,S1,S2,I1,I2,T1,T2] : % 58.36/58.53 ( ( organization(X,T1) % 58.36/58.53 & organization(Y,T2) % 58.36/58.53 & class(X,C,T1) % 58.36/58.53 & class(Y,C,T2) % 58.36/58.53 & size(X,S1,T1) % 58.36/58.53 & size(Y,S2,T2) % 58.36/58.53 & inertia(X,I1,T1) % 58.36/58.53 & inertia(Y,I2,T2) % 58.36/58.53 & greater(S2,S1) ) % 58.36/58.53 => greater(I2,I1) ) ). % 58.36/58.53 % 58.36/58.53 fof(t9_FOL,conjecture, % 58.36/58.53 ! [X,Y,C,Rp1,Rp2,S1,S2,T1,T2] : % 58.36/58.53 ( ( organization(X,T1) % 58.36/58.53 & organization(Y,T2) % 58.36/58.53 & reorganization_free(X,T1,T1) % 58.36/58.53 & reorganization_free(Y,T2,T2) % 58.36/58.53 & class(X,C,T1) % 58.36/58.53 & class(Y,C,T2) % 58.36/58.53 & reproducibility(X,Rp1,T1) % 58.36/58.53 & reproducibility(Y,Rp2,T2) % 58.36/58.53 & size(X,S1,T1) % 58.36/58.53 & size(Y,S2,T2) % 58.36/58.53 & greater(S2,S1) ) % 58.36/58.53 => greater(Rp2,Rp1) ) ). % 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:16(EqnAxiom:0) % 58.36/58.53 %VarNum:84(SingletonVarNum:27) % 58.36/58.53 %MaxLitNum:10 % 58.36/58.53 %MaxfuncDepth:1 % 58.36/58.53 %SharedTerms:21 % 58.36/58.53 %goalClause: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 % 58.36/58.53 %singleGoalClaCount:12 % 58.36/58.53 [1]P1(a1,a4) % 58.36/58.53 [2]P1(a5,a2) % 58.36/58.53 [3]P2(a6,a7) % 58.36/58.53 [4]P5(a1,a4,a4) % 58.36/58.53 [5]P5(a5,a2,a2) % 58.36/58.53 [6]P6(a1,a8,a4) % 58.36/58.53 [7]P6(a5,a10,a2) % 58.36/58.53 [8]P3(a1,a9,a4) % 58.36/58.53 [9]P3(a5,a9,a2) % 58.36/58.53 [10]P7(a1,a7,a4) % 58.36/58.53 [11]P7(a5,a6,a2) % 58.36/58.53 [12]~P2(a10,a8) % 58.36/58.53 [13]~P1(x131,x132)+P4(x131,f3(x131,x132),x132) % 58.36/58.53 [15]~P4(x153,x151,x154)+~P4(x155,x152,x156)+~P5(x153,x154,x154)+~P5(x155,x156,x156)+~P6(x153,x157,x154)+~P6(x155,x158,x156)+P2(x151,x152)+~P1(x153,x154)+~P1(x155,x156)+~P2(x157,x158) % 58.36/58.53 [16]~P4(x163,x167,x164)+~P4(x165,x168,x166)+~P5(x163,x164,x164)+~P5(x165,x166,x166)+~P6(x163,x161,x164)+~P6(x165,x162,x166)+P2(x161,x162)+~P1(x163,x164)+~P1(x165,x166)+~P2(x167,x168) % 58.36/58.53 [14]~P4(x143,x141,x144)+~P4(x145,x142,x146)+~P3(x145,x149,x146)+~P7(x143,x147,x144)+~P7(x145,x148,x146)+P2(x141,x142)+~P1(x143,x144)+~P3(x143,x149,x144)+~P1(x145,x146)+~P2(x147,x148) % 58.36/58.53 %EqnAxiom % 58.36/58.53 % 58.36/58.53 %------------------------------------------- % 58.47/58.61 cnf(79388,plain, % 58.47/58.61 (P4(a1,f3(a1,a4),a4)), % 58.47/58.61 inference(scs_inference,[],[1,13])). % 58.47/58.61 cnf(79390,plain, % 58.47/58.61 (P2(x793901,f3(a1,a4))+~P4(a5,x793901,a2)), % 58.47/58.61 inference(scs_inference,[],[1,11,9,8,2,3,10,13,14])). % 58.47/58.61 cnf(79392,plain, % 58.47/58.61 (P4(a5,f3(a5,a2),a2)), % 58.47/58.61 inference(scs_inference,[],[2,13])). % 58.47/58.61 cnf(79396,plain, % 58.47/58.61 (P2(f3(a5,a2),f3(a1,a4))), % 58.47/58.61 inference(scs_inference,[],[1,79388,8,2,3,10,13,14,79390])). % 58.47/58.61 cnf(79418,plain, % 58.47/58.61 ($false), % 58.47/58.61 inference(scs_inference,[],[1,79396,79388,79392,7,6,5,4,2,12,16]), % 58.47/58.61 ['proof']). % 58.47/58.64 % SZS output end Proof % 58.47/58.64 % Total time :58.015381s %------------------------------------------------------------------------------