%------------------------------------------------------------------------------ % File : CSE---1.7 % Problem : MGT018+1 : TPTP v9.3.0. Released v2.0.0. % Transfm : none % Format : tptp:raw % Command : java -jar /export/starexec/sandbox2/solver/bin/mcs_scs.jar %d %s % Computer : n004.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 06:04:16 AM UTC 2026 % Result : Theorem 58.37s 58.54s % Output : Assurance 0s % Verified : % SZS Type : - % Comments : %------------------------------------------------------------------------------ %----No solution output by system %------------------------------------------------------------------------------ %----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT % 0.00/0.03 % Problem : MGT018+1 : TPTP v9.3.0. Released v2.0.0. % 0.00/0.03 % Command : java -jar /export/starexec/sandbox2/solver/bin/mcs_scs.jar %d %s % 0.07/0.34 % Computer : n004.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 11:58:15 UTC 2026 % 0.07/0.34 % CPUTime : % 0.24/0.51 start to proof:theBenchmark % 58.37/58.53 %------------------------------------------- % 58.37/58.53 % File :CSE---1.7 % 58.37/58.53 % Problem :theBenchmark % 58.37/58.53 % Transform :cnf % 58.37/58.53 % Format :tptp:raw % 58.37/58.53 % Command :java -jar mcs_scs.jar %d %s % 58.37/58.53 % 58.37/58.53 % Result :Theorem 58.017957s % 58.37/58.53 % Output :CNFRefutation 58.017957s % 58.37/58.53 %------------------------------------------- % 58.37/58.53 %-------------------------------------------------------------------------- % 58.37/58.53 % File : MGT018+1 : TPTP v9.3.0. Released v2.0.0. % 58.37/58.53 % Domain : Management (Organisation Theory) % 58.37/58.53 % Problem : Larger organizations have shorter reorganization % 58.37/58.53 % Version : [PB+94] axioms. % 58.37/58.53 % English : The bigger an organization is at the beginning of % 58.37/58.53 % reorganization, the sooner disbanding due to reorganization % 58.37/58.53 % (possibly) happens - i.e., the shorter is the reorganization. % 58.37/58.53 % 58.37/58.53 % Refs : [PB+94] Peli et al. (1994), A Logical Approach to Formalizing % 58.37/58.53 % : [Kam94] Kamps (1994), Email to G. Sutcliffe % 58.37/58.53 % : [Kam95] Kamps (1995), Email to G. Sutcliffe % 58.37/58.53 % Source : [Kam94] % 58.37/58.53 % Names : % 58.37/58.53 % 58.37/58.53 % Status : Theorem % 58.37/58.53 % Rating : 0.00 v9.3.0, 0.10 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, 0.08 v6.0.0, 0.50 v5.5.0, 0.12 v5.4.0, 0.13 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 % 58.37/58.53 % Syntax : Number of formulae : 4 ( 0 unt; 0 def) % 58.37/58.53 % Number of atoms : 38 ( 0 equ) % 58.37/58.54 % Maximal formula atoms : 13 ( 9 avg) % 58.37/58.54 % Number of connectives : 36 ( 2 ~; 0 |; 30 &) % 58.37/58.54 % ( 0 <=>; 4 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>) % 58.37/58.54 % Maximal formula depth : 22 ( 17 avg) % 58.37/58.54 % Maximal term depth : 1 ( 1 avg) % 58.37/58.54 % Number of predicates : 7 ( 7 usr; 0 prp; 2-3 aty) % 58.37/58.54 % Number of functors : 0 ( 0 usr; 0 con; --- aty) % 58.37/58.54 % Number of variables : 30 ( 29 !; 1 ?) % 58.37/58.54 % SPC : FOF_THM_RFO_NEQ % 58.37/58.54 % 58.37/58.54 % Comments : "Not published due to publication constraints." [Kam95]. % 58.37/58.54 %-------------------------------------------------------------------------- % 58.37/58.54 fof(mp5,axiom, % 58.37/58.54 ! [X,T] : % 58.37/58.54 ( organization(X,T) % 58.37/58.54 => ? [I] : inertia(X,I,T) ) ). % 58.37/58.54 % 58.37/58.54 %----The level of structural inertia increases with size for each class % 58.37/58.54 %----of organizations. % 58.37/58.54 fof(a5_FOL,hypothesis, % 58.37/58.54 ! [X,Y,C,S1,S2,I1,I2,T1,T2] : % 58.37/58.54 ( ( organization(X,T1) % 58.37/58.54 & organization(Y,T2) % 58.37/58.54 & class(X,C,T1) % 58.37/58.54 & class(Y,C,T2) % 58.37/58.54 & size(X,S1,T1) % 58.37/58.54 & size(Y,S2,T2) % 58.37/58.54 & inertia(X,I1,T1) % 58.37/58.54 & inertia(Y,I2,T2) % 58.37/58.54 & greater(S2,S1) ) % 58.37/58.54 => greater(I2,I1) ) ). % 58.37/58.54 % 58.37/58.54 %----The higher inertia an organization has at the beginning of % 58.37/58.54 %----reorganization, the sooner disbending due to reorganization % 58.37/58.54 %----(possibly) happens - i.e., the shorter is the reorganization. % 58.37/58.54 fof(a14_FOL,hypothesis, % 58.37/58.54 ! [X,Y,Rt,C,I1,I2,Ta,Tb,Tc] : % 58.37/58.54 ( ( organization(X,Ta) % 58.37/58.54 & organization(Y,Ta) % 58.37/58.54 & ~ organization(Y,Tc) % 58.37/58.54 & class(X,C,Ta) % 58.37/58.54 & class(Y,C,Ta) % 58.37/58.54 & reorganization(X,Ta,Tb) % 58.37/58.54 & reorganization(Y,Ta,Tc) % 58.37/58.54 & reorganization_type(X,Rt,Ta) % 58.37/58.54 & reorganization_type(Y,Rt,Ta) % 58.37/58.54 & inertia(X,I1,Ta) % 58.37/58.54 & inertia(Y,I2,Ta) % 58.37/58.54 & greater(I2,I1) ) % 58.37/58.54 => greater(Tb,Tc) ) ). % 58.37/58.54 % 58.37/58.54 fof(t18_FOL,conjecture, % 58.37/58.54 ! [X,Y,Rt,C,S1,S2,Ta,Tb,Tc] : % 58.37/58.54 ( ( organization(X,Ta) % 58.37/58.54 & organization(Y,Ta) % 58.37/58.54 & ~ organization(Y,Tc) % 58.37/58.54 & class(X,C,Ta) % 58.37/58.54 & class(Y,C,Ta) % 58.37/58.54 & reorganization(X,Ta,Tb) % 58.37/58.54 & reorganization(Y,Ta,Tc) % 58.37/58.54 & reorganization_type(X,Rt,Ta) % 58.37/58.54 & reorganization_type(Y,Rt,Ta) % 58.37/58.54 & size(X,S1,Ta) % 58.37/58.54 & size(Y,S2,Ta) % 58.37/58.54 & greater(S2,S1) ) % 58.37/58.54 => greater(Tb,Tc) ) ). % 58.37/58.54 % 58.37/58.54 %-------------------------------------------------------------------------- % 58.37/58.54 %------------------------------------------- % 58.37/58.54 % Proof found % 58.37/58.54 % SZS status Theorem for theBenchmark % 58.37/58.54 % SZS output start Proof % 58.37/58.54 %ClaNum:16(EqnAxiom:0) % 58.37/58.54 %VarNum:66(SingletonVarNum:20) % 58.37/58.54 %MaxLitNum:13 % 58.37/58.54 %MaxfuncDepth:1 % 58.37/58.54 %SharedTerms:22 % 58.37/58.54 %goalClause: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 % 58.37/58.54 %singleGoalClaCount:13 % 58.37/58.54 [1]P1(a1,a4) % 58.37/58.54 [2]P1(a5,a4) % 58.37/58.54 [3]P2(a6,a7) % 58.37/58.54 [4]P3(a1,a8,a4) % 58.37/58.54 [5]P3(a5,a8,a4) % 58.37/58.54 [6]P5(a1,a7,a4) % 58.37/58.54 [7]P5(a5,a6,a4) % 58.37/58.54 [8]P6(a1,a4,a10) % 58.37/58.54 [9]P6(a5,a4,a2) % 58.37/58.54 [10]P7(a1,a9,a4) % 58.37/58.54 [11]P7(a5,a9,a4) % 58.37/58.54 [12]~P1(a5,a2) % 58.37/58.54 [13]~P2(a10,a2) % 58.37/58.54 [14]~P1(x141,x142)+P4(x141,f3(x141,x142),x142) % 58.37/58.54 [15]~P4(x153,x151,x154)+~P4(x155,x152,x156)+~P3(x155,x159,x156)+~P5(x153,x157,x154)+~P5(x155,x158,x156)+P2(x151,x152)+~P1(x153,x154)+~P3(x153,x159,x154)+~P1(x155,x156)+~P2(x157,x158) % 58.37/58.54 [16]~P4(x161,x166,x164)+~P4(x165,x167,x164)+~P3(x165,x168,x164)+~P6(x161,x164,x162)+~P6(x165,x164,x163)+~P7(x165,x169,x164)+P1(x161,x162)+P2(x163,x162)+~P1(x161,x164)+~P1(x165,x164)+~P3(x161,x168,x164)+~P7(x161,x169,x164)+~P2(x166,x167) % 58.37/58.54 %EqnAxiom % 58.37/58.54 % 58.37/58.54 %------------------------------------------- % 58.69/58.80 cnf(119372,plain, % 58.69/58.80 (P4(a1,f3(a1,a4),a4)), % 58.69/58.80 inference(scs_inference,[],[1,14])). % 58.69/58.80 cnf(119376,plain, % 58.69/58.80 (P4(a5,f3(a5,a4),a4)), % 58.69/58.80 inference(scs_inference,[],[2,14])). % 58.69/58.80 cnf(119384,plain, % 58.69/58.80 (~P2(f3(a5,a4),f3(a1,a4))), % 58.69/58.80 inference(scs_inference,[],[1,119376,119372,9,11,12,8,10,6,13,4,2,7,5,15,16])). % 58.69/58.80 cnf(119392,plain, % 58.69/58.80 ($false), % 58.69/58.80 inference(scs_inference,[],[1,119384,119376,119372,6,3,4,2,7,5,15]), % 58.69/58.80 ['proof']). % 58.69/58.84 % SZS output end Proof % 58.69/58.84 % Total time :58.017957s %------------------------------------------------------------------------------