%------------------------------------------------------------------------------ % File : CSE---1.7 % Problem : MGT022-1 : TPTP v9.3.0. Released v2.4.0. % 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 06:04:16 AM UTC 2026 % Result : Unsatisfiable 0.12s 0.46s % Output : Assurance 0s % Verified : % SZS Type : - % Comments : %------------------------------------------------------------------------------ %----No solution output by system %------------------------------------------------------------------------------ %----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT % 0.00/0.03 % Problem : MGT022-1 : TPTP v9.3.0. Released v2.4.0. % 0.00/0.03 % Command : java -jar /export/starexec/sandbox/solver/bin/mcs_scs.jar %d %s % 0.07/0.34 % Computer : n005.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 12:04:50 UTC 2026 % 0.07/0.34 % CPUTime : % 0.12/0.44 start to proof:theBenchmark % 0.12/0.45 %------------------------------------------- % 0.12/0.45 % File :CSE---1.7 % 0.12/0.45 % Problem :theBenchmark % 0.12/0.45 % Transform :cnf % 0.12/0.45 % Format :tptp:raw % 0.12/0.45 % Command :java -jar mcs_scs.jar %d %s % 0.12/0.45 % 0.12/0.45 % Result :Theorem 0.008597s % 0.12/0.45 % Output :CNFRefutation 0.008597s % 0.12/0.45 %------------------------------------------- % 0.12/0.45 %-------------------------------------------------------------------------- % 0.12/0.45 % File : MGT022-1 : TPTP v9.3.0. Released v2.4.0. % 0.12/0.45 % Domain : Management (Organisation Theory) % 0.12/0.45 % Problem : Decreasing resource availability affects FMS more than EPs % 0.12/0.45 % Version : [PB+94] axioms. % 0.12/0.45 % English : Decreasing resource availability affects the disbanding rate % 0.12/0.45 % of first movers more than the disbanding rate of efficient % 0.12/0.46 % producers. % 0.12/0.46 % 0.12/0.46 % Refs : [PM93] Peli & Masuch (1993), The Logic of Propogation Strateg % 0.12/0.46 % : [PM94] Peli & Masuch (1994), The Logic of Propogation Strateg % 0.12/0.46 % : [PB+94] Peli et al. (1994), A Logical Approach to Formalizing % 0.12/0.46 % : [Kam95] Kamps (1995), Email to G. Sutcliffe % 0.12/0.46 % Source : [TPTP] % 0.12/0.46 % Names : % 0.12/0.46 % 0.12/0.46 % Status : Unsatisfiable % 0.12/0.46 % Rating : 0.00 v2.4.0 % 0.12/0.46 % Syntax : Number of clauses : 10 ( 3 unt; 2 nHn; 10 RR) % 0.12/0.46 % Number of literals : 23 ( 0 equ; 12 neg) % 0.12/0.46 % Maximal clause size : 5 ( 2 avg) % 0.12/0.46 % Maximal term depth : 3 ( 1 avg) % 0.12/0.46 % Number of predicates : 6 ( 6 usr; 0 prp; 1-4 aty) % 0.12/0.46 % Number of functors : 8 ( 8 usr; 4 con; 0-2 aty) % 0.12/0.46 % Number of variables : 9 ( 0 sgn) % 0.12/0.46 % SPC : CNF_UNS_RFO_NEQ_NHN % 0.12/0.46 % 0.12/0.46 % Comments : Same as version with [PM93] axioms. % 0.12/0.46 % : Created with tptp2X -f tptp -t clausify:otter MGT022+1.p % 0.12/0.46 %-------------------------------------------------------------------------- % 0.12/0.46 cnf(mp_constant_not_decrease_1,axiom, % 0.12/0.46 ( ~ constant(A) % 0.12/0.46 | ~ decreases(A) ) ). % 0.12/0.46 % 0.12/0.46 cnf(a5_2,hypothesis, % 0.12/0.46 ( ~ environment(A) % 0.12/0.46 | ~ subpopulations(B,C,A,D) % 0.12/0.46 | ~ greater(resilience(C),resilience(B)) % 0.12/0.46 | ~ decreases(resources(A,D)) % 0.12/0.46 | increases(difference(disbanding_rate(B,D),disbanding_rate(C,D))) ) ). % 0.12/0.46 % 0.12/0.46 cnf(a5_3,hypothesis, % 0.12/0.46 ( ~ environment(A) % 0.12/0.46 | ~ subpopulations(B,C,A,D) % 0.12/0.46 | ~ greater(resilience(C),resilience(B)) % 0.12/0.46 | ~ constant(resources(A,D)) % 0.12/0.46 | constant(difference(disbanding_rate(B,D),disbanding_rate(C,D))) ) ). % 0.12/0.46 % 0.12/0.46 cnf(a2_4,hypothesis, % 0.12/0.46 greater(resilience(efficient_producers),resilience(first_movers)) ). % 0.12/0.46 % 0.12/0.46 cnf(prove_l4_5,negated_conjecture, % 0.12/0.46 environment(sk1) ). % 0.12/0.46 % 0.12/0.46 cnf(prove_l4_6,negated_conjecture, % 0.12/0.46 subpopulations(first_movers,efficient_producers,sk1,sk2) ). % 0.12/0.46 % 0.12/0.46 cnf(prove_l4_7,negated_conjecture, % 0.12/0.46 ( decreases(resources(sk1,sk2)) % 0.12/0.46 | constant(resources(sk1,sk2)) ) ). % 0.12/0.46 % 0.12/0.46 cnf(prove_l4_8,negated_conjecture, % 0.12/0.46 ( decreases(resources(sk1,sk2)) % 0.12/0.46 | decreases(difference(disbanding_rate(first_movers,sk2),disbanding_rate(efficient_producers,sk2))) ) ). % 0.12/0.46 % 0.12/0.46 cnf(prove_l4_9,negated_conjecture, % 0.12/0.46 ( ~ increases(difference(disbanding_rate(first_movers,sk2),disbanding_rate(efficient_producers,sk2))) % 0.12/0.46 | constant(resources(sk1,sk2)) ) ). % 0.12/0.46 % 0.12/0.46 cnf(prove_l4_10,negated_conjecture, % 0.12/0.46 ( ~ increases(difference(disbanding_rate(first_movers,sk2),disbanding_rate(efficient_producers,sk2))) % 0.12/0.46 | decreases(difference(disbanding_rate(first_movers,sk2),disbanding_rate(efficient_producers,sk2))) ) ). % 0.12/0.46 % 0.12/0.46 %-------------------------------------------------------------------------- % 0.12/0.46 %------------------------------------------- % 0.12/0.46 % Proof found % 0.12/0.46 % SZS status Theorem for theBenchmark % 0.12/0.46 % SZS output start Proof % 0.12/0.46 %ClaNum:10(EqnAxiom:0) % 0.12/0.46 %VarNum:28(SingletonVarNum:9) % 0.12/0.46 %MaxLitNum:5 % 0.12/0.46 %MaxfuncDepth:2 % 0.12/0.46 %SharedTerms:17 % 0.12/0.46 %goalClause: 1 3 5 6 7 8 % 0.12/0.46 %singleGoalClaCount:2 % 0.12/0.46 [1]P1(a1) % 0.12/0.46 [3]P5(a6,a2,a1,a8) % 0.12/0.46 [2]P4(f5(a2),f5(a6)) % 0.12/0.46 [5]P3(f7(a1,a8))+P2(f7(a1,a8)) % 0.12/0.46 [6]P3(f7(a1,a8))+P3(f4(f3(a6,a8),f3(a2,a8))) % 0.12/0.46 [7]~P6(f4(f3(a6,a8),f3(a2,a8)))+P2(f7(a1,a8)) % 0.12/0.46 [8]~P6(f4(f3(a6,a8),f3(a2,a8)))+P3(f4(f3(a6,a8),f3(a2,a8))) % 0.12/0.46 [4]~P3(x41)+~P2(x41) % 0.12/0.46 [9]~P5(x91,x93,x94,x92)+~P1(x94)+~P4(f5(x93),f5(x91))+~P2(f7(x94,x92))+P2(f4(f3(x91,x92),f3(x93,x92))) % 0.12/0.46 [10]~P5(x101,x103,x104,x102)+~P1(x104)+~P4(f5(x103),f5(x101))+~P3(f7(x104,x102))+P6(f4(f3(x101,x102),f3(x103,x102))) % 0.12/0.46 %EqnAxiom % 0.12/0.46 % 0.12/0.46 %------------------------------------------- % 0.12/0.46 cnf(12,plain, % 0.12/0.46 (~P2(f7(a1,a8))+P3(f4(f3(a6,a8),f3(a2,a8)))), % 0.12/0.46 inference(scs_inference,[],[6,4])). % 0.12/0.46 cnf(13,plain, % 0.12/0.46 (~P3(f7(a1,a8))+~P6(f4(f3(a6,a8),f3(a2,a8)))), % 0.12/0.46 inference(scs_inference,[],[7,4])). % 0.12/0.46 cnf(14,plain, % 0.12/0.46 (~P2(f4(f3(a6,a8),f3(a2,a8)))+~P2(f7(a1,a8))), % 0.12/0.46 inference(scs_inference,[],[12,4])). % 0.12/0.46 cnf(15,plain, % 0.12/0.46 (~P3(f7(a1,a8))), % 0.12/0.46 inference(scs_inference,[],[2,1,3,13,10])). % 0.12/0.46 cnf(16,plain, % 0.12/0.46 (P2(f7(a1,a8))), % 0.12/0.46 inference(scs_inference,[],[15,5])). % 0.12/0.46 cnf(19,plain, % 0.12/0.46 (~P2(f4(f3(a6,a8),f3(a2,a8)))), % 0.12/0.46 inference(scs_inference,[],[16,14])). % 0.12/0.46 cnf(20,plain, % 0.12/0.46 ($false), % 0.12/0.46 inference(scs_inference,[],[3,16,1,19,2,9]), % 0.12/0.46 ['proof']). % 0.12/0.46 % SZS output end Proof % 0.12/0.46 % Total time :0.008597s %------------------------------------------------------------------------------