%------------------------------------------------------------------------------ % File : CSE---1.7 % Problem : MGT022-2 : 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 : n019.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 0.24s 0.51s % Output : Assurance 0s % Verified : % SZS Type : - % Comments : %------------------------------------------------------------------------------ %----No solution output by system %------------------------------------------------------------------------------ %----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT % 0.00/0.03 % Problem : MGT022-2 : 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 % 0.08/0.35 % Computer : n019.cluster.edu % 0.08/0.35 % Model : x86_64 x86_64 % 0.08/0.35 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz % 0.08/0.35 % Memory : 8046.5625MB % 0.08/0.35 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic % 0.08/0.35 % CPULimit : 300 % 0.08/0.35 % WCLimit : 300 % 0.08/0.35 % DateTime : Mon Sep 7 12:05:52 UTC 2026 % 0.08/0.35 % CPUTime : % 0.24/0.51 start to proof:theBenchmark % 0.24/0.51 %------------------------------------------- % 0.24/0.51 % File :CSE---1.7 % 0.24/0.51 % Problem :theBenchmark % 0.24/0.51 % Transform :cnf % 0.24/0.51 % Format :tptp:raw % 0.24/0.51 % Command :java -jar mcs_scs.jar %d %s % 0.24/0.51 % 0.24/0.51 % Result :Theorem 0.007963s % 0.24/0.51 % Output :CNFRefutation 0.007963s % 0.24/0.51 %------------------------------------------- % 0.24/0.51 %-------------------------------------------------------------------------- % 0.24/0.51 % File : MGT022-2 : TPTP v9.3.0. Released v2.4.0. % 0.24/0.51 % Domain : Management (Organisation Theory) % 0.24/0.51 % Problem : Decreasing resource availability affects FMS more than EPs % 0.24/0.51 % Version : [PM93] axioms. % 0.24/0.51 % English : Decreasing resource availability affects the disbanding rate % 0.24/0.51 % of first movers more than the disbanding rate of efficient % 0.24/0.51 % producers. % 0.24/0.51 % 0.24/0.51 % Refs : [PM93] Peli & Masuch (1993), The Logic of Propogation Strateg % 0.24/0.51 % : [PM94] Peli & Masuch (1994), The Logic of Propogation Strateg % 0.24/0.51 % : [PB+94] Peli et al. (1994), A Logical Approach to Formalizing % 0.24/0.51 % Source : [TPTP] % 0.24/0.51 % Names : % 0.24/0.51 % 0.24/0.51 % Status : Unsatisfiable % 0.24/0.51 % Rating : 0.20 v9.3.0, 0.08 v9.1.0, 0.00 v2.4.0 % 0.24/0.51 % Syntax : Number of clauses : 10 ( 3 unt; 2 nHn; 10 RR) % 0.24/0.51 % Number of literals : 23 ( 0 equ; 12 neg) % 0.24/0.51 % Maximal clause size : 5 ( 2 avg) % 0.24/0.51 % Maximal term depth : 3 ( 1 avg) % 0.24/0.51 % Number of predicates : 6 ( 6 usr; 0 prp; 1-4 aty) % 0.24/0.51 % Number of functors : 8 ( 8 usr; 4 con; 0-2 aty) % 0.24/0.51 % Number of variables : 9 ( 0 sgn) % 0.24/0.51 % SPC : CNF_UNS_RFO_NEQ_NHN % 0.24/0.51 % 0.24/0.51 % Comments : Created with tptp2X -f tptp -t clausify:otter MGT022+2.p % 0.24/0.51 %-------------------------------------------------------------------------- % 0.24/0.51 cnf(mp_constant_not_decrease_1,axiom, % 0.24/0.51 ( ~ constant(A) % 0.24/0.51 | ~ decreases(A) ) ). % 0.24/0.51 % 0.24/0.51 cnf(a6_2,hypothesis, % 0.24/0.51 ( ~ environment(A) % 0.24/0.51 | ~ subpopulations(B,C,A,D) % 0.24/0.51 | ~ greater(resilience(C),resilience(B)) % 0.24/0.51 | ~ decreases(resources(A,D)) % 0.24/0.51 | increases(difference(disbanding_rate(B,D),disbanding_rate(C,D))) ) ). % 0.24/0.51 % 0.24/0.51 cnf(a6_3,hypothesis, % 0.24/0.51 ( ~ environment(A) % 0.24/0.51 | ~ subpopulations(B,C,A,D) % 0.24/0.51 | ~ greater(resilience(C),resilience(B)) % 0.24/0.51 | ~ constant(resources(A,D)) % 0.24/0.51 | constant(difference(disbanding_rate(B,D),disbanding_rate(C,D))) ) ). % 0.24/0.51 % 0.24/0.51 cnf(a2_4,hypothesis, % 0.24/0.51 greater(resilience(efficient_producers),resilience(first_movers)) ). % 0.24/0.51 % 0.24/0.51 cnf(prove_l4_5,negated_conjecture, % 0.24/0.51 environment(sk1) ). % 0.24/0.51 % 0.24/0.51 cnf(prove_l4_6,negated_conjecture, % 0.24/0.51 subpopulations(first_movers,efficient_producers,sk1,sk2) ). % 0.24/0.51 % 0.24/0.51 cnf(prove_l4_7,negated_conjecture, % 0.24/0.51 ( decreases(resources(sk1,sk2)) % 0.24/0.51 | constant(resources(sk1,sk2)) ) ). % 0.24/0.51 % 0.24/0.51 cnf(prove_l4_8,negated_conjecture, % 0.24/0.51 ( decreases(resources(sk1,sk2)) % 0.24/0.51 | decreases(difference(disbanding_rate(first_movers,sk2),disbanding_rate(efficient_producers,sk2))) ) ). % 0.24/0.51 % 0.24/0.51 cnf(prove_l4_9,negated_conjecture, % 0.24/0.51 ( ~ increases(difference(disbanding_rate(first_movers,sk2),disbanding_rate(efficient_producers,sk2))) % 0.24/0.51 | constant(resources(sk1,sk2)) ) ). % 0.24/0.51 % 0.24/0.51 cnf(prove_l4_10,negated_conjecture, % 0.24/0.51 ( ~ increases(difference(disbanding_rate(first_movers,sk2),disbanding_rate(efficient_producers,sk2))) % 0.24/0.51 | decreases(difference(disbanding_rate(first_movers,sk2),disbanding_rate(efficient_producers,sk2))) ) ). % 0.24/0.51 % 0.24/0.51 %-------------------------------------------------------------------------- % 0.24/0.51 %------------------------------------------- % 0.24/0.51 % Proof found % 0.24/0.51 % SZS status Theorem for theBenchmark % 0.24/0.51 % SZS output start Proof % 0.24/0.51 %ClaNum:10(EqnAxiom:0) % 0.24/0.51 %VarNum:28(SingletonVarNum:9) % 0.24/0.51 %MaxLitNum:5 % 0.24/0.51 %MaxfuncDepth:2 % 0.24/0.51 %SharedTerms:17 % 0.24/0.51 %goalClause: 1 3 5 6 7 8 % 0.24/0.51 %singleGoalClaCount:2 % 0.24/0.51 [1]P1(a1) % 0.24/0.51 [3]P5(a6,a2,a1,a8) % 0.24/0.51 [2]P4(f5(a2),f5(a6)) % 0.24/0.51 [5]P3(f7(a1,a8))+P2(f7(a1,a8)) % 0.24/0.51 [6]P3(f7(a1,a8))+P3(f4(f3(a6,a8),f3(a2,a8))) % 0.24/0.51 [7]~P6(f4(f3(a6,a8),f3(a2,a8)))+P2(f7(a1,a8)) % 0.24/0.51 [8]~P6(f4(f3(a6,a8),f3(a2,a8)))+P3(f4(f3(a6,a8),f3(a2,a8))) % 0.24/0.51 [4]~P3(x41)+~P2(x41) % 0.24/0.51 [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))) % 0.24/0.51 [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))) % 0.24/0.51 %EqnAxiom % 0.24/0.51 % 0.24/0.51 %------------------------------------------- % 0.24/0.51 cnf(12,plain, % 0.24/0.51 (~P2(f7(a1,a8))+P3(f4(f3(a6,a8),f3(a2,a8)))), % 0.24/0.51 inference(scs_inference,[],[6,4])). % 0.24/0.51 cnf(13,plain, % 0.24/0.51 (~P3(f7(a1,a8))+~P6(f4(f3(a6,a8),f3(a2,a8)))), % 0.24/0.51 inference(scs_inference,[],[7,4])). % 0.24/0.51 cnf(14,plain, % 0.24/0.51 (~P2(f4(f3(a6,a8),f3(a2,a8)))+~P2(f7(a1,a8))), % 0.24/0.51 inference(scs_inference,[],[12,4])). % 0.24/0.51 cnf(15,plain, % 0.24/0.51 (~P3(f7(a1,a8))), % 0.24/0.51 inference(scs_inference,[],[2,1,3,13,10])). % 0.24/0.51 cnf(16,plain, % 0.24/0.51 (P2(f7(a1,a8))), % 0.24/0.51 inference(scs_inference,[],[15,5])). % 0.24/0.51 cnf(19,plain, % 0.24/0.51 (~P2(f4(f3(a6,a8),f3(a2,a8)))), % 0.24/0.51 inference(scs_inference,[],[16,14])). % 0.24/0.51 cnf(20,plain, % 0.24/0.51 ($false), % 0.24/0.51 inference(scs_inference,[],[3,16,1,19,2,9]), % 0.24/0.51 ['proof']). % 0.24/0.51 % SZS output end Proof % 0.24/0.51 % Total time :0.007963s %------------------------------------------------------------------------------