↑ Up

CSE---1.7.THM-Ass.s

View TPTP
Problem
Process solution in
SystemOnTSTP
Download .tgz
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File     : CSE---1.7
% Problem  : MGT041+2 : 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 : n020.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 06:04:20 AM UTC 2026

% Result   : Theorem 0.25s 0.53s
% Output   : Assurance 0s
% Verified : 
% SZS Type : -

% Comments : 
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----No solution output by system
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.03  % Problem    : MGT041+2 : 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
% 0.09/0.35  % Computer : n020.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 13:03:13 UTC 2026
% 0.09/0.35  % CPUTime    : 
% 0.25/0.52  start to proof:theBenchmark
% 0.25/0.52  %-------------------------------------------
% 0.25/0.52  % File        :CSE---1.7
% 0.25/0.52  % Problem     :theBenchmark
% 0.25/0.52  % Transform   :cnf
% 0.25/0.52  % Format      :tptp:raw
% 0.25/0.52  % Command     :java -jar mcs_scs.jar %d %s
% 0.25/0.52  
% 0.25/0.52  % Result      :Theorem 0.005449s
% 0.25/0.52  % Output      :CNFRefutation 0.005449s
% 0.25/0.52  %-------------------------------------------
% 0.25/0.52  %--------------------------------------------------------------------------
% 0.25/0.52  % File     : MGT041+2 : TPTP v9.3.0. Released v2.0.0.
% 0.25/0.52  % Domain   : Management (Organisation Theory)
% 0.25/0.52  % Problem  : There are non-FM and non-EP organisations
% 0.25/0.52  % Version  : [PM93] axioms.
% 0.25/0.52  % English  : There are non-first mover and non-efficient producers
% 0.25/0.52  %            organisations.
% 0.25/0.52  
% 0.25/0.52  % Refs     : [PM93]  Peli & Masuch (1993), The Logic of Propogation Strateg
% 0.25/0.52  %          : [PM94]  Peli & Masuch (1994), The Logic of Propogation Strateg
% 0.25/0.52  %          : [Kam95] Kamps (1995), Email to G. Sutcliffe
% 0.25/0.52  % Source   : [PM93]
% 0.25/0.52  % Names    : Theorem 10 [PM93]
% 0.25/0.52  
% 0.25/0.52  % Status   : Theorem
% 0.25/0.53  % Rating   : 0.00 v5.3.0, 0.09 v5.2.0, 0.00 v3.2.0, 0.11 v3.1.0, 0.00 v2.5.0, 0.33 v2.4.0, 0.33 v2.2.1, 0.00 v2.1.0
% 0.25/0.53  % Syntax   : Number of formulae    :    5 (   0 unt;   0 def)
% 0.25/0.53  %            Number of atoms       :   17 (   0 equ)
% 0.25/0.53  %            Maximal formula atoms :    4 (   3 avg)
% 0.25/0.53  %            Number of connectives :   16 (   4   ~;   0   |;  10   &)
% 0.25/0.53  %                                         (   0 <=>;   2  =>;   0  <=;   0 <~>)
% 0.25/0.53  %            Maximal formula depth :    7 (   6 avg)
% 0.25/0.53  %            Maximal term depth    :    1 (   1 avg)
% 0.25/0.53  %            Number of predicates  :    6 (   6 usr;   0 prp; 1-3 aty)
% 0.25/0.53  %            Number of functors    :    2 (   2 usr;   2 con; 0-0 aty)
% 0.25/0.53  %            Number of variables   :   10 (   6   !;   4   ?)
% 0.25/0.53  % SPC      : FOF_THM_RFO_NEQ
% 0.25/0.53  
% 0.25/0.53  % Comments :
% 0.25/0.53  %--------------------------------------------------------------------------
% 0.25/0.53  %----MP. The number of routines cannot be low and high at the same time.
% 0.25/0.53  fof(mp_not_high_and_low,axiom,
% 0.25/0.53      ! [X,T] :
% 0.25/0.53        ~ ( number_of_routines(X,T,low)
% 0.25/0.53          & number_of_routines(X,T,high) ) ).
% 0.25/0.53  
% 0.25/0.53  %----A14. Efficient producer organizations have elaborated routines at
% 0.25/0.53  %----their founding.
% 0.25/0.53  fof(a14,hypothesis,
% 0.25/0.53      ! [X,T] :
% 0.25/0.53        ( ( organisation_at_time(X,T)
% 0.25/0.53          & efficient_producer(X)
% 0.25/0.53          & founding_time(X,T) )
% 0.25/0.53       => has_elaborated_routines(X,T) ) ).
% 0.25/0.53  
% 0.25/0.53  %----A15. First mover organizations have only a few routines at their
% 0.25/0.53  %----founding.
% 0.25/0.53  fof(a15,hypothesis,
% 0.25/0.53      ! [X,T] :
% 0.25/0.53        ( ( organisation_at_time(X,T)
% 0.25/0.53          & first_mover(X)
% 0.25/0.53          & founding_time(X,T) )
% 0.25/0.53       => number_of_routines(X,T,low) ) ).
% 0.25/0.53  
% 0.25/0.53  %----A16. Some organizations come to birth with several, but poorly
% 0.25/0.53  %----elaborated routines are not elaborated.
% 0.25/0.53  fof(a16,hypothesis,
% 0.25/0.53      ? [X,T] :
% 0.25/0.53        ( organisation_at_time(X,T)
% 0.25/0.53        & founding_time(X,T)
% 0.25/0.53        & number_of_routines(X,T,high)
% 0.25/0.53        & ~ has_elaborated_routines(X,T) ) ).
% 0.25/0.53  
% 0.25/0.53  %----GOAL: T10. There are are non-first movers and non-efficient producer
% 0.25/0.53  %----organizations.
% 0.25/0.53  fof(prove_t10,conjecture,
% 0.25/0.53      ? [X,T] :
% 0.25/0.53        ( organisation_at_time(X,T)
% 0.25/0.53        & ~ first_mover(X)
% 0.25/0.53        & ~ efficient_producer(X) ) ).
% 0.25/0.53  
% 0.25/0.53  %--------------------------------------------------------------------------
% 0.25/0.53  %-------------------------------------------
% 0.25/0.53  % Proof found
% 0.25/0.53  % SZS status Theorem for theBenchmark
% 0.25/0.53  % SZS output start Proof
% 0.25/0.53  %ClaNum:8(EqnAxiom:0)
% 0.25/0.53  %VarNum:22(SingletonVarNum:8)
% 0.25/0.53  %MaxLitNum:4
% 0.25/0.53  %MaxfuncDepth:0
% 0.25/0.53  %SharedTerms:8
% 0.25/0.53  %goalClause: 5
% 0.25/0.53  [1]P1(a1,a2)
% 0.25/0.53  [2]P2(a1,a2)
% 0.25/0.53  [3]P5(a1,a2,a3)
% 0.25/0.53  [4]~P6(a1,a2)
% 0.25/0.53  [8]~P5(x81,x82,a3)+~P5(x81,x82,a4)
% 0.25/0.53  [5]P4(x51)+P3(x51)+~P1(x51,x52)
% 0.25/0.53  [6]~P3(x61)+~P1(x61,x62)+~P2(x61,x62)+P6(x61,x62)
% 0.25/0.53  [7]~P4(x71)+~P1(x71,x72)+~P2(x71,x72)+P5(x71,x72,a4)
% 0.25/0.53  %EqnAxiom
% 0.25/0.53  
% 0.25/0.53  %-------------------------------------------
% 0.25/0.53  cnf(11,plain,
% 0.25/0.53     (P4(a1)),
% 0.25/0.53     inference(scs_inference,[],[1,2,4,6,5])).
% 0.25/0.53  cnf(13,plain,
% 0.25/0.53     ($false),
% 0.25/0.53     inference(scs_inference,[],[3,2,11,1,8,7]),
% 0.25/0.53     ['proof']).
% 0.25/0.53  % SZS output end Proof
% 0.25/0.53  % Total time :0.005449s
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------