Spaces
Explore
Communities
Statistics
Reports
Cluster
Status
Help
Higher_Order_Rewriting_Union_Beta 2019-03-28 22.10 pair #432270365
details
property
value
status
complete
benchmark
h01.xml
ran by
Akihisa Yamada
cpu timeout
1200 seconds
wallclock timeout
300 seconds
memory limit
137438953472 bytes
execution host
n171.star.cs.uiowa.edu
space
Hamana_Kikuchi_18
run statistics
property
value
solver
Wanda 2.1c
configuration
default
runtime (wallclock)
30.9668 seconds
cpu usage
30.9673
user time
30.3979
system time
0.569366
max virtual memory
748588.0
max residence set size
404608.0
stage attributes
key
value
starexec-result
YES
output
30.71/30.74 YES 30.91/30.93 We consider the system theBenchmark. 30.91/30.93 30.91/30.93 Alphabet: 30.91/30.93 30.91/30.93 0 : [] --> c 30.91/30.93 add : [] --> a -> c -> c 30.91/30.93 cons : [a * b] --> b 30.91/30.93 fold : [a -> c -> c * c] --> b -> c 30.91/30.93 mul : [] --> a -> c -> c 30.91/30.93 nil : [] --> b 30.91/30.93 plus : [c * c] --> c 30.91/30.93 prod : [] --> b -> c 30.91/30.93 s : [c] --> c 30.91/30.93 sum : [] --> b -> c 30.91/30.93 times : [c * c] --> c 30.91/30.93 xap : [a -> c -> c * a] --> c -> c 30.91/30.93 yap : [c -> c * c] --> c 30.91/30.93 30.91/30.93 Rules: 30.91/30.93 30.91/30.93 fold(/\x./\y.yap(xap(f, x), y), z) nil => z 30.91/30.93 fold(/\x./\y.yap(xap(f, x), y), z) cons(u, v) => yap(xap(f, u), fold(/\w./\x'.yap(xap(f, w), x'), z) v) 30.91/30.93 plus(0, x) => x 30.91/30.93 plus(s(x), y) => s(plus(x, y)) 30.91/30.93 times(0, x) => 0 30.91/30.93 times(s(x), y) => plus(times(x, y), y) 30.91/30.93 sum => fold(/\x./\y.yap(xap(add, x), y), 0) 30.91/30.93 prod => fold(/\x./\y.yap(xap(mul, x), y), s(0)) 30.91/30.93 xap(f, x) => f x 30.91/30.93 yap(f, x) => f x 30.91/30.93 30.91/30.93 This AFS is converted to an AFSM simply by replacing all free variables by meta-variables (with arity 0). 30.91/30.93 30.91/30.93 Symbol xap is an encoding for application that is only used in innocuous ways. We can simplify the program (without losing non-termination) by removing it. This gives: 30.91/30.93 30.91/30.93 Alphabet: 30.91/30.93 30.91/30.93 0 : [] --> c 30.91/30.93 add : [a] --> c -> c 30.91/30.93 cons : [a * b] --> b 30.91/30.93 fold : [a -> c -> c * c] --> b -> c 30.91/30.93 mul : [a] --> c -> c 30.91/30.93 nil : [] --> b 30.91/30.93 plus : [c * c] --> c 30.91/30.93 prod : [] --> b -> c 30.91/30.93 s : [c] --> c 30.91/30.93 sum : [] --> b -> c 30.91/30.93 times : [c * c] --> c 30.91/30.93 yap : [c -> c * c] --> c 30.91/30.93 30.91/30.93 Rules: 30.91/30.93 30.91/30.93 fold(/\x./\y.yap(F(x), y), X) nil => X 30.91/30.93 fold(/\x./\y.yap(F(x), y), X) cons(Y, Z) => yap(F(Y), fold(/\z./\u.yap(F(z), u), X) Z) 30.91/30.93 plus(0, X) => X 30.91/30.93 plus(s(X), Y) => s(plus(X, Y)) 30.91/30.93 times(0, X) => 0 30.91/30.93 times(s(X), Y) => plus(times(X, Y), Y) 30.91/30.93 sum => fold(/\x./\y.yap(add(x), y), 0) 30.91/30.93 prod => fold(/\x./\y.yap(mul(x), y), s(0)) 30.91/30.93 yap(F, X) => F X 30.91/30.93 30.91/30.93 We use rule removal, following [Kop12, Theorem 2.23]. 30.91/30.93 30.91/30.93 This gives the following requirements (possibly using Theorems 2.25 and 2.26 in [Kop12]): 30.91/30.93 30.91/30.93 fold(/\x./\y.yap(F(x), y), X) nil >? X 30.91/30.93 fold(/\x./\y.yap(F(x), y), X) cons(Y, Z) >? yap(F(Y), fold(/\z./\u.yap(F(z), u), X) Z) 30.91/30.93 plus(0, X) >? X 30.91/30.93 plus(s(X), Y) >? s(plus(X, Y)) 30.91/30.93 times(0, X) >? 0 30.91/30.93 times(s(X), Y) >? plus(times(X, Y), Y) 30.91/30.93 sum >? fold(/\x./\y.yap(add(x), y), 0) 30.91/30.93 prod >? fold(/\x./\y.yap(mul(x), y), s(0)) 30.91/30.93 yap(F, X) >? F X 30.91/30.93 30.91/30.93 We use a recursive path ordering as defined in [Kop12, Chapter 5]. 30.91/30.93 30.91/30.93 Argument functions: 30.91/30.93 30.91/30.93 [[0]] = _|_ 30.91/30.93 30.91/30.93 We choose Lex = {} and Mul = {@_{o -> o}, add, cons, fold, mul, nil, plus, prod, s, sum, times, yap}, and the following precedence: cons > prod > mul > nil > sum > add > fold > times > plus > s > yap > @_{o -> o} 30.91/30.93 30.91/30.93 Taking the argument function into account, and fixing the greater / greater equal choices, the constraints can be denoted as follows: 30.91/30.93 30.91/30.93 @_{o -> o}(fold(/\x./\y.yap(F(x), y), X), nil) >= X 30.91/30.93 @_{o -> o}(fold(/\x./\y.yap(F(x), y), X), cons(Y, Z)) >= yap(F(Y), @_{o -> o}(fold(/\x./\y.yap(F(x), y), X), Z)) 30.91/30.93 plus(_|_, X) >= X 30.91/30.93 plus(s(X), Y) >= s(plus(X, Y)) 30.91/30.93 times(_|_, X) >= _|_ 30.91/30.93 times(s(X), Y) > plus(times(X, Y), Y) 30.91/30.93 sum >= fold(/\x./\y.yap(add(x), y), _|_) 30.91/30.93 prod >= fold(/\x./\y.yap(mul(x), y), s(_|_)) 30.91/30.93 yap(F, X) >= @_{o -> o}(F, X) 30.91/30.93 30.91/30.93 With these choices, we have: 30.91/30.93 30.91/30.93 1] @_{o -> o}(fold(/\x./\y.yap(F(x), y), X), nil) >= X because [2], by (Star)
popout
output may be truncated. 'popout' for the full output.
job log
popout
actions
all output
return to Higher_Order_Rewriting_Union_Beta 2019-03-28 22.10