Spaces
Explore
Communities
Statistics
Reports
Cluster
Status
Help
Higher_Order_Rewriting_Union_Beta 2019-03-28 22.10 pair #432270609
details
property
value
status
complete
benchmark
Applicative_05__TreeMap.xml
ran by
Akihisa Yamada
cpu timeout
1200 seconds
wallclock timeout
300 seconds
memory limit
137438953472 bytes
execution host
n062.star.cs.uiowa.edu
space
Uncurried_Applicative_11
run statistics
property
value
solver
Wanda 2.1c
configuration
default
runtime (wallclock)
0.522886 seconds
cpu usage
0.523425
user time
0.470176
system time
0.053249
max virtual memory
113176.0
max residence set size
16980.0
stage attributes
key
value
starexec-result
YES
output
0.00/0.50 YES 0.00/0.52 We consider the system theBenchmark. 0.00/0.52 0.00/0.52 Alphabet: 0.00/0.52 0.00/0.52 cons : [c * b] --> b 0.00/0.52 map : [c -> c * b] --> b 0.00/0.52 nil : [] --> b 0.00/0.52 node : [a * b] --> c 0.00/0.52 treemap : [a -> a] --> c -> c 0.00/0.52 0.00/0.52 Rules: 0.00/0.52 0.00/0.52 map(f, nil) => nil 0.00/0.52 map(f, cons(x, y)) => cons(f x, map(f, y)) 0.00/0.52 treemap(f) node(x, y) => node(f x, map(treemap(f), y)) 0.00/0.52 0.00/0.52 This AFS is converted to an AFSM simply by replacing all free variables by meta-variables (with arity 0). 0.00/0.52 0.00/0.52 We use rule removal, following [Kop12, Theorem 2.23]. 0.00/0.52 0.00/0.52 This gives the following requirements (possibly using Theorems 2.25 and 2.26 in [Kop12]): 0.00/0.52 0.00/0.52 map(F, nil) >? nil 0.00/0.52 map(F, cons(X, Y)) >? cons(F X, map(F, Y)) 0.00/0.52 treemap(F) node(X, Y) >? node(F X, map(treemap(F), Y)) 0.00/0.52 0.00/0.52 We use a recursive path ordering as defined in [Kop12, Chapter 5]. 0.00/0.52 0.00/0.52 Argument functions: 0.00/0.52 0.00/0.52 [[nil]] = _|_ 0.00/0.52 0.00/0.52 We choose Lex = {} and Mul = {@_{o -> o}, cons, map, node, treemap}, and the following precedence: treemap > @_{o -> o} = map > cons > node 0.00/0.52 0.00/0.52 Taking the argument function into account, and fixing the greater / greater equal choices, the constraints can be denoted as follows: 0.00/0.52 0.00/0.52 map(F, _|_) > _|_ 0.00/0.52 map(F, cons(X, Y)) >= cons(@_{o -> o}(F, X), map(F, Y)) 0.00/0.52 @_{o -> o}(treemap(F), node(X, Y)) >= node(@_{o -> o}(F, X), map(treemap(F), Y)) 0.00/0.52 0.00/0.52 With these choices, we have: 0.00/0.52 0.00/0.52 1] map(F, _|_) > _|_ because [2], by definition 0.00/0.52 2] map*(F, _|_) >= _|_ by (Bot) 0.00/0.52 0.00/0.52 3] map(F, cons(X, Y)) >= cons(@_{o -> o}(F, X), map(F, Y)) because [4], by (Star) 0.00/0.52 4] map*(F, cons(X, Y)) >= cons(@_{o -> o}(F, X), map(F, Y)) because map > cons, [5] and [10], by (Copy) 0.00/0.52 5] map*(F, cons(X, Y)) >= @_{o -> o}(F, X) because map = @_{o -> o}, map in Mul, [6] and [7], by (Stat) 0.00/0.52 6] F >= F by (Meta) 0.00/0.52 7] cons(X, Y) > X because [8], by definition 0.00/0.52 8] cons*(X, Y) >= X because [9], by (Select) 0.00/0.52 9] X >= X by (Meta) 0.00/0.52 10] map*(F, cons(X, Y)) >= map(F, Y) because map in Mul, [6] and [11], by (Stat) 0.00/0.52 11] cons(X, Y) > Y because [12], by definition 0.00/0.52 12] cons*(X, Y) >= Y because [13], by (Select) 0.00/0.52 13] Y >= Y by (Meta) 0.00/0.52 0.00/0.52 14] @_{o -> o}(treemap(F), node(X, Y)) >= node(@_{o -> o}(F, X), map(treemap(F), Y)) because [15], by (Star) 0.00/0.52 15] @_{o -> o}*(treemap(F), node(X, Y)) >= node(@_{o -> o}(F, X), map(treemap(F), Y)) because [16], by (Select) 0.00/0.52 16] treemap(F) @_{o -> o}*(treemap(F), node(X, Y)) >= node(@_{o -> o}(F, X), map(treemap(F), Y)) because [17] 0.00/0.52 17] treemap*(F, @_{o -> o}*(treemap(F), node(X, Y))) >= node(@_{o -> o}(F, X), map(treemap(F), Y)) because treemap > node, [18] and [29], by (Copy) 0.00/0.52 18] treemap*(F, @_{o -> o}*(treemap(F), node(X, Y))) >= @_{o -> o}(F, X) because treemap > @_{o -> o}, [19] and [21], by (Copy) 0.00/0.52 19] treemap*(F, @_{o -> o}*(treemap(F), node(X, Y))) >= F because [20], by (Select) 0.00/0.52 20] F >= F by (Meta) 0.00/0.52 21] treemap*(F, @_{o -> o}*(treemap(F), node(X, Y))) >= X because [22], by (Select) 0.00/0.52 22] @_{o -> o}*(treemap(F), node(X, Y)) >= X because [23], by (Select) 0.00/0.52 23] treemap(F) @_{o -> o}*(treemap(F), node(X, Y)) >= X because [24] 0.00/0.52 24] treemap*(F, @_{o -> o}*(treemap(F), node(X, Y))) >= X because [25], by (Select) 0.00/0.52 25] @_{o -> o}*(treemap(F), node(X, Y)) >= X because [26], by (Select) 0.00/0.52 26] node(X, Y) >= X because [27], by (Star) 0.00/0.52 27] node*(X, Y) >= X because [28], by (Select) 0.00/0.52 28] X >= X by (Meta) 0.00/0.52 29] treemap*(F, @_{o -> o}*(treemap(F), node(X, Y))) >= map(treemap(F), Y) because [30], by (Select) 0.00/0.52 30] @_{o -> o}*(treemap(F), node(X, Y)) >= map(treemap(F), Y) because @_{o -> o} = map, @_{o -> o} in Mul, [31] and [33], by (Stat) 0.00/0.52 31] treemap(F) >= treemap(F) because treemap in Mul and [32], by (Fun) 0.00/0.52 32] F >= F by (Meta) 0.00/0.52 33] node(X, Y) > Y because [34], by definition 0.00/0.52 34] node*(X, Y) >= Y because [35], by (Select) 0.00/0.52 35] Y >= Y by (Meta) 0.00/0.52 0.00/0.52 We can thus remove the following rules: 0.00/0.52 0.00/0.52 map(F, nil) => nil 0.00/0.52 0.00/0.52 We use rule removal, following [Kop12, Theorem 2.23]. 0.00/0.52 0.00/0.52 This gives the following requirements (possibly using Theorems 2.25 and 2.26 in [Kop12]): 0.00/0.52 0.00/0.52 map(F, cons(X, Y)) >? cons(F X, map(F, Y)) 0.00/0.52 treemap(F) node(X, Y) >? node(F X, map(treemap(F), Y)) 0.00/0.52 0.00/0.52 We use a recursive path ordering as defined in [Kop12, Chapter 5]. 0.00/0.52 0.00/0.52 We choose Lex = {} and Mul = {@_{o -> o}, cons, map, node, treemap}, and the following precedence: @_{o -> o} = map > cons > node > treemap 0.00/0.52 0.00/0.52 With these choices, we have: 0.00/0.52 0.00/0.52 1] map(F, cons(X, Y)) > cons(@_{o -> o}(F, X), map(F, Y)) because [2], by definition 0.00/0.52 2] map*(F, cons(X, Y)) >= cons(@_{o -> o}(F, X), map(F, Y)) because map > cons, [3] and [8], by (Copy)
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