details

property	value
status	complete
benchmark	ohl.xml
ran by	Akihisa Yamada
cpu timeout	1200 seconds
wallclock timeout	300 seconds
memory limit	137438953472 bytes
execution host	n007.star.cs.uiowa.edu
space	Mixed_CTRS_2014

run statistics

property	value
solver	AProVE
configuration	standard
runtime (wallclock)	1.93476 seconds
cpu usage	4.03234
user time	3.84278
system time	0.189563
max virtual memory	1.8410936E7
max residence set size	299200.0

stage attributes

key	value
starexec-result	MAYBE

output

3.71/1.89 MAYBE 3.97/1.89 proof of /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.xml 3.97/1.89 # AProVE Commit ID: 48fb2092695e11cc9f56e44b17a92a5f88ffb256 marcel 20180622 unpublished dirty 3.97/1.89 3.97/1.89 3.97/1.89 Quasi decreasingness of the given CTRS could not be shown: 3.97/1.89 3.97/1.89 (0) CTRS 3.97/1.89 (1) CTRSToQTRSProof [SOUND, 0 ms] 3.97/1.89 (2) QTRS 3.97/1.89 (3) DependencyPairsProof [EQUIVALENT, 0 ms] 3.97/1.89 (4) QDP 3.97/1.89 (5) DependencyGraphProof [EQUIVALENT, 0 ms] 3.97/1.89 (6) QDP 3.97/1.89 (7) NonTerminationLoopProof [COMPLETE, 0 ms] 3.97/1.89 (8) NO 3.97/1.89 3.97/1.89 3.97/1.89 ---------------------------------------- 3.97/1.89 3.97/1.89 (0) 3.97/1.89 Obligation: 3.97/1.89 Conditional term rewrite system: 3.97/1.89 The TRS R consists of the following rules: 3.97/1.89 3.97/1.89 h(d) -> c(a) 3.97/1.89 h(d) -> c(b) 3.97/1.89 f(k(a), k(b), x) -> f(x, x, x) 3.97/1.89 3.97/1.89 The conditional TRS C consists of the following conditional rules: 3.97/1.89 3.97/1.89 g(x) -> k(y) <= h(x) -> d, h(x) -> c(y) 3.97/1.89 3.97/1.89 3.97/1.89 ---------------------------------------- 3.97/1.89 3.97/1.89 (1) CTRSToQTRSProof (SOUND) 3.97/1.89 The conditional rules have been transormed into unconditional rules according to [CTRS,AAECCNOC]. 3.97/1.89 ---------------------------------------- 3.97/1.89 3.97/1.89 (2) 3.97/1.89 Obligation: 3.97/1.89 Q restricted rewrite system: 3.97/1.89 The TRS R consists of the following rules: 3.97/1.89 3.97/1.89 g(x) -> U1(h(x), x) 3.97/1.89 U1(d, x) -> U2(h(x)) 3.97/1.89 U2(c(y)) -> k(y) 3.97/1.89 h(d) -> c(a) 3.97/1.89 h(d) -> c(b) 3.97/1.89 f(k(a), k(b), x) -> f(x, x, x) 3.97/1.89 3.97/1.89 Q is empty. 3.97/1.89 3.97/1.89 ---------------------------------------- 3.97/1.89 3.97/1.89 (3) DependencyPairsProof (EQUIVALENT) 3.97/1.89 Using Dependency Pairs [AG00,LPAR04] we result in the following initial DP problem. 3.97/1.89 ---------------------------------------- 3.97/1.89 3.97/1.89 (4) 3.97/1.89 Obligation: 3.97/1.89 Q DP problem: 3.97/1.89 The TRS P consists of the following rules: 3.97/1.89 3.97/1.89 G(x) -> U1^1(h(x), x) 3.97/1.89 G(x) -> H(x) 3.97/1.89 U1^1(d, x) -> U2^1(h(x)) 3.97/1.89 U1^1(d, x) -> H(x) 3.97/1.89 F(k(a), k(b), x) -> F(x, x, x) 3.97/1.89 3.97/1.89 The TRS R consists of the following rules: 3.97/1.89 3.97/1.89 g(x) -> U1(h(x), x) 3.97/1.89 U1(d, x) -> U2(h(x)) 3.97/1.89 U2(c(y)) -> k(y) 3.97/1.89 h(d) -> c(a) 3.97/1.89 h(d) -> c(b) 3.97/1.89 f(k(a), k(b), x) -> f(x, x, x) 3.97/1.89 3.97/1.89 Q is empty. 3.97/1.89 We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains. 3.97/1.89 ---------------------------------------- 3.97/1.89 3.97/1.89 (5) DependencyGraphProof (EQUIVALENT) 3.97/1.89 The approximation of the Dependency Graph [LPAR04,FROCOS05,EDGSTAR] contains 1 SCC with 4 less nodes. 3.97/1.89 ---------------------------------------- 3.97/1.89 3.97/1.89 (6) 3.97/1.89 Obligation: 3.97/1.89 Q DP problem: 3.97/1.89 The TRS P consists of the following rules: 3.97/1.89 3.97/1.89 F(k(a), k(b), x) -> F(x, x, x) 3.97/1.89 3.97/1.89 The TRS R consists of the following rules: 3.97/1.89 3.97/1.89 g(x) -> U1(h(x), x) 3.97/1.89 U1(d, x) -> U2(h(x)) 3.97/1.89 U2(c(y)) -> k(y) popout

output may be truncated. 'popout' for the full output.

job log

popout

actions

all output return to TRS_Conditional 2019-03-28 22.59