details

property	value
status	complete
benchmark	z126.xml
ran by	Akihisa Yamada
cpu timeout	1200 seconds
wallclock timeout	300 seconds
memory limit	137438953472 bytes
execution host	n156.star.cs.uiowa.edu
space	Zantema_04

run statistics

property	value
solver	AProVE
configuration	standard
runtime (wallclock)	2.1639 seconds
cpu usage	4.9856
user time	4.76295
system time	0.22265
max virtual memory	1.9074528E7
max residence set size	548640.0

stage attributes

key	value
starexec-result	YES

output

4.59/2.07 YES 4.59/2.12 proof of /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.xml 4.59/2.12 # AProVE Commit ID: 48fb2092695e11cc9f56e44b17a92a5f88ffb256 marcel 20180622 unpublished dirty 4.59/2.12 4.59/2.12 4.59/2.12 Termination w.r.t. Q of the given QTRS could be proven: 4.59/2.12 4.59/2.12 (0) QTRS 4.59/2.12 (1) RootLabelingProof [EQUIVALENT, 0 ms] 4.59/2.12 (2) QTRS 4.59/2.12 (3) DependencyPairsProof [EQUIVALENT, 0 ms] 4.59/2.12 (4) QDP 4.59/2.12 (5) DependencyGraphProof [EQUIVALENT, 0 ms] 4.59/2.12 (6) TRUE 4.59/2.12 4.59/2.12 4.59/2.12 ---------------------------------------- 4.59/2.12 4.59/2.12 (0) 4.59/2.12 Obligation: 4.59/2.12 Q restricted rewrite system: 4.59/2.12 The TRS R consists of the following rules: 4.59/2.12 4.59/2.12 a(b(a(x1))) -> a(b(b(a(x1)))) 4.59/2.12 b(b(b(x1))) -> b(b(x1)) 4.59/2.12 4.59/2.12 Q is empty. 4.59/2.12 4.59/2.12 ---------------------------------------- 4.59/2.12 4.59/2.12 (1) RootLabelingProof (EQUIVALENT) 4.59/2.12 We used plain root labeling [ROOTLAB] with the following heuristic: 4.59/2.12 LabelAll: All function symbols get labeled 4.59/2.12 4.59/2.12 As Q is empty the root labeling was sound AND complete. 4.59/2.12 4.59/2.12 ---------------------------------------- 4.59/2.12 4.59/2.12 (2) 4.59/2.12 Obligation: 4.59/2.12 Q restricted rewrite system: 4.59/2.12 The TRS R consists of the following rules: 4.59/2.12 4.59/2.12 a_{b_1}(b_{a_1}(a_{a_1}(x1))) -> a_{b_1}(b_{b_1}(b_{a_1}(a_{a_1}(x1)))) 4.59/2.12 a_{b_1}(b_{a_1}(a_{b_1}(x1))) -> a_{b_1}(b_{b_1}(b_{a_1}(a_{b_1}(x1)))) 4.59/2.12 b_{b_1}(b_{b_1}(b_{a_1}(x1))) -> b_{b_1}(b_{a_1}(x1)) 4.59/2.12 b_{b_1}(b_{b_1}(b_{b_1}(x1))) -> b_{b_1}(b_{b_1}(x1)) 4.59/2.12 4.59/2.12 Q is empty. 4.59/2.12 4.59/2.12 ---------------------------------------- 4.59/2.12 4.59/2.12 (3) DependencyPairsProof (EQUIVALENT) 4.59/2.12 Using Dependency Pairs [AG00,LPAR04] we result in the following initial DP problem. 4.59/2.12 ---------------------------------------- 4.59/2.12 4.59/2.12 (4) 4.59/2.12 Obligation: 4.59/2.12 Q DP problem: 4.59/2.12 The TRS P consists of the following rules: 4.59/2.12 4.59/2.12 A_{B_1}(b_{a_1}(a_{a_1}(x1))) -> A_{B_1}(b_{b_1}(b_{a_1}(a_{a_1}(x1)))) 4.59/2.12 A_{B_1}(b_{a_1}(a_{a_1}(x1))) -> B_{B_1}(b_{a_1}(a_{a_1}(x1))) 4.59/2.12 A_{B_1}(b_{a_1}(a_{b_1}(x1))) -> A_{B_1}(b_{b_1}(b_{a_1}(a_{b_1}(x1)))) 4.59/2.12 A_{B_1}(b_{a_1}(a_{b_1}(x1))) -> B_{B_1}(b_{a_1}(a_{b_1}(x1))) 4.59/2.12 4.59/2.12 The TRS R consists of the following rules: 4.59/2.12 4.59/2.12 a_{b_1}(b_{a_1}(a_{a_1}(x1))) -> a_{b_1}(b_{b_1}(b_{a_1}(a_{a_1}(x1)))) 4.59/2.12 a_{b_1}(b_{a_1}(a_{b_1}(x1))) -> a_{b_1}(b_{b_1}(b_{a_1}(a_{b_1}(x1)))) 4.59/2.12 b_{b_1}(b_{b_1}(b_{a_1}(x1))) -> b_{b_1}(b_{a_1}(x1)) 4.59/2.12 b_{b_1}(b_{b_1}(b_{b_1}(x1))) -> b_{b_1}(b_{b_1}(x1)) 4.59/2.12 4.59/2.12 Q is empty. 4.59/2.12 We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains. 4.59/2.12 ---------------------------------------- 4.59/2.12 4.59/2.12 (5) DependencyGraphProof (EQUIVALENT) 4.59/2.12 The approximation of the Dependency Graph [LPAR04,FROCOS05,EDGSTAR] contains 0 SCCs with 4 less nodes. 4.59/2.12 ---------------------------------------- 4.59/2.12 4.59/2.12 (6) 4.59/2.12 TRUE 4.94/2.16 EOF popout

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

job log

popout

actions

all output return to SRS_Standard 2019-03-29 03.29