Spaces
Explore
Communities
Statistics
Reports
Cluster
Status
Help
TRS Standard pair #487067295
details
property
value
status
complete
benchmark
enger-nonloop-toOne.xml
ran by
Akihisa Yamada
cpu timeout
1200 seconds
wallclock timeout
300 seconds
memory limit
137438953472 bytes
execution host
n073.star.cs.uiowa.edu
space
EEG_IJCAR_12
run statistics
property
value
solver
NTI-TC20-firstrun
configuration
Default 200
runtime (wallclock)
0.446841 seconds
cpu usage
1.15771
user time
1.06827
system time
0.089441
max virtual memory
113188.0
max residence set size
198724.0
stage attributes
key
value
starexec-result
NO
output
NO Prover = TRS(tech=PATTERN_RULES, nb_unfoldings=unlimited, max_nb_unfolded_rules=200) ** BEGIN proof argument ** The following pattern rule was generated by the strategy presented in Sect. 3 of [Emmes, Enger, Giesl, IJCAR'12]: [iteration = 4] f(tt,s(s(_0))){_0->s(_0)}^n{_0->0} -> f(tt,s(s(s(_0)))){_0->s(_0)}^n{_0->0} We apply Theorem 8 of [Emmes, Enger, Giesl, IJCAR'12] on this rule with m = 1, b = 1, pi = epsilon, sigma' = {} and mu' = {}. Hence the term f(tt,s(s(0))), obtained from instantiating n with 0 in the left-hand side of the rule, starts an infinite derivation w.r.t. the analyzed TRS. ** END proof argument ** ** BEGIN proof description ** ## Searching for a generalized rewrite rule (a rule whose right-hand side contains a variable that does not occur in the left-hand side)... No generalized rewrite rule found! ## Applying the DP framework... ## Round 1: ## DP problem: Dependency pairs = [f^#(tt,_0) -> f^#(eq(toOne(_0),s(0)),s(_0))] TRS = {f(tt,_0) -> f(eq(toOne(_0),s(0)),s(_0)), eq(s(_0),s(_1)) -> eq(_0,_1), eq(0,0) -> tt, toOne(s(s(_0))) -> toOne(s(_0)), toOne(s(0)) -> s(0)} ## Trying with homeomorphic embeddings... Failed! ## Trying with polynomial interpretations... Too many coefficients (15)! Aborting! ## Trying with lexicographic path orders... Failed! ## Trying to prove nontermination by unfolding the dependency pairs with the rules of the TRS # Iteration 0: nontermination not detected, 1 unfolded rule generated. # Iteration 1: nontermination not detected, 5 unfolded rules generated. # Iteration 2: nontermination not detected, 16 unfolded rules generated. # Iteration 3: nontermination not detected, 43 unfolded rules generated. # Iteration 4: nontermination detected, 98 unfolded rules generated. Here is the successful unfolding. Let IR be the TRS under analysis. IR contains the dependency pair f^#(tt,_0) -> f^#(eq(toOne(_0),s(0)),s(_0)). We apply (I) of [Emmes, Enger, Giesl, IJCAR'12] to this dependency pair. ==> P0 = f^#(tt,_0){}^n{} -> f^#(eq(toOne(_0),s(0)),s(_0)){}^n{} is in U_IR^0. We apply (VI) of [Emmes, Enger, Giesl, IJCAR'12] to this pattern rule at position [0, 0] using the pattern rule toOne(s(s(_0))){_0->s(_0)}^n{_0->_1} -> toOne(s(_1)){_0->s(_0)}^n{_0->_1} obtained from IR. ==> P1 = f^#(tt,s(s(_0))){_0->s(_0)}^n{_0->_1} -> f^#(eq(toOne(s(_1)),s(0)),s(s(s(_0)))){_0->s(_0)}^n{_0->_1} is in U_IR^1. We apply (V) + (IX) of [Emmes, Enger, Giesl, IJCAR'12] to this pattern rule at position [0, 0] using the rule toOne(s(0)) -> s(0) of IR. ==> P2 = f^#(tt,s(s(_0))){_0->s(_0)}^n{_0->0} -> f^#(eq(s(0),s(0)),s(s(s(_0)))){_0->s(_0)}^n{_0->0} is in U_IR^2. We apply (IX) of [Emmes, Enger, Giesl, IJCAR'12] to this pattern rule at position [0] using the rule eq(s(_0),s(_1)) -> eq(_0,_1) of IR. ==> P3 = f^#(tt,s(s(_0))){_0->s(_0)}^n{_0->0} -> f^#(eq(0,0),s(s(s(_0)))){_0->s(_0)}^n{_0->0} is in U_IR^3. We apply (IX) of [Emmes, Enger, Giesl, IJCAR'12] to this pattern rule at position [0] using the rule eq(0,0) -> tt of IR. ==> P4 = f^#(tt,s(s(_0))){_0->s(_0)}^n{_0->0} -> f^#(tt,s(s(s(_0)))){_0->s(_0)}^n{_0->0} is in U_IR^4. This DP problem is infinite. ** END proof description ** Proof stopped at iteration 4 Number of unfolded rules generated by this proof = 163 Number of unfolded rules generated by all the parallel proofs = 689
popout
output may be truncated. 'popout' for the full output.
job log
popout
actions
all output
return to TRS Standard