Spaces
Explore
Communities
Statistics
Reports
Cluster
Status
Help
TRS Standard pair #487069730
details
property
value
status
complete
benchmark
Ex24_Luc06_iGM.xml
ran by
Akihisa Yamada
cpu timeout
1200 seconds
wallclock timeout
300 seconds
memory limit
137438953472 bytes
execution host
n185.star.cs.uiowa.edu
space
Transformed_CSR_04
run statistics
property
value
solver
NTI-TC20-firstrun
configuration
Default 200
runtime (wallclock)
0.545152 seconds
cpu usage
1.21254
user time
1.11239
system time
0.100144
max virtual memory
113188.0
max residence set size
180160.0
stage attributes
key
value
starexec-result
NO
output
NO Prover = TRS(tech=GUIDED_UNF_TRIPLES, nb_unfoldings=unlimited, unfold_variables=false, max_nb_coefficients=12, max_nb_unfolded_rules=-1, strategy=LEFTMOST_NE) ** BEGIN proof argument ** The following rule was generated while unfolding the analyzed TRS: [iteration = 5] active(f(b,mark(c),c)) -> active(f(b,mark(c),c)) Let l be the left-hand side and r be the right-hand side of this rule. Let p = epsilon, theta1 = {} and theta2 = {}. We have r|p = active(f(b,mark(c),c)) and theta2(theta1(l)) = theta1(r|p). Hence, the term theta1(l) = active(f(b,mark(c),c)) loops 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 = [active^#(f(b,_0,c)) -> mark^#(f(_0,c,_0)), mark^#(f(_0,_1,_2)) -> active^#(f(_0,mark(_1),_2)), mark^#(f(_0,_1,_2)) -> mark^#(_1)] TRS = {active(f(b,_0,c)) -> mark(f(_0,c,_0)), active(c) -> mark(b), mark(f(_0,_1,_2)) -> active(f(_0,mark(_1),_2)), mark(b) -> active(b), mark(c) -> active(c), f(mark(_0),_1,_2) -> f(_0,_1,_2), f(_0,mark(_1),_2) -> f(_0,_1,_2), f(_0,_1,mark(_2)) -> f(_0,_1,_2), f(active(_0),_1,_2) -> f(_0,_1,_2), f(_0,active(_1),_2) -> f(_0,_1,_2), f(_0,_1,active(_2)) -> f(_0,_1,_2)} ## 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 # max_depth=3, unfold_variables=false: # Iteration 0: nontermination not detected, 3 unfolded rules generated. # Iteration 1: nontermination not detected, 8 unfolded rules generated. # Iteration 2: nontermination not detected, 48 unfolded rules generated. # Iteration 3: nontermination not detected, 134 unfolded rules generated. # Iteration 4: nontermination not detected, 279 unfolded rules generated. # Iteration 5: nontermination detected, 26 unfolded rules generated. Here is the successful unfolding. Let IR be the TRS under analysis. L0 = active^#(f(b,_0,c)) -> mark^#(f(_0,c,_0)) [trans] is in U_IR^0. D = mark^#(f(_0,_1,_2)) -> active^#(f(_0,mark(_1),_2)) is a dependency pair of IR. We build a composed triple from L0 and D. ==> L1 = [active^#(f(b,_0,c)) -> mark^#(f(_0,c,_0)), mark^#(f(_1,_2,_3)) -> active^#(f(_1,mark(_2),_3))] [comp] is in U_IR^1. Let p1 = [0]. We unfold the first rule of L1 forwards at position p1 with the rule f(_0,_1,mark(_2)) -> f(_0,_1,_2). ==> L2 = [active^#(f(b,mark(_0),c)) -> mark^#(f(mark(_0),c,_0)), mark^#(f(_1,_2,_3)) -> active^#(f(_1,mark(_2),_3))] [comp] is in U_IR^2. Let p2 = [0, 0]. We unfold the first rule of L2 forwards at position p2 with the rule mark(c) -> active(c). ==> L3 = [active^#(f(b,mark(c),c)) -> mark^#(f(active(c),c,c)), mark^#(f(_0,_1,_2)) -> active^#(f(_0,mark(_1),_2))] [comp] is in U_IR^3. Let p3 = [0, 0]. We unfold the first rule of L3 forwards at position p3 with the rule active(c) -> mark(b). ==> L4 = [active^#(f(b,mark(c),c)) -> mark^#(f(mark(b),c,c)), mark^#(f(_0,_1,_2)) -> active^#(f(_0,mark(_1),_2))] [comp] is in U_IR^4. Let p4 = [0]. We unfold the first rule of L4 forwards at position p4 with the rule f(mark(_0),_1,_2) -> f(_0,_1,_2). ==> L5 = active^#(f(b,mark(c),c)) -> active^#(f(b,mark(c),c)) [trans] is in U_IR^5. This DP problem is infinite. ** END proof description ** Proof stopped at iteration 5 Number of unfolded rules generated by this proof = 498 Number of unfolded rules generated by all the parallel proofs = 2247
popout
output may be truncated. 'popout' for the full output.
job log
popout
actions
all output
return to TRS Standard