details

property	value
status	complete
benchmark	Ex24_GM04_FR.xml
ran by	Akihisa Yamada
cpu timeout	1200 seconds
wallclock timeout	300 seconds
memory limit	137438953472 bytes
execution host	n175.star.cs.uiowa.edu
space	Transformed_CSR_04

run statistics

property	value
solver	NTI_22
configuration	default
runtime (wallclock)	0.287243127823 seconds
cpu usage	0.53978571
max memory	5.8445824E7

stage attributes

key	value
output-size	5673
starexec-result	NO

output

/export/starexec/sandbox2/solver/bin/starexec_run_default /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.xml /export/starexec/sandbox2/output/output_files -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- NO ** BEGIN proof argument ** The following rule was generated while unfolding the analyzed TRS: [iteration = 7] f(c,n__g(c),n__g(b)) -> f(c,n__g(c),n__g(b)) 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 = f(c,n__g(c),n__g(b)) and theta2(theta1(l)) = theta1(r|p). Hence, the term theta1(l) = f(c,n__g(c),n__g(b)) 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... ## 2 initial DP problems to solve. ## First, we try to decompose these problems into smaller problems. ## Round 1 [2 DP problems]: ## DP problem: Dependency pairs = [f^#(_0,n__g(_0),_1) -> f^#(activate(_1),activate(_1),activate(_1))] TRS = {f(_0,n__g(_0),_1) -> f(activate(_1),activate(_1),activate(_1)), g(b) -> c, b -> c, g(_0) -> n__g(_0), activate(n__g(_0)) -> g(activate(_0)), activate(_0) -> _0} ## Trying with homeomorphic embeddings... Failed! ## Trying with polynomial interpretations... This DP problem is too complex! Aborting! ## Trying with lexicographic path orders... Failed! ## Trying with Knuth-Bendix orders... Failed! Don't know whether this DP problem is finite. ## DP problem: Dependency pairs = [activate^#(n__g(_0)) -> activate^#(_0)] TRS = {f(_0,n__g(_0),_1) -> f(activate(_1),activate(_1),activate(_1)), g(b) -> c, b -> c, g(_0) -> n__g(_0), activate(n__g(_0)) -> g(activate(_0)), activate(_0) -> _0} ## Trying with homeomorphic embeddings... Success! This DP problem is finite. ## A DP problem could not be proved finite. ## Now, we try to prove that this problem is infinite. ## Trying to find a loop (forward=true, backward=false, max=-1) # max_depth=2, unfold_variables=false: # Iteration 0: no loop found, 1 unfolded rule generated. # Iteration 1: no loop found, 1 unfolded rule generated. # Iteration 2: no loop found, 2 unfolded rules generated. # Iteration 3: no loop found, 2 unfolded rules generated. # Iteration 4: no loop found, 2 unfolded rules generated. # Iteration 5: no loop found, 0 unfolded rule generated. No loop found at all! # max_depth=2, unfold_variables=true: # Iteration 0: no loop found, 1 unfolded rule generated. # Iteration 1: no loop found, 1 unfolded rule generated. # Iteration 2: no loop found, 2 unfolded rules generated. # Iteration 3: no loop found, 2 unfolded rules generated. # Iteration 4: no loop found, 1 unfolded rule generated. # Iteration 5: no loop found, 2 unfolded rules generated. # Iteration 6: no loop found, 6 unfolded rules generated. # Iteration 7: no loop found, 0 unfolded rule generated. No loop found at all! # max_depth=3, unfold_variables=false: # Iteration 0: no loop found, 1 unfolded rule generated. # Iteration 1: no loop found, 1 unfolded rule generated. # Iteration 2: no loop found, 4 unfolded rules generated. # Iteration 3: no loop found, 8 unfolded rules generated. # Iteration 4: no loop found, 16 unfolded rules generated. # Iteration 5: no loop found, 19 unfolded rules generated. # Iteration 6: no loop found, 31 unfolded rules generated. # Iteration 7: success, found a loop, 23 unfolded rules generated. Here is the successful unfolding. Let IR be the TRS under analysis. L0 = f^#(_0,n__g(_0),_1) -> f^#(activate(_1),activate(_1),activate(_1)) [trans] is in U_IR^0. We build a unit triple from L0. ==> L1 = f^#(_0,n__g(_0),_1) -> f^#(activate(_1),activate(_1),activate(_1)) [unit] is in U_IR^1. Let p1 = [0]. We unfold the rule of L1 forwards at position p1 with the rule activate(n__g(_0)) -> g(activate(_0)). ==> L2 = f^#(_0,n__g(_0),n__g(_1)) -> f^#(g(activate(_1)),activate(n__g(_1)),activate(n__g(_1))) [unit] is in U_IR^2. Let p2 = [0, 0]. We unfold the rule of L2 forwards at position p2 with the rule activate(_0) -> _0. ==> L3 = f^#(_0,n__g(_0),n__g(_1)) -> f^#(g(_1),activate(n__g(_1)),activate(n__g(_1))) [unit] is in U_IR^3. Let p3 = [0]. We unfold the rule of L3 forwards at position p3 with the rule g(b) -> c. ==> L4 = f^#(c,n__g(c),n__g(b)) -> f^#(c,activate(n__g(b)),activate(n__g(b))) [unit] is in U_IR^4. Let p4 = [1]. We unfold the rule of L4 forwards at position p4 with the rule activate(_0) -> _0. ==> L5 = f^#(c,n__g(c),n__g(b)) -> f^#(c,n__g(b),activate(n__g(b))) [unit] is in U_IR^5. Let p5 = [1, 0]. We unfold the rule of L5 forwards at position p5 with the rule b -> c. ==> L6 = f^#(c,n__g(c),n__g(b)) -> f^#(c,n__g(c),activate(n__g(b))) [unit] is in U_IR^6. Let p6 = [2]. We unfold the rule of L6 forwards at position p6 with the rule activate(_0) -> _0. ==> L7 = f^#(c,n__g(c),n__g(b)) -> f^#(c,n__g(c),n__g(b)) [unit] is in U_IR^7. This DP problem is infinite. Proof run on Linux version 3.10.0-1160.25.1.el7.x86_64 for amd64 popout

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

job log

popout

actions

all output return to TRS Standard