details

property	value
status	complete
benchmark	19.xml
ran by	Akihisa Yamada
cpu timeout	1200 seconds
wallclock timeout	300 seconds
memory limit	137438953472 bytes
execution host	n074.star.cs.uiowa.edu
space	Various_04

run statistics

property	value
solver	NTI_22
configuration	default
runtime (wallclock)	0.319732904434 seconds
cpu usage	0.439678657
max memory	3.40992E7

stage attributes

key	value
output-size	2694
starexec-result	YES

output

/export/starexec/sandbox2/solver/bin/starexec_run_default /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.xml /export/starexec/sandbox2/output/output_files -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- YES ** BEGIN proof argument ** All the DP problems were proved finite. As all the involved DP processors are sound, the TRS under analysis terminates. ** 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... ## 1 initial DP problem to solve. ## First, we try to decompose this problem into smaller problems. ## Round 1 [1 DP problem]: ## DP problem: Dependency pairs = [i^#(:(_0,_1)) -> :^#(_1,_0), :^#(i(_0),:(_1,:(_0,_2))) -> i^#(_2), :^#(i(_0),:(_1,_0)) -> i^#(_1), :^#(_0,:(_1,:(i(_0),_2))) -> i^#(_2), :^#(_0,:(_1,i(_0))) -> i^#(_1), :^#(e,_0) -> i^#(_0), :^#(:(_0,_1),_2) -> i^#(_1), :^#(:(_0,_1),_2) -> :^#(_0,:(_2,i(_1))), :^#(:(_0,_1),_2) -> :^#(_2,i(_1)), :^#(_0,:(_1,:(i(_0),_2))) -> :^#(i(_2),_1), :^#(i(_0),:(_1,:(_0,_2))) -> :^#(i(_2),_1)] TRS = {:(_0,_0) -> e, :(_0,e) -> _0, i(:(_0,_1)) -> :(_1,_0), :(:(_0,_1),_2) -> :(_0,:(_2,i(_1))), :(e,_0) -> i(_0), i(i(_0)) -> _0, i(e) -> e, :(_0,:(_1,i(_0))) -> i(_1), :(_0,:(_1,:(i(_0),_2))) -> :(i(_2),_1), :(i(_0),:(_1,_0)) -> i(_1), :(i(_0),:(_1,:(_0,_2))) -> :(i(_2),_1)} ## Trying with homeomorphic embeddings... Failed! ## Trying with polynomial interpretations... Successfully decomposed the DP problem into 1 smaller problem to solve! ## Round 2 [1 DP problem]: ## DP problem: Dependency pairs = [:^#(:(_0,_1),_2) -> :^#(_0,:(_2,i(_1)))] TRS = {:(_0,_0) -> e, :(_0,e) -> _0, i(:(_0,_1)) -> :(_1,_0), :(:(_0,_1),_2) -> :(_0,:(_2,i(_1))), :(e,_0) -> i(_0), i(i(_0)) -> _0, i(e) -> e, :(_0,:(_1,i(_0))) -> i(_1), :(_0,:(_1,:(i(_0),_2))) -> :(i(_2),_1), :(i(_0),:(_1,_0)) -> i(_1), :(i(_0),:(_1,:(_0,_2))) -> :(i(_2),_1)} ## Trying with homeomorphic embeddings... Failed! ## Trying with polynomial interpretations... The constraints are satisfied by the polynomials: {i(_0):[_0], e:[0], :(_0,_1):[1 + _0 + _1], :^#(_0,_1):[_0]} for all instantiations of the variables with values greater than or equal to mu = 0. This DP problem is finite. ## All the DP problems were proved finite. As all the involved DP processors are sound, the TRS under analysis terminates. Proof run on Linux version 3.10.0-1160.25.1.el7.x86_64 for amd64 using Java version 1.8.0_292 ** END proof description ** Total number of generated unfolded rules = 0 popout

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

job log

popout

actions

all output return to TRS Standard