details

property	value
status	complete
benchmark	test10.xml
ran by	Akihisa Yamada
cpu timeout	1200 seconds
wallclock timeout	300 seconds
memory limit	137438953472 bytes
execution host	n003.star.cs.uiowa.edu
space	Strategy_removed_mixed_05

run statistics

property	value
solver	NTI_22
configuration	default
runtime (wallclock)	0.244864940643 seconds
cpu usage	0.271174902
max memory	4.16768E7

stage attributes

key	value
output-size	2739
starexec-result	NO

output

/export/starexec/sandbox/solver/bin/starexec_run_default /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.xml /export/starexec/sandbox/output/output_files -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- NO ** BEGIN proof argument ** The following rule was generated while unfolding the analyzed TRS: [iteration = 1] h(_0,g(_0,s(_0))) -> h(0,g(_0,s(_0))) Let l be the left-hand side and r be the right-hand side of this rule. Let p = epsilon, theta1 = {_0->0} and theta2 = {}. We have r|p = h(0,g(_0,s(_0))) and theta2(theta1(l)) = theta1(r|p). Hence, the term theta1(l) = h(0,g(0,s(0))) 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 = [h^#(_0,_1) -> f^#(_0,s(_0),_1), f^#(_0,_1,g(_0,_1)) -> h^#(0,g(_0,_1))] TRS = {h(_0,_1) -> f(_0,s(_0),_1), f(_0,_1,g(_0,_1)) -> h(0,g(_0,_1)), g(0,_0) -> 0, g(_0,s(_1)) -> g(_0,_1)} ## 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 = [g^#(_0,s(_1)) -> g^#(_0,_1)] TRS = {h(_0,_1) -> f(_0,s(_0),_1), f(_0,_1,g(_0,_1)) -> h(0,g(_0,_1)), g(0,_0) -> 0, g(_0,s(_1)) -> g(_0,_1)} ## 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, 2 unfolded rules generated. # Iteration 1: success, found a loop, 2 unfolded rules generated. Here is the successful unfolding. Let IR be the TRS under analysis. L0 = h^#(_0,_1) -> f^#(_0,s(_0),_1) [trans] is in U_IR^0. D = f^#(_0,_1,g(_0,_1)) -> h^#(0,g(_0,_1)) is a dependency pair of IR. We build a composed triple from L0 and D. ==> L1 = h^#(_0,g(_0,s(_0))) -> h^#(0,g(_0,s(_0))) [trans] is in U_IR^1. This DP problem is infinite. 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 = 11 popout

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

job log

popout

actions

all output return to TRS Standard