details

property	value
status	complete
benchmark	enger-nonloop-isTrueList.xml
ran by	Akihisa Yamada
cpu timeout	1200 seconds
wallclock timeout	300 seconds
memory limit	137438953472 bytes
execution host	n069.star.cs.uiowa.edu
space	EEG_IJCAR_12

run statistics

property	value
solver	NTI_22
configuration	default
runtime (wallclock)	0.977671861649 seconds
cpu usage	1.278119284
max memory	9.8086912E7

stage attributes

key	value
output-size	3512
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 pattern rule was generated by the strategy presented in Sect. 3 of [Emmes, Enger, Giesl, IJCAR'12]: [iteration = 2] f(tt,Cons(tt,_0)){_0->Cons(tt,_0)}^n{_0->nil} -> f(tt,Cons(tt,Cons(tt,_0))){_0->Cons(tt,_0)}^n{_0->nil} 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,Cons(tt,nil)), 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... ## 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^#(tt,_0) -> f^#(isList(_0),Cons(tt,_0))] TRS = {f(tt,_0) -> f(isList(_0),Cons(tt,_0)), isList(Cons(tt,_0)) -> isList(_0), isList(nil) -> tt} ## Trying with homeomorphic embeddings... Failed! ## Trying with polynomial interpretations... Failed! ## 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 = [isList^#(Cons(tt,_0)) -> isList^#(_0)] TRS = {f(tt,_0) -> f(isList(_0),Cons(tt,_0)), isList(Cons(tt,_0)) -> isList(_0), isList(nil) -> tt} ## 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 prove non-looping nontermination # Iteration 0: non-looping nontermination not proved, 1 unfolded rule generated. # Iteration 1: non-looping nontermination not proved, 5 unfolded rules generated. # Iteration 2: success, non-looping nontermination proved, 14 unfolded rules generated. Here is the successful unfolding. Let IR be the TRS under analysis. IR contains the dependency pair f^#(tt,_0) -> f^#(isList(_0),Cons(tt,_0)). We apply (I) of [Emmes, Enger, Giesl, IJCAR'12] to this dependency pair. ==> P0 = f^#(tt,_0){}^n{} -> f^#(isList(_0),Cons(tt,_0)){}^n{} is in U_IR^0. We apply (VI) of [Emmes, Enger, Giesl, IJCAR'12] to this pattern rule at position [0] using the pattern rule isList(Cons(tt,_0)){_0->Cons(tt,_0)}^n{_0->_1} -> isList(_1){_0->Cons(tt,_0)}^n{_0->_1} obtained from IR. ==> P1 = f^#(tt,Cons(tt,_0)){_0->Cons(tt,_0)}^n{_0->_1} -> f^#(isList(_1),Cons(tt,Cons(tt,_0))){_0->Cons(tt,_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] using the rule isList(nil) -> tt of IR. ==> P2 = f^#(tt,Cons(tt,_0)){_0->Cons(tt,_0)}^n{_0->nil} -> f^#(tt,Cons(tt,Cons(tt,_0))){_0->Cons(tt,_0)}^n{_0->nil} is in U_IR^2. 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 = 77 popout

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

job log

popout

actions

all output return to TRS Standard