details

property	value
status	complete
benchmark	#4.21.xml
ran by	Akihisa Yamada
cpu timeout	1200 seconds
wallclock timeout	300 seconds
memory limit	137438953472 bytes
execution host	n062.star.cs.uiowa.edu
space	Strategy_removed_AG01

run statistics

property	value
solver	NTI_22
configuration	default
runtime (wallclock)	0.339901924133 seconds
cpu usage	0.570425279
max memory	6.8427776E7

stage attributes

key	value
output-size	2162
starexec-result	MAYBE

output

/export/starexec/sandbox2/solver/bin/starexec_run_default /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.xml /export/starexec/sandbox2/output/output_files -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MAYBE ** 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 = [g^#(0) -> g^#(f(0)), g^#(g(_0)) -> g^#(_0)] TRS = {f(1) -> f(g(1)), f(f(_0)) -> f(_0), g(0) -> g(f(0)), g(g(_0)) -> g(_0)} ## 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 = [f^#(1) -> f^#(g(1)), f^#(f(_0)) -> f^#(_0)] TRS = {f(1) -> f(g(1)), f(f(_0)) -> f(_0), g(0) -> g(f(0)), g(g(_0)) -> g(_0)} ## 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. ## Some DP problems could not be proved finite. ## Now, we try to prove that one of these problems is infinite. ## Could not solve the following DP problems: 1: Dependency pairs = [g^#(0) -> g^#(f(0)), g^#(g(_0)) -> g^#(_0)] TRS = {f(1) -> f(g(1)), f(f(_0)) -> f(_0), g(0) -> g(f(0)), g(g(_0)) -> g(_0)} 2: Dependency pairs = [f^#(1) -> f^#(g(1)), f^#(f(_0)) -> f^#(_0)] TRS = {f(1) -> f(g(1)), f(f(_0)) -> f(_0), g(0) -> g(f(0)), g(g(_0)) -> g(_0)} Hence, could not prove (non)termination of the TRS under analysis. 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 = 494 popout

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

job log

popout

actions

all output return to TRS Standard