TRS Standard pair #615297300

details

property	value
status	complete
benchmark	jw43.xml
ran by	Akihisa Yamada
cpu timeout	1200 seconds
wallclock timeout	300 seconds
memory limit	137438953472 bytes
execution host	n028.star.cs.uiowa.edu
space	Zantema_05

run statistics

property	value
solver	NTI_23
configuration	default
runtime (wallclock)	0.624440193176 seconds
cpu usage	1.814655644
max memory	1.48013056E8

stage attributes

key	value
output-size	2851
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...
## 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 = [f^#(_0,f(f(a,a),a)) -> f^#(f(a,f(a,a)),_0), f^#(_0,f(f(a,a),a)) -> f^#(a,f(a,a))]
  TRS = {f(_0,f(f(a,a),a)) -> f(f(a,f(a,a)),_0)}
    ## DP Processor: homeomorphic embeddings. 
      Using no argument filtering, i.e., applying the processor to the full problem only.
      Failed!
    ## DP Processor: lexicographic path orders. 
      Using no argument filtering, i.e., applying the processor to the full problem only.
      Failed!
    ## DP Processor: polynomial interpretations. 
      Using no argument filtering, i.e., applying the processor to the full problem only.
      Polynomial order induced by the interpretation: {f^#(_0,_1):[2 + 2 * _0 + 2 * _1 + 2 * _0 * _1], a:[2], f(_0,_1):[2 + 2 * _0 + 2 * _1 + 2 * _0 * _1]}
      and the value mu = 2 (see [Giesl, RTA'95])
      Decomposed the DP problem into 1 smaller problem to solve!
## Round 2 [1 DP problem]:
  ## DP problem:
  Dependency pairs = [f^#(_0,f(f(a,a),a)) -> f^#(f(a,f(a,a)),_0)]
  TRS = {f(_0,f(f(a,a),a)) -> f(f(a,f(a,a)),_0)}
    ## DP Processor: homeomorphic embeddings. 
      Using no argument filtering, i.e., applying the processor to the full problem only.
      Failed!
    ## DP Processor: lexicographic path orders. 
      Using no argument filtering, i.e., applying the processor to the full problem only.
      Failed!
    ## DP Processor: polynomial interpretations. 
      Using no argument filtering, i.e., applying the processor to the full problem only.
      Failed!
    ## DP Processor: Knuth-Bendix orders. 
      Using no argument filtering, i.e., applying the processor to the full problem only.
      Failed!
  All the DP processors have failed!
  Don't know whether this DP problem is finite.
## A DP problem could not be proved finite.
## Now, we try to prove that this problem is infinite.
  Failed!
## Could not solve the following DP problems:
1: Dependency pairs = [f^#(_0,f(f(a,a),a)) -> f^#(f(a,f(a,a)),_0)]
TRS = {f(_0,f(f(a,a),a)) -> f(f(a,f(a,a)),_0)}
Hence, could not prove (non)termination of the TRS under analysis.
Proof run on Linux version 3.10.0-1160.62.1.el7.x86_64 for amd64
using Java version 1.8.0_322
** END proof description **
Total number of generated unfolded rules = 20

popout

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

job log

popout

actions all output return to TRS Standard