details

property	value
status	complete
benchmark	jw38.xml
ran by	Akihisa Yamada
cpu timeout	1200 seconds
wallclock timeout	300 seconds
memory limit	137438953472 bytes
execution host	n145.star.cs.uiowa.edu
space	Zantema_05

run statistics

property	value
solver	NTI_23
configuration	default
runtime (wallclock)	0.537346839905 seconds
cpu usage	1.39489907
max memory	1.9593216E8

stage attributes

key	value
output-size	2074
starexec-result	"MAYBE"

output

/export/starexec/sandbox/solver/bin/starexec_run_default /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.xml /export/starexec/sandbox/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^#(f(a,_0),a) -> f^#(f(f(a,a),f(_0,a)),a), f^#(f(a,_0),a) -> f^#(f(a,a),f(_0,a)), f^#(f(a,_0),a) -> f^#(_0,a)] TRS = {f(f(a,_0),a) -> f(f(f(a,a),f(_0,a)),a)} ## 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^#(f(a,_0),a) -> f^#(f(f(a,a),f(_0,a)),a), f^#(f(a,_0),a) -> f^#(f(a,a),f(_0,a)), f^#(f(a,_0),a) -> f^#(_0,a)] TRS = {f(f(a,_0),a) -> f(f(f(a,a),f(_0,a)),a)} 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 = 520 popout

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

job log

popout

actions

all output return to TRS Standard