details

property	value
status	complete
benchmark	001.xml
ran by	Akihisa Yamada
cpu timeout	1200 seconds
wallclock timeout	300 seconds
memory limit	137438953472 bytes
execution host	n175.star.cs.uiowa.edu
space	AotoYamada_05

run statistics

property	value
solver	NTI_23
configuration	default
runtime (wallclock)	0.280068874359 seconds
cpu usage	0.489054682
max memory	5.3587968E7

stage attributes

key	value
output-size	2971
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 ** * Certificate: app(app(iterate,_0),_1) is non-terminating * Description: The following rule R was generated while unfolding the dependency pairs of the analyzed TRS: [iteration = 0] app^#(app(iterate,_0),_1) -> app^#(app(iterate,_0),app(_0,_1)) Let l be the left-hand side and r be the right-hand side of R. Let p = epsilon, theta1 = {} and theta2 = {_1->app(_0,_1)}. We have r|p = app^#(app(iterate,_0),app(_0,_1)) and theta2(theta1(l)) = theta1(r|p), i.e., l semi-unifies with r|p. So, the term theta1(l) = app(app(iterate,_0),_1) starts an infinite rewrite sequence 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... ## 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 = [app^#(app(iterate,_0),_1) -> app^#(app(cons,_1),app(app(iterate,_0),app(_0,_1))), app^#(app(iterate,_0),_1) -> app^#(app(iterate,_0),app(_0,_1)), app^#(app(iterate,_0),_1) -> app^#(_0,_1)] TRS = {app(app(iterate,_0),_1) -> app(app(cons,_1),app(app(iterate,_0),app(_0,_1)))} ## 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. ## DP Processor: [Payet, LOPSTR'18] + [Payet, Non-termination in TRS and LP] (forward=true, backward=true, max=20). # max_depth=20, unfold_variables=false: # Iteration 0: success, loop found, 2 unfolded rules generated. Here is the successful unfolding. Let IR be the TRS under analysis. L0 = app^#(app(iterate,_0),_1) -> app^#(app(iterate,_0),app(_0,_1)) [trans] is in U_IR^0. This DP problem is infinite. 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 = 10 popout

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

job log

popout

actions

all output return to TRS Standard