/export/starexec/sandbox/solver/bin/starexec_run_standard /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.xml /export/starexec/sandbox/output/output_files -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- YES proof of /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.xml # AProVE Commit ID: 48fb2092695e11cc9f56e44b17a92a5f88ffb256 marcel 20180622 unpublished dirty Termination w.r.t. Q of the given QTRS could be proven: (0) QTRS (1) DependencyPairsProof [EQUIVALENT, 0 ms] (2) QDP (3) DependencyGraphProof [EQUIVALENT, 0 ms] (4) AND (5) QDP (6) UsableRulesProof [EQUIVALENT, 0 ms] (7) QDP (8) ATransformationProof [EQUIVALENT, 0 ms] (9) QDP (10) QDPSizeChangeProof [EQUIVALENT, 0 ms] (11) YES (12) QDP (13) UsableRulesProof [EQUIVALENT, 0 ms] (14) QDP (15) QDPSizeChangeProof [EQUIVALENT, 0 ms] (16) YES ---------------------------------------- (0) Obligation: Q restricted rewrite system: The TRS R consists of the following rules: app(f, app(g, x)) -> app(g, app(g, app(f, x))) app(f, app(g, x)) -> app(g, app(g, app(g, x))) app(app(map, fun), nil) -> nil app(app(map, fun), app(app(cons, x), xs)) -> app(app(cons, app(fun, x)), app(app(map, fun), xs)) app(app(filter, fun), nil) -> nil app(app(filter, fun), app(app(cons, x), xs)) -> app(app(app(app(filter2, app(fun, x)), fun), x), xs) app(app(app(app(filter2, true), fun), x), xs) -> app(app(cons, x), app(app(filter, fun), xs)) app(app(app(app(filter2, false), fun), x), xs) -> app(app(filter, fun), xs) Q is empty. ---------------------------------------- (1) DependencyPairsProof (EQUIVALENT) Using Dependency Pairs [AG00,LPAR04] we result in the following initial DP problem. ---------------------------------------- (2) Obligation: Q DP problem: The TRS P consists of the following rules: APP(f, app(g, x)) -> APP(g, app(g, app(f, x))) APP(f, app(g, x)) -> APP(g, app(f, x)) APP(f, app(g, x)) -> APP(f, x) APP(f, app(g, x)) -> APP(g, app(g, app(g, x))) APP(f, app(g, x)) -> APP(g, app(g, x)) APP(app(map, fun), app(app(cons, x), xs)) -> APP(app(cons, app(fun, x)), app(app(map, fun), xs)) APP(app(map, fun), app(app(cons, x), xs)) -> APP(cons, app(fun, x)) APP(app(map, fun), app(app(cons, x), xs)) -> APP(fun, x) APP(app(map, fun), app(app(cons, x), xs)) -> APP(app(map, fun), xs) APP(app(filter, fun), app(app(cons, x), xs)) -> APP(app(app(app(filter2, app(fun, x)), fun), x), xs) APP(app(filter, fun), app(app(cons, x), xs)) -> APP(app(app(filter2, app(fun, x)), fun), x) APP(app(filter, fun), app(app(cons, x), xs)) -> APP(app(filter2, app(fun, x)), fun) APP(app(filter, fun), app(app(cons, x), xs)) -> APP(filter2, app(fun, x)) APP(app(filter, fun), app(app(cons, x), xs)) -> APP(fun, x) APP(app(app(app(filter2, true), fun), x), xs) -> APP(app(cons, x), app(app(filter, fun), xs)) APP(app(app(app(filter2, true), fun), x), xs) -> APP(cons, x) APP(app(app(app(filter2, true), fun), x), xs) -> APP(app(filter, fun), xs) APP(app(app(app(filter2, true), fun), x), xs) -> APP(filter, fun) APP(app(app(app(filter2, false), fun), x), xs) -> APP(app(filter, fun), xs) APP(app(app(app(filter2, false), fun), x), xs) -> APP(filter, fun) The TRS R consists of the following rules: app(f, app(g, x)) -> app(g, app(g, app(f, x))) app(f, app(g, x)) -> app(g, app(g, app(g, x))) app(app(map, fun), nil) -> nil app(app(map, fun), app(app(cons, x), xs)) -> app(app(cons, app(fun, x)), app(app(map, fun), xs)) app(app(filter, fun), nil) -> nil app(app(filter, fun), app(app(cons, x), xs)) -> app(app(app(app(filter2, app(fun, x)), fun), x), xs) app(app(app(app(filter2, true), fun), x), xs) -> app(app(cons, x), app(app(filter, fun), xs)) app(app(app(app(filter2, false), fun), x), xs) -> app(app(filter, fun), xs) Q is empty. We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains. ---------------------------------------- (3) DependencyGraphProof (EQUIVALENT) The approximation of the Dependency Graph [LPAR04,FROCOS05,EDGSTAR] contains 2 SCCs with 14 less nodes. ---------------------------------------- (4) Complex Obligation (AND) ---------------------------------------- (5) Obligation: Q DP problem: The TRS P consists of the following rules: APP(f, app(g, x)) -> APP(f, x) The TRS R consists of the following rules: app(f, app(g, x)) -> app(g, app(g, app(f, x))) app(f, app(g, x)) -> app(g, app(g, app(g, x))) app(app(map, fun), nil) -> nil app(app(map, fun), app(app(cons, x), xs)) -> app(app(cons, app(fun, x)), app(app(map, fun), xs)) app(app(filter, fun), nil) -> nil app(app(filter, fun), app(app(cons, x), xs)) -> app(app(app(app(filter2, app(fun, x)), fun), x), xs) app(app(app(app(filter2, true), fun), x), xs) -> app(app(cons, x), app(app(filter, fun), xs)) app(app(app(app(filter2, false), fun), x), xs) -> app(app(filter, fun), xs) Q is empty. We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains. ---------------------------------------- (6) UsableRulesProof (EQUIVALENT) We can use the usable rules and reduction pair processor [LPAR04] with the Ce-compatible extension of the polynomial order that maps every function symbol to the sum of its arguments. Then, we can delete all non-usable rules [FROCOS05] from R. ---------------------------------------- (7) Obligation: Q DP problem: The TRS P consists of the following rules: APP(f, app(g, x)) -> APP(f, x) R is empty. Q is empty. We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains. ---------------------------------------- (8) ATransformationProof (EQUIVALENT) We have applied the A-Transformation [FROCOS05] to get from an applicative problem to a standard problem. ---------------------------------------- (9) Obligation: Q DP problem: The TRS P consists of the following rules: f(g(x)) -> f(x) R is empty. Q is empty. We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains. ---------------------------------------- (10) QDPSizeChangeProof (EQUIVALENT) By using the subterm criterion [SUBTERM_CRITERION] together with the size-change analysis [AAECC05] we have proven that there are no infinite chains for this DP problem. From the DPs we obtained the following set of size-change graphs: *f(g(x)) -> f(x) The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1 ---------------------------------------- (11) YES ---------------------------------------- (12) Obligation: Q DP problem: The TRS P consists of the following rules: APP(app(map, fun), app(app(cons, x), xs)) -> APP(app(map, fun), xs) APP(app(map, fun), app(app(cons, x), xs)) -> APP(fun, x) APP(app(filter, fun), app(app(cons, x), xs)) -> APP(fun, x) APP(app(app(app(filter2, true), fun), x), xs) -> APP(app(filter, fun), xs) APP(app(app(app(filter2, false), fun), x), xs) -> APP(app(filter, fun), xs) The TRS R consists of the following rules: app(f, app(g, x)) -> app(g, app(g, app(f, x))) app(f, app(g, x)) -> app(g, app(g, app(g, x))) app(app(map, fun), nil) -> nil app(app(map, fun), app(app(cons, x), xs)) -> app(app(cons, app(fun, x)), app(app(map, fun), xs)) app(app(filter, fun), nil) -> nil app(app(filter, fun), app(app(cons, x), xs)) -> app(app(app(app(filter2, app(fun, x)), fun), x), xs) app(app(app(app(filter2, true), fun), x), xs) -> app(app(cons, x), app(app(filter, fun), xs)) app(app(app(app(filter2, false), fun), x), xs) -> app(app(filter, fun), xs) Q is empty. We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains. ---------------------------------------- (13) UsableRulesProof (EQUIVALENT) We can use the usable rules and reduction pair processor [LPAR04] with the Ce-compatible extension of the polynomial order that maps every function symbol to the sum of its arguments. Then, we can delete all non-usable rules [FROCOS05] from R. ---------------------------------------- (14) Obligation: Q DP problem: The TRS P consists of the following rules: APP(app(map, fun), app(app(cons, x), xs)) -> APP(app(map, fun), xs) APP(app(map, fun), app(app(cons, x), xs)) -> APP(fun, x) APP(app(filter, fun), app(app(cons, x), xs)) -> APP(fun, x) APP(app(app(app(filter2, true), fun), x), xs) -> APP(app(filter, fun), xs) APP(app(app(app(filter2, false), fun), x), xs) -> APP(app(filter, fun), xs) R is empty. Q is empty. We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains. ---------------------------------------- (15) QDPSizeChangeProof (EQUIVALENT) By using the subterm criterion [SUBTERM_CRITERION] together with the size-change analysis [AAECC05] we have proven that there are no infinite chains for this DP problem. From the DPs we obtained the following set of size-change graphs: *APP(app(filter, fun), app(app(cons, x), xs)) -> APP(fun, x) The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1, 2 > 2 *APP(app(map, fun), app(app(cons, x), xs)) -> APP(fun, x) The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1, 2 > 2 *APP(app(map, fun), app(app(cons, x), xs)) -> APP(app(map, fun), xs) The graph contains the following edges 1 >= 1, 2 > 2 *APP(app(app(app(filter2, true), fun), x), xs) -> APP(app(filter, fun), xs) The graph contains the following edges 2 >= 2 *APP(app(app(app(filter2, false), fun), x), xs) -> APP(app(filter, fun), xs) The graph contains the following edges 2 >= 2 ---------------------------------------- (16) YES