/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# AProVE Commit ID: 48fb2092695e11cc9f56e44b17a92a5f88ffb256 marcel 20180622 unpublished dirty Termination w.r.t. Q of the given QTRS could be proven: (0) QTRS (1) AAECC Innermost [EQUIVALENT, 0 ms] (2) QTRS (3) DependencyPairsProof [EQUIVALENT, 0 ms] (4) QDP (5) UsableRulesProof [EQUIVALENT, 0 ms] (6) QDP (7) QReductionProof [EQUIVALENT, 0 ms] (8) QDP (9) QDPToSRSProof [SOUND, 0 ms] (10) QTRS (11) DependencyPairsProof [EQUIVALENT, 0 ms] (12) QDP (13) MNOCProof [EQUIVALENT, 0 ms] (14) QDP (15) UsableRulesProof [EQUIVALENT, 0 ms] (16) QDP (17) QReductionProof [EQUIVALENT, 0 ms] (18) QDP (19) QDPSizeChangeProof [EQUIVALENT, 0 ms] (20) YES ---------------------------------------- (0) Obligation: Q restricted rewrite system: The TRS R consists of the following rules: f(x, a(b(y))) -> f(a(b(b(x))), y) f(a(x), y) -> f(x, a(y)) f(b(x), y) -> f(x, b(y)) Q is empty. ---------------------------------------- (1) AAECC Innermost (EQUIVALENT) We have applied [NOC,AAECCNOC] to switch to innermost. The TRS R 1 is none The TRS R 2 is f(x, a(b(y))) -> f(a(b(b(x))), y) f(a(x), y) -> f(x, a(y)) f(b(x), y) -> f(x, b(y)) The signature Sigma is {f_2} ---------------------------------------- (2) Obligation: Q restricted rewrite system: The TRS R consists of the following rules: f(x, a(b(y))) -> f(a(b(b(x))), y) f(a(x), y) -> f(x, a(y)) f(b(x), y) -> f(x, b(y)) The set Q consists of the following terms: f(x0, a(b(x1))) f(a(x0), x1) f(b(x0), x1) ---------------------------------------- (3) DependencyPairsProof (EQUIVALENT) Using Dependency Pairs [AG00,LPAR04] we result in the following initial DP problem. ---------------------------------------- (4) Obligation: Q DP problem: The TRS P consists of the following rules: F(x, a(b(y))) -> F(a(b(b(x))), y) F(a(x), y) -> F(x, a(y)) F(b(x), y) -> F(x, b(y)) The TRS R consists of the following rules: f(x, a(b(y))) -> f(a(b(b(x))), y) f(a(x), y) -> f(x, a(y)) f(b(x), y) -> f(x, b(y)) The set Q consists of the following terms: f(x0, a(b(x1))) f(a(x0), x1) f(b(x0), x1) We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains. ---------------------------------------- (5) UsableRulesProof (EQUIVALENT) As all Q-normal forms are R-normal forms we are in the innermost case. Hence, by the usable rules processor [LPAR04] we can delete all non-usable rules [FROCOS05] from R. ---------------------------------------- (6) Obligation: Q DP problem: The TRS P consists of the following rules: F(x, a(b(y))) -> F(a(b(b(x))), y) F(a(x), y) -> F(x, a(y)) F(b(x), y) -> F(x, b(y)) R is empty. The set Q consists of the following terms: f(x0, a(b(x1))) f(a(x0), x1) f(b(x0), x1) We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains. ---------------------------------------- (7) QReductionProof (EQUIVALENT) We deleted the following terms from Q as each root-symbol of these terms does neither occur in P nor in R.[THIEMANN]. f(x0, a(b(x1))) f(a(x0), x1) f(b(x0), x1) ---------------------------------------- (8) Obligation: Q DP problem: The TRS P consists of the following rules: F(x, a(b(y))) -> F(a(b(b(x))), y) F(a(x), y) -> F(x, a(y)) F(b(x), y) -> F(x, b(y)) R is empty. Q is empty. We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains. ---------------------------------------- (9) QDPToSRSProof (SOUND) The finiteness of this DP problem is implied by strong termination of a SRS due to [UNKNOWN]. ---------------------------------------- (10) Obligation: Q restricted rewrite system: The TRS R consists of the following rules: a(b(x)) -> b(b(a(x))) Q is empty. ---------------------------------------- (11) DependencyPairsProof (EQUIVALENT) Using Dependency Pairs [AG00,LPAR04] we result in the following initial DP problem. ---------------------------------------- (12) Obligation: Q DP problem: The TRS P consists of the following rules: A(b(x)) -> A(x) The TRS R consists of the following rules: a(b(x)) -> b(b(a(x))) Q is empty. We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains. ---------------------------------------- (13) MNOCProof (EQUIVALENT) We use the modular non-overlap check [LPAR04] to enlarge Q to all left-hand sides of R. ---------------------------------------- (14) Obligation: Q DP problem: The TRS P consists of the following rules: A(b(x)) -> A(x) The TRS R consists of the following rules: a(b(x)) -> b(b(a(x))) The set Q consists of the following terms: a(b(x0)) We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains. ---------------------------------------- (15) UsableRulesProof (EQUIVALENT) As all Q-normal forms are R-normal forms we are in the innermost case. Hence, by the usable rules processor [LPAR04] we can delete all non-usable rules [FROCOS05] from R. ---------------------------------------- (16) Obligation: Q DP problem: The TRS P consists of the following rules: A(b(x)) -> A(x) R is empty. The set Q consists of the following terms: a(b(x0)) We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains. ---------------------------------------- (17) QReductionProof (EQUIVALENT) We deleted the following terms from Q as each root-symbol of these terms does neither occur in P nor in R.[THIEMANN]. a(b(x0)) ---------------------------------------- (18) Obligation: Q DP problem: The TRS P consists of the following rules: A(b(x)) -> A(x) R is empty. Q is empty. We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains. ---------------------------------------- (19) 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: *A(b(x)) -> A(x) The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1 ---------------------------------------- (20) YES