/export/starexec/sandbox2/solver/bin/starexec_run_standard /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.xml /export/starexec/sandbox2/output/output_files -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- YES proof of /export/starexec/sandbox2/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# AProVE Commit ID: 48fb2092695e11cc9f56e44b17a92a5f88ffb256 marcel 20180622 unpublished dirty Termination w.r.t. Q of the given QTRS could be proven: (0) QTRS (1) Overlay + Local Confluence [EQUIVALENT, 4 ms] (2) QTRS (3) DependencyPairsProof [EQUIVALENT, 0 ms] (4) QDP (5) DependencyGraphProof [EQUIVALENT, 0 ms] (6) QDP (7) QDPSizeChangeProof [EQUIVALENT, 0 ms] (8) YES ---------------------------------------- (0) Obligation: Q restricted rewrite system: The TRS R consists of the following rules: app(app(twice, f), x) -> app(f, app(f, x)) app(app(map, f), nil) -> nil app(app(map, f), app(app(cons, h), t)) -> app(app(cons, app(f, h)), app(app(map, f), t)) app(app(fmap, nil), x) -> nil app(app(fmap, app(app(cons, f), t_f)), x) -> app(app(cons, app(f, x)), app(app(fmap, t_f), x)) Q is empty. ---------------------------------------- (1) Overlay + Local Confluence (EQUIVALENT) The TRS is overlay and locally confluent. By [NOC] we can switch to innermost. ---------------------------------------- (2) Obligation: Q restricted rewrite system: The TRS R consists of the following rules: app(app(twice, f), x) -> app(f, app(f, x)) app(app(map, f), nil) -> nil app(app(map, f), app(app(cons, h), t)) -> app(app(cons, app(f, h)), app(app(map, f), t)) app(app(fmap, nil), x) -> nil app(app(fmap, app(app(cons, f), t_f)), x) -> app(app(cons, app(f, x)), app(app(fmap, t_f), x)) The set Q consists of the following terms: app(app(twice, x0), x1) app(app(map, x0), nil) app(app(map, x0), app(app(cons, x1), x2)) app(app(fmap, nil), x0) app(app(fmap, app(app(cons, x0), t_f)), 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: APP(app(twice, f), x) -> APP(f, app(f, x)) APP(app(twice, f), x) -> APP(f, x) APP(app(map, f), app(app(cons, h), t)) -> APP(app(cons, app(f, h)), app(app(map, f), t)) APP(app(map, f), app(app(cons, h), t)) -> APP(cons, app(f, h)) APP(app(map, f), app(app(cons, h), t)) -> APP(f, h) APP(app(map, f), app(app(cons, h), t)) -> APP(app(map, f), t) APP(app(fmap, app(app(cons, f), t_f)), x) -> APP(app(cons, app(f, x)), app(app(fmap, t_f), x)) APP(app(fmap, app(app(cons, f), t_f)), x) -> APP(cons, app(f, x)) APP(app(fmap, app(app(cons, f), t_f)), x) -> APP(f, x) APP(app(fmap, app(app(cons, f), t_f)), x) -> APP(app(fmap, t_f), x) APP(app(fmap, app(app(cons, f), t_f)), x) -> APP(fmap, t_f) The TRS R consists of the following rules: app(app(twice, f), x) -> app(f, app(f, x)) app(app(map, f), nil) -> nil app(app(map, f), app(app(cons, h), t)) -> app(app(cons, app(f, h)), app(app(map, f), t)) app(app(fmap, nil), x) -> nil app(app(fmap, app(app(cons, f), t_f)), x) -> app(app(cons, app(f, x)), app(app(fmap, t_f), x)) The set Q consists of the following terms: app(app(twice, x0), x1) app(app(map, x0), nil) app(app(map, x0), app(app(cons, x1), x2)) app(app(fmap, nil), x0) app(app(fmap, app(app(cons, x0), t_f)), x1) We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains. ---------------------------------------- (5) DependencyGraphProof (EQUIVALENT) The approximation of the Dependency Graph [LPAR04,FROCOS05,EDGSTAR] contains 1 SCC with 6 less nodes. ---------------------------------------- (6) Obligation: Q DP problem: The TRS P consists of the following rules: APP(app(twice, f), x) -> APP(f, x) APP(app(twice, f), x) -> APP(f, app(f, x)) APP(app(map, f), app(app(cons, h), t)) -> APP(f, h) APP(app(map, f), app(app(cons, h), t)) -> APP(app(map, f), t) APP(app(fmap, app(app(cons, f), t_f)), x) -> APP(f, x) The TRS R consists of the following rules: app(app(twice, f), x) -> app(f, app(f, x)) app(app(map, f), nil) -> nil app(app(map, f), app(app(cons, h), t)) -> app(app(cons, app(f, h)), app(app(map, f), t)) app(app(fmap, nil), x) -> nil app(app(fmap, app(app(cons, f), t_f)), x) -> app(app(cons, app(f, x)), app(app(fmap, t_f), x)) The set Q consists of the following terms: app(app(twice, x0), x1) app(app(map, x0), nil) app(app(map, x0), app(app(cons, x1), x2)) app(app(fmap, nil), x0) app(app(fmap, app(app(cons, x0), t_f)), x1) We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains. ---------------------------------------- (7) 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(map, f), app(app(cons, h), t)) -> APP(app(map, f), t) The graph contains the following edges 1 >= 1, 2 > 2 *APP(app(map, f), app(app(cons, h), t)) -> APP(f, h) The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1, 2 > 2 *APP(app(twice, f), x) -> APP(f, x) The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1, 2 >= 2 *APP(app(twice, f), x) -> APP(f, app(f, x)) The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1 *APP(app(fmap, app(app(cons, f), t_f)), x) -> APP(f, x) The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1, 2 >= 2 ---------------------------------------- (8) YES