/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# AProVE Commit ID: 48fb2092695e11cc9f56e44b17a92a5f88ffb256 marcel 20180622 unpublished dirty Termination w.r.t. Q of the given QTRS could be proven: (0) QTRS (1) AAECC Innermost [EQUIVALENT, 0 ms] (2) QTRS (3) DependencyPairsProof [EQUIVALENT, 0 ms] (4) QDP (5) DependencyGraphProof [EQUIVALENT, 0 ms] (6) AND (7) QDP (8) UsableRulesProof [EQUIVALENT, 0 ms] (9) QDP (10) QReductionProof [EQUIVALENT, 0 ms] (11) QDP (12) MRRProof [EQUIVALENT, 0 ms] (13) QDP (14) PisEmptyProof [EQUIVALENT, 0 ms] (15) YES (16) QDP (17) UsableRulesProof [EQUIVALENT, 0 ms] (18) QDP (19) QReductionProof [EQUIVALENT, 0 ms] (20) QDP (21) MRRProof [EQUIVALENT, 0 ms] (22) QDP (23) PisEmptyProof [EQUIVALENT, 0 ms] (24) YES ---------------------------------------- (0) Obligation: Q restricted rewrite system: The TRS R consists of the following rules: f(c(s(x), y)) -> f(c(x, s(y))) g(c(x, s(y))) -> g(c(s(x), 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(c(s(x), y)) -> f(c(x, s(y))) g(c(x, s(y))) -> g(c(s(x), y)) The signature Sigma is {f_1, g_1} ---------------------------------------- (2) Obligation: Q restricted rewrite system: The TRS R consists of the following rules: f(c(s(x), y)) -> f(c(x, s(y))) g(c(x, s(y))) -> g(c(s(x), y)) The set Q consists of the following terms: f(c(s(x0), x1)) g(c(x0, s(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(c(s(x), y)) -> F(c(x, s(y))) G(c(x, s(y))) -> G(c(s(x), y)) The TRS R consists of the following rules: f(c(s(x), y)) -> f(c(x, s(y))) g(c(x, s(y))) -> g(c(s(x), y)) The set Q consists of the following terms: f(c(s(x0), x1)) g(c(x0, s(x1))) We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains. ---------------------------------------- (5) DependencyGraphProof (EQUIVALENT) The approximation of the Dependency Graph [LPAR04,FROCOS05,EDGSTAR] contains 2 SCCs. ---------------------------------------- (6) Complex Obligation (AND) ---------------------------------------- (7) Obligation: Q DP problem: The TRS P consists of the following rules: G(c(x, s(y))) -> G(c(s(x), y)) The TRS R consists of the following rules: f(c(s(x), y)) -> f(c(x, s(y))) g(c(x, s(y))) -> g(c(s(x), y)) The set Q consists of the following terms: f(c(s(x0), x1)) g(c(x0, s(x1))) We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains. ---------------------------------------- (8) 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. ---------------------------------------- (9) Obligation: Q DP problem: The TRS P consists of the following rules: G(c(x, s(y))) -> G(c(s(x), y)) R is empty. The set Q consists of the following terms: f(c(s(x0), x1)) g(c(x0, s(x1))) We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains. ---------------------------------------- (10) 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(c(s(x0), x1)) g(c(x0, s(x1))) ---------------------------------------- (11) Obligation: Q DP problem: The TRS P consists of the following rules: G(c(x, s(y))) -> G(c(s(x), y)) R is empty. Q is empty. We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains. ---------------------------------------- (12) MRRProof (EQUIVALENT) By using the rule removal processor [LPAR04] with the following ordering, at least one Dependency Pair or term rewrite system rule of this QDP problem can be strictly oriented. Strictly oriented dependency pairs: G(c(x, s(y))) -> G(c(s(x), y)) Used ordering: Polynomial interpretation [POLO]: POL(G(x_1)) = 2*x_1 POL(c(x_1, x_2)) = x_1 + 2*x_2 POL(s(x_1)) = 2 + x_1 ---------------------------------------- (13) Obligation: Q DP problem: P is empty. R is empty. Q is empty. We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains. ---------------------------------------- (14) PisEmptyProof (EQUIVALENT) The TRS P is empty. Hence, there is no (P,Q,R) chain. ---------------------------------------- (15) YES ---------------------------------------- (16) Obligation: Q DP problem: The TRS P consists of the following rules: F(c(s(x), y)) -> F(c(x, s(y))) The TRS R consists of the following rules: f(c(s(x), y)) -> f(c(x, s(y))) g(c(x, s(y))) -> g(c(s(x), y)) The set Q consists of the following terms: f(c(s(x0), x1)) g(c(x0, s(x1))) We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains. ---------------------------------------- (17) 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. ---------------------------------------- (18) Obligation: Q DP problem: The TRS P consists of the following rules: F(c(s(x), y)) -> F(c(x, s(y))) R is empty. The set Q consists of the following terms: f(c(s(x0), x1)) g(c(x0, s(x1))) We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains. ---------------------------------------- (19) 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(c(s(x0), x1)) g(c(x0, s(x1))) ---------------------------------------- (20) Obligation: Q DP problem: The TRS P consists of the following rules: F(c(s(x), y)) -> F(c(x, s(y))) R is empty. Q is empty. We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains. ---------------------------------------- (21) MRRProof (EQUIVALENT) By using the rule removal processor [LPAR04] with the following ordering, at least one Dependency Pair or term rewrite system rule of this QDP problem can be strictly oriented. Strictly oriented dependency pairs: F(c(s(x), y)) -> F(c(x, s(y))) Used ordering: Knuth-Bendix order [KBO] with precedence:s_1 > c_2 > F_1 and weight map: F_1=1 s_1=1 c_2=0 The variable weight is 1 ---------------------------------------- (22) Obligation: Q DP problem: P is empty. R is empty. Q is empty. We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains. ---------------------------------------- (23) PisEmptyProof (EQUIVALENT) The TRS P is empty. Hence, there is no (P,Q,R) chain. ---------------------------------------- (24) YES