/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# AProVE Commit ID: 48fb2092695e11cc9f56e44b17a92a5f88ffb256 marcel 20180622 unpublished dirty Termination w.r.t. Q of the given QTRS could be proven: (0) QTRS (1) DependencyPairsProof [EQUIVALENT, 0 ms] (2) QDP (3) DependencyGraphProof [EQUIVALENT, 0 ms] (4) AND (5) QDP (6) UsableRulesProof [EQUIVALENT, 0 ms] (7) QDP (8) QDPSizeChangeProof [EQUIVALENT, 0 ms] (9) YES (10) QDP (11) UsableRulesProof [EQUIVALENT, 0 ms] (12) QDP (13) MNOCProof [EQUIVALENT, 0 ms] (14) QDP (15) QDPSizeChangeProof [EQUIVALENT, 0 ms] (16) YES (17) QDP (18) QDPOrderProof [EQUIVALENT, 22 ms] (19) QDP (20) PisEmptyProof [EQUIVALENT, 0 ms] (21) YES ---------------------------------------- (0) Obligation: Q restricted rewrite system: The TRS R consists of the following rules: minus(x, 0) -> x minus(s(x), s(y)) -> minus(x, y) quot(0, s(y)) -> 0 quot(s(x), s(y)) -> s(quot(minus(x, y), s(y))) plus(0, y) -> y plus(s(x), y) -> s(plus(x, y)) minus(minus(x, y), z) -> minus(x, plus(y, z)) 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: MINUS(s(x), s(y)) -> MINUS(x, y) QUOT(s(x), s(y)) -> QUOT(minus(x, y), s(y)) QUOT(s(x), s(y)) -> MINUS(x, y) PLUS(s(x), y) -> PLUS(x, y) MINUS(minus(x, y), z) -> MINUS(x, plus(y, z)) MINUS(minus(x, y), z) -> PLUS(y, z) The TRS R consists of the following rules: minus(x, 0) -> x minus(s(x), s(y)) -> minus(x, y) quot(0, s(y)) -> 0 quot(s(x), s(y)) -> s(quot(minus(x, y), s(y))) plus(0, y) -> y plus(s(x), y) -> s(plus(x, y)) minus(minus(x, y), z) -> minus(x, plus(y, z)) 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 3 SCCs with 2 less nodes. ---------------------------------------- (4) Complex Obligation (AND) ---------------------------------------- (5) Obligation: Q DP problem: The TRS P consists of the following rules: PLUS(s(x), y) -> PLUS(x, y) The TRS R consists of the following rules: minus(x, 0) -> x minus(s(x), s(y)) -> minus(x, y) quot(0, s(y)) -> 0 quot(s(x), s(y)) -> s(quot(minus(x, y), s(y))) plus(0, y) -> y plus(s(x), y) -> s(plus(x, y)) minus(minus(x, y), z) -> minus(x, plus(y, z)) 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: PLUS(s(x), y) -> PLUS(x, y) R is empty. Q is empty. We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains. ---------------------------------------- (8) 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: *PLUS(s(x), y) -> PLUS(x, y) The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1, 2 >= 2 ---------------------------------------- (9) YES ---------------------------------------- (10) Obligation: Q DP problem: The TRS P consists of the following rules: MINUS(minus(x, y), z) -> MINUS(x, plus(y, z)) MINUS(s(x), s(y)) -> MINUS(x, y) The TRS R consists of the following rules: minus(x, 0) -> x minus(s(x), s(y)) -> minus(x, y) quot(0, s(y)) -> 0 quot(s(x), s(y)) -> s(quot(minus(x, y), s(y))) plus(0, y) -> y plus(s(x), y) -> s(plus(x, y)) minus(minus(x, y), z) -> minus(x, plus(y, z)) Q is empty. We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains. ---------------------------------------- (11) 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. ---------------------------------------- (12) Obligation: Q DP problem: The TRS P consists of the following rules: MINUS(minus(x, y), z) -> MINUS(x, plus(y, z)) MINUS(s(x), s(y)) -> MINUS(x, y) The TRS R consists of the following rules: plus(0, y) -> y plus(s(x), y) -> s(plus(x, y)) 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: MINUS(minus(x, y), z) -> MINUS(x, plus(y, z)) MINUS(s(x), s(y)) -> MINUS(x, y) The TRS R consists of the following rules: plus(0, y) -> y plus(s(x), y) -> s(plus(x, y)) The set Q consists of the following terms: plus(0, x0) plus(s(x0), x1) 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: *MINUS(minus(x, y), z) -> MINUS(x, plus(y, z)) The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1 *MINUS(s(x), s(y)) -> MINUS(x, y) The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1, 2 > 2 ---------------------------------------- (16) YES ---------------------------------------- (17) Obligation: Q DP problem: The TRS P consists of the following rules: QUOT(s(x), s(y)) -> QUOT(minus(x, y), s(y)) The TRS R consists of the following rules: minus(x, 0) -> x minus(s(x), s(y)) -> minus(x, y) quot(0, s(y)) -> 0 quot(s(x), s(y)) -> s(quot(minus(x, y), s(y))) plus(0, y) -> y plus(s(x), y) -> s(plus(x, y)) minus(minus(x, y), z) -> minus(x, plus(y, z)) Q is empty. We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains. ---------------------------------------- (18) QDPOrderProof (EQUIVALENT) We use the reduction pair processor [LPAR04,JAR06]. The following pairs can be oriented strictly and are deleted. QUOT(s(x), s(y)) -> QUOT(minus(x, y), s(y)) The remaining pairs can at least be oriented weakly. Used ordering: Combined order from the following AFS and order. QUOT(x1, x2) = x1 s(x1) = s(x1) minus(x1, x2) = x1 Knuth-Bendix order [KBO] with precedence:trivial and weight map: s_1=1 dummyConstant=1 The following usable rules [FROCOS05] with respect to the argument filtering of the ordering [JAR06] were oriented: minus(x, 0) -> x minus(minus(x, y), z) -> minus(x, plus(y, z)) minus(s(x), s(y)) -> minus(x, y) ---------------------------------------- (19) Obligation: Q DP problem: P is empty. The TRS R consists of the following rules: minus(x, 0) -> x minus(s(x), s(y)) -> minus(x, y) quot(0, s(y)) -> 0 quot(s(x), s(y)) -> s(quot(minus(x, y), s(y))) plus(0, y) -> y plus(s(x), y) -> s(plus(x, y)) minus(minus(x, y), z) -> minus(x, plus(y, z)) Q is empty. We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains. ---------------------------------------- (20) PisEmptyProof (EQUIVALENT) The TRS P is empty. Hence, there is no (P,Q,R) chain. ---------------------------------------- (21) YES