/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# AProVE Commit ID: 48fb2092695e11cc9f56e44b17a92a5f88ffb256 marcel 20180622 unpublished dirty Termination w.r.t. Q of the given QTRS could be proven: (0) QTRS (1) DependencyPairsProof [EQUIVALENT, 6 ms] (2) QDP (3) DependencyGraphProof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) MRRProof [EQUIVALENT, 28 ms] (14) QDP (15) QDPSizeChangeProof [EQUIVALENT, 0 ms] (16) YES (17) QDP (18) QDPSizeChangeProof [EQUIVALENT, 0 ms] (19) YES ---------------------------------------- (0) Obligation: Q restricted rewrite system: The TRS R consists of the following rules: 0(#) -> # +(#, x) -> x +(x, #) -> x +(0(x), 0(y)) -> 0(+(x, y)) +(0(x), 1(y)) -> 1(+(x, y)) +(1(x), 0(y)) -> 1(+(x, y)) +(0(x), j(y)) -> j(+(x, y)) +(j(x), 0(y)) -> j(+(x, y)) +(1(x), 1(y)) -> j(+(+(x, y), 1(#))) +(j(x), j(y)) -> 1(+(+(x, y), j(#))) +(1(x), j(y)) -> 0(+(x, y)) +(j(x), 1(y)) -> 0(+(x, y)) +(+(x, y), z) -> +(x, +(y, z)) opp(#) -> # opp(0(x)) -> 0(opp(x)) opp(1(x)) -> j(opp(x)) opp(j(x)) -> 1(opp(x)) -(x, y) -> +(x, opp(y)) *(#, x) -> # *(0(x), y) -> 0(*(x, y)) *(1(x), y) -> +(0(*(x, y)), y) *(j(x), y) -> -(0(*(x, y)), y) *(*(x, y), z) -> *(x, *(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: +^1(0(x), 0(y)) -> 0^1(+(x, y)) +^1(0(x), 0(y)) -> +^1(x, y) +^1(0(x), 1(y)) -> +^1(x, y) +^1(1(x), 0(y)) -> +^1(x, y) +^1(0(x), j(y)) -> +^1(x, y) +^1(j(x), 0(y)) -> +^1(x, y) +^1(1(x), 1(y)) -> +^1(+(x, y), 1(#)) +^1(1(x), 1(y)) -> +^1(x, y) +^1(j(x), j(y)) -> +^1(+(x, y), j(#)) +^1(j(x), j(y)) -> +^1(x, y) +^1(1(x), j(y)) -> 0^1(+(x, y)) +^1(1(x), j(y)) -> +^1(x, y) +^1(j(x), 1(y)) -> 0^1(+(x, y)) +^1(j(x), 1(y)) -> +^1(x, y) +^1(+(x, y), z) -> +^1(x, +(y, z)) +^1(+(x, y), z) -> +^1(y, z) OPP(0(x)) -> 0^1(opp(x)) OPP(0(x)) -> OPP(x) OPP(1(x)) -> OPP(x) OPP(j(x)) -> OPP(x) -^1(x, y) -> +^1(x, opp(y)) -^1(x, y) -> OPP(y) *^1(0(x), y) -> 0^1(*(x, y)) *^1(0(x), y) -> *^1(x, y) *^1(1(x), y) -> +^1(0(*(x, y)), y) *^1(1(x), y) -> 0^1(*(x, y)) *^1(1(x), y) -> *^1(x, y) *^1(j(x), y) -> -^1(0(*(x, y)), y) *^1(j(x), y) -> 0^1(*(x, y)) *^1(j(x), y) -> *^1(x, y) *^1(*(x, y), z) -> *^1(x, *(y, z)) *^1(*(x, y), z) -> *^1(y, z) The TRS R consists of the following rules: 0(#) -> # +(#, x) -> x +(x, #) -> x +(0(x), 0(y)) -> 0(+(x, y)) +(0(x), 1(y)) -> 1(+(x, y)) +(1(x), 0(y)) -> 1(+(x, y)) +(0(x), j(y)) -> j(+(x, y)) +(j(x), 0(y)) -> j(+(x, y)) +(1(x), 1(y)) -> j(+(+(x, y), 1(#))) +(j(x), j(y)) -> 1(+(+(x, y), j(#))) +(1(x), j(y)) -> 0(+(x, y)) +(j(x), 1(y)) -> 0(+(x, y)) +(+(x, y), z) -> +(x, +(y, z)) opp(#) -> # opp(0(x)) -> 0(opp(x)) opp(1(x)) -> j(opp(x)) opp(j(x)) -> 1(opp(x)) -(x, y) -> +(x, opp(y)) *(#, x) -> # *(0(x), y) -> 0(*(x, y)) *(1(x), y) -> +(0(*(x, y)), y) *(j(x), y) -> -(0(*(x, y)), y) *(*(x, y), z) -> *(x, *(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 11 less nodes. ---------------------------------------- (4) Complex Obligation (AND) ---------------------------------------- (5) Obligation: Q DP problem: The TRS P consists of the following rules: OPP(1(x)) -> OPP(x) OPP(0(x)) -> OPP(x) OPP(j(x)) -> OPP(x) The TRS R consists of the following rules: 0(#) -> # +(#, x) -> x +(x, #) -> x +(0(x), 0(y)) -> 0(+(x, y)) +(0(x), 1(y)) -> 1(+(x, y)) +(1(x), 0(y)) -> 1(+(x, y)) +(0(x), j(y)) -> j(+(x, y)) +(j(x), 0(y)) -> j(+(x, y)) +(1(x), 1(y)) -> j(+(+(x, y), 1(#))) +(j(x), j(y)) -> 1(+(+(x, y), j(#))) +(1(x), j(y)) -> 0(+(x, y)) +(j(x), 1(y)) -> 0(+(x, y)) +(+(x, y), z) -> +(x, +(y, z)) opp(#) -> # opp(0(x)) -> 0(opp(x)) opp(1(x)) -> j(opp(x)) opp(j(x)) -> 1(opp(x)) -(x, y) -> +(x, opp(y)) *(#, x) -> # *(0(x), y) -> 0(*(x, y)) *(1(x), y) -> +(0(*(x, y)), y) *(j(x), y) -> -(0(*(x, y)), y) *(*(x, y), z) -> *(x, *(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: OPP(1(x)) -> OPP(x) OPP(0(x)) -> OPP(x) OPP(j(x)) -> OPP(x) 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: *OPP(1(x)) -> OPP(x) The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1 *OPP(0(x)) -> OPP(x) The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1 *OPP(j(x)) -> OPP(x) The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1 ---------------------------------------- (9) YES ---------------------------------------- (10) Obligation: Q DP problem: The TRS P consists of the following rules: +^1(0(x), 1(y)) -> +^1(x, y) +^1(0(x), 0(y)) -> +^1(x, y) +^1(1(x), 0(y)) -> +^1(x, y) +^1(0(x), j(y)) -> +^1(x, y) +^1(j(x), 0(y)) -> +^1(x, y) +^1(1(x), 1(y)) -> +^1(+(x, y), 1(#)) +^1(1(x), 1(y)) -> +^1(x, y) +^1(j(x), j(y)) -> +^1(+(x, y), j(#)) +^1(j(x), j(y)) -> +^1(x, y) +^1(1(x), j(y)) -> +^1(x, y) +^1(j(x), 1(y)) -> +^1(x, y) +^1(+(x, y), z) -> +^1(x, +(y, z)) +^1(+(x, y), z) -> +^1(y, z) The TRS R consists of the following rules: 0(#) -> # +(#, x) -> x +(x, #) -> x +(0(x), 0(y)) -> 0(+(x, y)) +(0(x), 1(y)) -> 1(+(x, y)) +(1(x), 0(y)) -> 1(+(x, y)) +(0(x), j(y)) -> j(+(x, y)) +(j(x), 0(y)) -> j(+(x, y)) +(1(x), 1(y)) -> j(+(+(x, y), 1(#))) +(j(x), j(y)) -> 1(+(+(x, y), j(#))) +(1(x), j(y)) -> 0(+(x, y)) +(j(x), 1(y)) -> 0(+(x, y)) +(+(x, y), z) -> +(x, +(y, z)) opp(#) -> # opp(0(x)) -> 0(opp(x)) opp(1(x)) -> j(opp(x)) opp(j(x)) -> 1(opp(x)) -(x, y) -> +(x, opp(y)) *(#, x) -> # *(0(x), y) -> 0(*(x, y)) *(1(x), y) -> +(0(*(x, y)), y) *(j(x), y) -> -(0(*(x, y)), y) *(*(x, y), z) -> *(x, *(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: +^1(0(x), 1(y)) -> +^1(x, y) +^1(0(x), 0(y)) -> +^1(x, y) +^1(1(x), 0(y)) -> +^1(x, y) +^1(0(x), j(y)) -> +^1(x, y) +^1(j(x), 0(y)) -> +^1(x, y) +^1(1(x), 1(y)) -> +^1(+(x, y), 1(#)) +^1(1(x), 1(y)) -> +^1(x, y) +^1(j(x), j(y)) -> +^1(+(x, y), j(#)) +^1(j(x), j(y)) -> +^1(x, y) +^1(1(x), j(y)) -> +^1(x, y) +^1(j(x), 1(y)) -> +^1(x, y) +^1(+(x, y), z) -> +^1(x, +(y, z)) +^1(+(x, y), z) -> +^1(y, z) The TRS R consists of the following rules: +(#, x) -> x +(x, #) -> x +(0(x), 0(y)) -> 0(+(x, y)) +(0(x), 1(y)) -> 1(+(x, y)) +(1(x), 0(y)) -> 1(+(x, y)) +(0(x), j(y)) -> j(+(x, y)) +(j(x), 0(y)) -> j(+(x, y)) +(1(x), 1(y)) -> j(+(+(x, y), 1(#))) +(j(x), j(y)) -> 1(+(+(x, y), j(#))) +(1(x), j(y)) -> 0(+(x, y)) +(j(x), 1(y)) -> 0(+(x, y)) +(+(x, y), z) -> +(x, +(y, z)) 0(#) -> # Q is empty. We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains. ---------------------------------------- (13) 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: +^1(0(x), 1(y)) -> +^1(x, y) +^1(0(x), 0(y)) -> +^1(x, y) +^1(1(x), 0(y)) -> +^1(x, y) +^1(0(x), j(y)) -> +^1(x, y) +^1(j(x), 0(y)) -> +^1(x, y) +^1(1(x), 1(y)) -> +^1(+(x, y), 1(#)) +^1(1(x), 1(y)) -> +^1(x, y) +^1(j(x), j(y)) -> +^1(+(x, y), j(#)) +^1(j(x), j(y)) -> +^1(x, y) +^1(1(x), j(y)) -> +^1(x, y) +^1(j(x), 1(y)) -> +^1(x, y) Strictly oriented rules of the TRS R: +(0(x), 0(y)) -> 0(+(x, y)) +(0(x), 1(y)) -> 1(+(x, y)) +(1(x), 0(y)) -> 1(+(x, y)) +(0(x), j(y)) -> j(+(x, y)) +(j(x), 0(y)) -> j(+(x, y)) +(1(x), j(y)) -> 0(+(x, y)) +(j(x), 1(y)) -> 0(+(x, y)) 0(#) -> # Used ordering: Polynomial interpretation [POLO]: POL(#) = 0 POL(+(x_1, x_2)) = x_1 + x_2 POL(+^1(x_1, x_2)) = x_1 + x_2 POL(0(x_1)) = 1 + x_1 POL(1(x_1)) = 1 + x_1 POL(j(x_1)) = 1 + x_1 ---------------------------------------- (14) Obligation: Q DP problem: The TRS P consists of the following rules: +^1(+(x, y), z) -> +^1(x, +(y, z)) +^1(+(x, y), z) -> +^1(y, z) The TRS R consists of the following rules: +(#, x) -> x +(x, #) -> x +(1(x), 1(y)) -> j(+(+(x, y), 1(#))) +(j(x), j(y)) -> 1(+(+(x, y), j(#))) +(+(x, y), z) -> +(x, +(y, z)) 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: *+^1(+(x, y), z) -> +^1(x, +(y, z)) The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1 *+^1(+(x, y), z) -> +^1(y, z) 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: *^1(1(x), y) -> *^1(x, y) *^1(0(x), y) -> *^1(x, y) *^1(j(x), y) -> *^1(x, y) *^1(*(x, y), z) -> *^1(x, *(y, z)) *^1(*(x, y), z) -> *^1(y, z) The TRS R consists of the following rules: 0(#) -> # +(#, x) -> x +(x, #) -> x +(0(x), 0(y)) -> 0(+(x, y)) +(0(x), 1(y)) -> 1(+(x, y)) +(1(x), 0(y)) -> 1(+(x, y)) +(0(x), j(y)) -> j(+(x, y)) +(j(x), 0(y)) -> j(+(x, y)) +(1(x), 1(y)) -> j(+(+(x, y), 1(#))) +(j(x), j(y)) -> 1(+(+(x, y), j(#))) +(1(x), j(y)) -> 0(+(x, y)) +(j(x), 1(y)) -> 0(+(x, y)) +(+(x, y), z) -> +(x, +(y, z)) opp(#) -> # opp(0(x)) -> 0(opp(x)) opp(1(x)) -> j(opp(x)) opp(j(x)) -> 1(opp(x)) -(x, y) -> +(x, opp(y)) *(#, x) -> # *(0(x), y) -> 0(*(x, y)) *(1(x), y) -> +(0(*(x, y)), y) *(j(x), y) -> -(0(*(x, y)), y) *(*(x, y), z) -> *(x, *(y, z)) Q is empty. We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains. ---------------------------------------- (18) 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: **^1(1(x), y) -> *^1(x, y) The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1, 2 >= 2 **^1(0(x), y) -> *^1(x, y) The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1, 2 >= 2 **^1(j(x), y) -> *^1(x, y) The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1, 2 >= 2 **^1(*(x, y), z) -> *^1(x, *(y, z)) The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1 **^1(*(x, y), z) -> *^1(y, z) The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1, 2 >= 2 ---------------------------------------- (19) YES