/export/starexec/sandbox2/solver/bin/starexec_run_standard /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.xml /export/starexec/sandbox2/output/output_files


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


NO
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# AProVE Commit ID: 48fb2092695e11cc9f56e44b17a92a5f88ffb256 marcel 20180622 unpublished dirty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 disproven:

(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) NonTerminationLoopProof [COMPLETE, 0 ms]
        (12) NO


----------------------------------------

(0)
Obligation:
Q restricted rewrite system:
The TRS R consists of the following rules:

   f(0, 1, g(x, y), z) -> f(g(x, y), g(x, y), g(x, y), h(x))
   g(0, 1) -> 0
   g(0, 1) -> 1
   h(g(x, y)) -> h(x)

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:

   F(0, 1, g(x, y), z) -> F(g(x, y), g(x, y), g(x, y), h(x))
   F(0, 1, g(x, y), z) -> H(x)
   H(g(x, y)) -> H(x)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

   f(0, 1, g(x, y), z) -> f(g(x, y), g(x, y), g(x, y), h(x))
   g(0, 1) -> 0
   g(0, 1) -> 1
   h(g(x, y)) -> h(x)

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 2 SCCs with 1 less node.
----------------------------------------

(4)
Complex Obligation (AND)

----------------------------------------

(5)
Obligation:
Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:

   H(g(x, y)) -> H(x)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

   f(0, 1, g(x, y), z) -> f(g(x, y), g(x, y), g(x, y), h(x))
   g(0, 1) -> 0
   g(0, 1) -> 1
   h(g(x, y)) -> h(x)

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:

   H(g(x, y)) -> H(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:
*H(g(x, y)) -> H(x)
The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1


----------------------------------------

(9)
YES

----------------------------------------

(10)
Obligation:
Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:

   F(0, 1, g(x, y), z) -> F(g(x, y), g(x, y), g(x, y), h(x))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

   f(0, 1, g(x, y), z) -> f(g(x, y), g(x, y), g(x, y), h(x))
   g(0, 1) -> 0
   g(0, 1) -> 1
   h(g(x, y)) -> h(x)

Q is empty.
We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
----------------------------------------

(11) NonTerminationLoopProof (COMPLETE)
We used the non-termination processor [FROCOS05] to show that the DP problem is infinite.
Found a loop by narrowing to the left:

s = F(g(0, 1), g(0, 1), g(x, y), z) evaluates to  t =F(g(x, y), g(x, y), g(x, y), h(x))

Thus s starts an infinite chain as s semiunifies with t with the following substitutions:
* Matcher: [ ]
* Semiunifier: [x / 0, y / 1, z / h(0)]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rewriting sequence

F(g(0, 1), g(0, 1), g(0, 1), h(0)) -> F(g(0, 1), 1, g(0, 1), h(0))
with rule g(0, 1) -> 1 at position [1] and matcher [ ]

F(g(0, 1), 1, g(0, 1), h(0)) -> F(0, 1, g(0, 1), h(0))
with rule g(0, 1) -> 0 at position [0] and matcher [ ]

F(0, 1, g(0, 1), h(0)) -> F(g(0, 1), g(0, 1), g(0, 1), h(0))
with rule F(0, 1, g(x, y), z) -> F(g(x, y), g(x, y), g(x, y), h(x))

Now applying the matcher to the start term leads to a term which is equal to the last term in the rewriting sequence


All these steps are and every following step will be a correct step w.r.t to Q.




----------------------------------------

(12)
NO