/export/starexec/sandbox2/solver/bin/starexec_run_FirstOrder /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.xml /export/starexec/sandbox2/output/output_files -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- YES We consider the system theBenchmark. We are asked to determine termination of the following first-order TRS. !770!870 : [o * o] --> o !dot : [o * o] --> o !plus!plus : [o * o] --> o greaters : [o * o] --> o if : [o * o * o] --> o lowers : [o * o] --> o nil : [] --> o qsort : [o] --> o qsort(nil) => nil qsort(!dot(X, Y)) => !plus!plus(qsort(lowers(X, Y)), !dot(X, qsort(greaters(X, Y)))) lowers(X, nil) => nil lowers(X, !dot(Y, Z)) => if(!770!870(Y, X), !dot(Y, lowers(X, Z)), lowers(X, Z)) greaters(X, nil) => nil greaters(X, !dot(Y, Z)) => if(!770!870(Y, X), greaters(X, Z), !dot(Y, greaters(X, Z))) As the system is orthogonal, it is terminating if it is innermost terminating by [Gra95]. Then, by [FuhGieParSchSwi11], it suffices to prove (innermost) termination of the typed system, with sort annotations chosen to respect the rules, as follows: !770!870 : [dc * dc] --> ub !dot : [dc * dc] --> dc !plus!plus : [dc * dc] --> dc greaters : [dc * dc] --> dc if : [ub * dc * dc] --> dc lowers : [dc * dc] --> dc nil : [] --> dc qsort : [dc] --> dc We use the dependency pair framework as described in [Kop12, Ch. 6/7], with static dependency pairs (see [KusIsoSakBla09] and the adaptation for AFSMs in [Kop12, Ch. 7.8]). We thus obtain the following dependency pair problem (P_0, R_0, minimal, formative): Dependency Pairs P_0: 0] qsort#(!dot(X, Y)) =#> qsort#(lowers(X, Y)) 1] qsort#(!dot(X, Y)) =#> lowers#(X, Y) 2] qsort#(!dot(X, Y)) =#> qsort#(greaters(X, Y)) 3] qsort#(!dot(X, Y)) =#> greaters#(X, Y) 4] lowers#(X, !dot(Y, Z)) =#> lowers#(X, Z) 5] lowers#(X, !dot(Y, Z)) =#> lowers#(X, Z) 6] greaters#(X, !dot(Y, Z)) =#> greaters#(X, Z) 7] greaters#(X, !dot(Y, Z)) =#> greaters#(X, Z) Rules R_0: qsort(nil) => nil qsort(!dot(X, Y)) => !plus!plus(qsort(lowers(X, Y)), !dot(X, qsort(greaters(X, Y)))) lowers(X, nil) => nil lowers(X, !dot(Y, Z)) => if(!770!870(Y, X), !dot(Y, lowers(X, Z)), lowers(X, Z)) greaters(X, nil) => nil greaters(X, !dot(Y, Z)) => if(!770!870(Y, X), greaters(X, Z), !dot(Y, greaters(X, Z))) Thus, the original system is terminating if (P_0, R_0, minimal, formative) is finite. We consider the dependency pair problem (P_0, R_0, minimal, formative). We place the elements of P in a dependency graph approximation G (see e.g. [Kop12, Thm. 7.27, 7.29], as follows: * 0 : * 1 : 4, 5 * 2 : * 3 : 6, 7 * 4 : 4, 5 * 5 : 4, 5 * 6 : 6, 7 * 7 : 6, 7 This graph has the following strongly connected components: P_1: lowers#(X, !dot(Y, Z)) =#> lowers#(X, Z) lowers#(X, !dot(Y, Z)) =#> lowers#(X, Z) P_2: greaters#(X, !dot(Y, Z)) =#> greaters#(X, Z) greaters#(X, !dot(Y, Z)) =#> greaters#(X, Z) By [Kop12, Thm. 7.31], we may replace any dependency pair problem (P_0, R_0, m, f) by (P_1, R_0, m, f) and (P_2, R_0, m, f). Thus, the original system is terminating if each of (P_1, R_0, minimal, formative) and (P_2, R_0, minimal, formative) is finite. We consider the dependency pair problem (P_2, R_0, minimal, formative). We apply the subterm criterion with the following projection function: nu(greaters#) = 2 Thus, we can orient the dependency pairs as follows: nu(greaters#(X, !dot(Y, Z))) = !dot(Y, Z) |> Z = nu(greaters#(X, Z)) nu(greaters#(X, !dot(Y, Z))) = !dot(Y, Z) |> Z = nu(greaters#(X, Z)) By [Kop12, Thm. 7.35], we may replace a dependency pair problem (P_2, R_0, minimal, f) by ({}, R_0, minimal, f). By the empty set processor [Kop12, Thm. 7.15] this problem may be immediately removed. Thus, the original system is terminating if (P_1, R_0, minimal, formative) is finite. We consider the dependency pair problem (P_1, R_0, minimal, formative). We apply the subterm criterion with the following projection function: nu(lowers#) = 2 Thus, we can orient the dependency pairs as follows: nu(lowers#(X, !dot(Y, Z))) = !dot(Y, Z) |> Z = nu(lowers#(X, Z)) nu(lowers#(X, !dot(Y, Z))) = !dot(Y, Z) |> Z = nu(lowers#(X, Z)) By [Kop12, Thm. 7.35], we may replace a dependency pair problem (P_1, R_0, minimal, f) by ({}, R_0, minimal, f). By the empty set processor [Kop12, Thm. 7.15] this problem may be immediately removed. As all dependency pair problems were succesfully simplified with sound (and complete) processors until nothing remained, we conclude termination. +++ Citations +++ [FuhGieParSchSwi11] C. Fuhs, J. Giesl, M. Parting, P. Schneider-Kamp, and S. Swiderski. Proving Termination by Dependency Pairs and Inductive Theorem Proving. In volume 47(2) of Journal of Automated Reasoning. 133--160, 2011. [Gra95] B. Gramlich. Abstract Relations Between Restricted Termination and Confluence Properties of Rewrite Systems. In volume 24(1-2) of Fundamentae Informaticae. 3--23, 1995. [Kop12] C. Kop. Higher Order Termination. PhD Thesis, 2012. [KusIsoSakBla09] K. Kusakari, Y. Isogai, M. Sakai, and F. Blanqui. Static Dependency Pair Method Based On Strong Computability for Higher-Order Rewrite Systems. In volume 92(10) of IEICE Transactions on Information and Systems. 2007--2015, 2009.