/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# AProVE Commit ID: 48fb2092695e11cc9f56e44b17a92a5f88ffb256 marcel 20180622 unpublished dirty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) QTRSRRRProof [EQUIVALENT, 31 ms]
(2) QTRS
(3) RisEmptyProof [EQUIVALENT, 0 ms]
(4) YES


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

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

   a__and(tt, X) -> mark(X)
   a__plus(N, 0) -> mark(N)
   a__plus(N, s(M)) -> s(a__plus(mark(N), mark(M)))
   mark(and(X1, X2)) -> a__and(mark(X1), X2)
   mark(plus(X1, X2)) -> a__plus(mark(X1), mark(X2))
   mark(tt) -> tt
   mark(0) -> 0
   mark(s(X)) -> s(mark(X))
   a__and(X1, X2) -> and(X1, X2)
   a__plus(X1, X2) -> plus(X1, X2)

Q is empty.

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

(1) QTRSRRRProof (EQUIVALENT)
Used ordering:
Knuth-Bendix order [KBO] with precedence:mark_1 > a__and_2 > and_2 > a__plus_2 > plus_2 > s_1 > 0 > tt

and weight map:

   tt=1
   0=1
   mark_1=0
   s_1=1
   a__and_2=0
   a__plus_2=0
   and_2=0
   plus_2=0

The variable weight is 1With this ordering the following rules can be removed by the rule removal processor [LPAR04] because they are oriented strictly:

   a__and(tt, X) -> mark(X)
   a__plus(N, 0) -> mark(N)
   a__plus(N, s(M)) -> s(a__plus(mark(N), mark(M)))
   mark(and(X1, X2)) -> a__and(mark(X1), X2)
   mark(plus(X1, X2)) -> a__plus(mark(X1), mark(X2))
   mark(tt) -> tt
   mark(0) -> 0
   mark(s(X)) -> s(mark(X))
   a__and(X1, X2) -> and(X1, X2)
   a__plus(X1, X2) -> plus(X1, X2)




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

(2)
Obligation:
Q restricted rewrite system:
R is empty.
Q is empty.

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

(3) RisEmptyProof (EQUIVALENT)
The TRS R is empty. Hence, termination is trivially proven.
----------------------------------------

(4)
YES