/export/starexec/sandbox/solver/bin/starexec_run_standard /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.xml /export/starexec/sandbox/output/output_files -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- YES proof of /export/starexec/sandbox/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# AProVE Commit ID: 48fb2092695e11cc9f56e44b17a92a5f88ffb256 marcel 20180622 unpublished dirty Termination w.r.t. Q of the given QTRS could be proven: (0) QTRS (1) QTRS Reverse [EQUIVALENT, 0 ms] (2) QTRS (3) DependencyPairsProof [EQUIVALENT, 17 ms] (4) QDP (5) QDPOrderProof [EQUIVALENT, 23 ms] (6) QDP (7) DependencyGraphProof [EQUIVALENT, 0 ms] (8) AND (9) QDP (10) UsableRulesProof [EQUIVALENT, 1 ms] (11) QDP (12) QDPOrderProof [EQUIVALENT, 0 ms] (13) QDP (14) PisEmptyProof [EQUIVALENT, 0 ms] (15) YES (16) QDP (17) UsableRulesProof [EQUIVALENT, 0 ms] (18) QDP (19) QDPSizeChangeProof [EQUIVALENT, 0 ms] (20) YES ---------------------------------------- (0) Obligation: Q restricted rewrite system: The TRS R consists of the following rules: a(a(b(x1))) -> b(a(b(c(a(x1))))) b(a(x1)) -> a(b(b(x1))) b(c(a(x1))) -> c(a(b(x1))) Q is empty. ---------------------------------------- (1) QTRS Reverse (EQUIVALENT) We applied the QTRS Reverse Processor [REVERSE]. ---------------------------------------- (2) Obligation: Q restricted rewrite system: The TRS R consists of the following rules: b(a(a(x1))) -> a(c(b(a(b(x1))))) a(b(x1)) -> b(b(a(x1))) a(c(b(x1))) -> b(a(c(x1))) Q is empty. ---------------------------------------- (3) DependencyPairsProof (EQUIVALENT) Using Dependency Pairs [AG00,LPAR04] we result in the following initial DP problem. ---------------------------------------- (4) Obligation: Q DP problem: The TRS P consists of the following rules: B(a(a(x1))) -> A(c(b(a(b(x1))))) B(a(a(x1))) -> B(a(b(x1))) B(a(a(x1))) -> A(b(x1)) B(a(a(x1))) -> B(x1) A(b(x1)) -> B(b(a(x1))) A(b(x1)) -> B(a(x1)) A(b(x1)) -> A(x1) A(c(b(x1))) -> B(a(c(x1))) A(c(b(x1))) -> A(c(x1)) The TRS R consists of the following rules: b(a(a(x1))) -> a(c(b(a(b(x1))))) a(b(x1)) -> b(b(a(x1))) a(c(b(x1))) -> b(a(c(x1))) Q is empty. We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains. ---------------------------------------- (5) QDPOrderProof (EQUIVALENT) We use the reduction pair processor [LPAR04,JAR06]. The following pairs can be oriented strictly and are deleted. B(a(a(x1))) -> A(c(b(a(b(x1))))) B(a(a(x1))) -> B(a(b(x1))) B(a(a(x1))) -> A(b(x1)) B(a(a(x1))) -> B(x1) The remaining pairs can at least be oriented weakly. Used ordering: Polynomial interpretation [POLO]: POL(A(x_1)) = 1 + x_1 POL(B(x_1)) = x_1 POL(a(x_1)) = 1 + x_1 POL(b(x_1)) = x_1 POL(c(x_1)) = 0 The following usable rules [FROCOS05] with respect to the argument filtering of the ordering [JAR06] were oriented: a(c(b(x1))) -> b(a(c(x1))) b(a(a(x1))) -> a(c(b(a(b(x1))))) a(b(x1)) -> b(b(a(x1))) ---------------------------------------- (6) Obligation: Q DP problem: The TRS P consists of the following rules: A(b(x1)) -> B(b(a(x1))) A(b(x1)) -> B(a(x1)) A(b(x1)) -> A(x1) A(c(b(x1))) -> B(a(c(x1))) A(c(b(x1))) -> A(c(x1)) The TRS R consists of the following rules: b(a(a(x1))) -> a(c(b(a(b(x1))))) a(b(x1)) -> b(b(a(x1))) a(c(b(x1))) -> b(a(c(x1))) Q is empty. We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains. ---------------------------------------- (7) DependencyGraphProof (EQUIVALENT) The approximation of the Dependency Graph [LPAR04,FROCOS05,EDGSTAR] contains 2 SCCs with 3 less nodes. ---------------------------------------- (8) Complex Obligation (AND) ---------------------------------------- (9) Obligation: Q DP problem: The TRS P consists of the following rules: A(c(b(x1))) -> A(c(x1)) The TRS R consists of the following rules: b(a(a(x1))) -> a(c(b(a(b(x1))))) a(b(x1)) -> b(b(a(x1))) a(c(b(x1))) -> b(a(c(x1))) Q is empty. We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains. ---------------------------------------- (10) 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. ---------------------------------------- (11) Obligation: Q DP problem: The TRS P consists of the following rules: A(c(b(x1))) -> A(c(x1)) R is empty. Q is empty. We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains. ---------------------------------------- (12) QDPOrderProof (EQUIVALENT) We use the reduction pair processor [LPAR04,JAR06]. The following pairs can be oriented strictly and are deleted. A(c(b(x1))) -> A(c(x1)) The remaining pairs can at least be oriented weakly. Used ordering: Polynomial interpretation [POLO]: POL(A(x_1)) = x_1 POL(b(x_1)) = 1 + x_1 POL(c(x_1)) = x_1 The following usable rules [FROCOS05] with respect to the argument filtering of the ordering [JAR06] were oriented: none ---------------------------------------- (13) Obligation: Q DP problem: P is empty. R is empty. Q is empty. We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains. ---------------------------------------- (14) PisEmptyProof (EQUIVALENT) The TRS P is empty. Hence, there is no (P,Q,R) chain. ---------------------------------------- (15) YES ---------------------------------------- (16) Obligation: Q DP problem: The TRS P consists of the following rules: A(b(x1)) -> A(x1) The TRS R consists of the following rules: b(a(a(x1))) -> a(c(b(a(b(x1))))) a(b(x1)) -> b(b(a(x1))) a(c(b(x1))) -> b(a(c(x1))) Q is empty. We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains. ---------------------------------------- (17) 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. ---------------------------------------- (18) Obligation: Q DP problem: The TRS P consists of the following rules: A(b(x1)) -> A(x1) R is empty. Q is empty. We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains. ---------------------------------------- (19) 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: *A(b(x1)) -> A(x1) The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1 ---------------------------------------- (20) YES