/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# AProVE Commit ID: 48fb2092695e11cc9f56e44b17a92a5f88ffb256 marcel 20180622 unpublished dirty Termination of the given RelTRS could be proven: (0) RelTRS (1) RelTRS Reverse [EQUIVALENT, 0 ms] (2) RelTRS (3) RelTRSRRRProof [EQUIVALENT, 32 ms] (4) RelTRS (5) RelTRSRRRProof [EQUIVALENT, 316 ms] (6) RelTRS (7) RelTRSRRRProof [EQUIVALENT, 0 ms] (8) RelTRS (9) RelTRSRRRProof [EQUIVALENT, 34 ms] (10) RelTRS (11) RelTRSRRRProof [EQUIVALENT, 30 ms] (12) RelTRS (13) RelTRSRRRProof [EQUIVALENT, 53 ms] (14) RelTRS (15) RIsEmptyProof [EQUIVALENT, 0 ms] (16) YES ---------------------------------------- (0) Obligation: Relative term rewrite system: The relative TRS consists of the following R rules: t(u(x1)) -> t(c(d(x1))) d(f(x1)) -> f(d(x1)) d(g(x1)) -> u(g(x1)) f(u(x1)) -> u(f(x1)) d(n(x1)) -> d(x1) d(o(x1)) -> d(x1) o(u(x1)) -> u(x1) The relative TRS consists of the following S rules: n(u(x1)) -> u(x1) f(x1) -> f(n(x1)) t(x1) -> t(c(n(x1))) c(n(x1)) -> n(c(x1)) c(o(x1)) -> o(c(x1)) c(o(x1)) -> o(x1) c(f(x1)) -> f(c(x1)) c(u(x1)) -> u(c(x1)) c(d(x1)) -> d(c(x1)) ---------------------------------------- (1) RelTRS Reverse (EQUIVALENT) We have reversed the following relative TRS [REVERSE]: The set of rules R is t(u(x1)) -> t(c(d(x1))) d(f(x1)) -> f(d(x1)) d(g(x1)) -> u(g(x1)) f(u(x1)) -> u(f(x1)) d(n(x1)) -> d(x1) d(o(x1)) -> d(x1) o(u(x1)) -> u(x1) The set of rules S is n(u(x1)) -> u(x1) f(x1) -> f(n(x1)) t(x1) -> t(c(n(x1))) c(n(x1)) -> n(c(x1)) c(o(x1)) -> o(c(x1)) c(o(x1)) -> o(x1) c(f(x1)) -> f(c(x1)) c(u(x1)) -> u(c(x1)) c(d(x1)) -> d(c(x1)) We have obtained the following relative TRS: The set of rules R is u(t(x1)) -> d(c(t(x1))) f(d(x1)) -> d(f(x1)) g(d(x1)) -> g(u(x1)) u(f(x1)) -> f(u(x1)) n(d(x1)) -> d(x1) o(d(x1)) -> d(x1) u(o(x1)) -> u(x1) The set of rules S is u(n(x1)) -> u(x1) f(x1) -> n(f(x1)) t(x1) -> n(c(t(x1))) n(c(x1)) -> c(n(x1)) o(c(x1)) -> c(o(x1)) o(c(x1)) -> o(x1) f(c(x1)) -> c(f(x1)) u(c(x1)) -> c(u(x1)) d(c(x1)) -> c(d(x1)) ---------------------------------------- (2) Obligation: Relative term rewrite system: The relative TRS consists of the following R rules: u(t(x1)) -> d(c(t(x1))) f(d(x1)) -> d(f(x1)) g(d(x1)) -> g(u(x1)) u(f(x1)) -> f(u(x1)) n(d(x1)) -> d(x1) o(d(x1)) -> d(x1) u(o(x1)) -> u(x1) The relative TRS consists of the following S rules: u(n(x1)) -> u(x1) f(x1) -> n(f(x1)) t(x1) -> n(c(t(x1))) n(c(x1)) -> c(n(x1)) o(c(x1)) -> c(o(x1)) o(c(x1)) -> o(x1) f(c(x1)) -> c(f(x1)) u(c(x1)) -> c(u(x1)) d(c(x1)) -> c(d(x1)) ---------------------------------------- (3) RelTRSRRRProof (EQUIVALENT) We used the following monotonic ordering for rule removal: Polynomial interpretation [POLO]: POL(c(x_1)) = x_1 POL(d(x_1)) = x_1 POL(f(x_1)) = x_1 POL(g(x_1)) = x_1 POL(n(x_1)) = x_1 POL(o(x_1)) = 1 + x_1 POL(t(x_1)) = x_1 POL(u(x_1)) = x_1 With this ordering the following rules can be removed [MATRO] because they are oriented strictly: Rules from R: o(d(x1)) -> d(x1) u(o(x1)) -> u(x1) Rules from S: none ---------------------------------------- (4) Obligation: Relative term rewrite system: The relative TRS consists of the following R rules: u(t(x1)) -> d(c(t(x1))) f(d(x1)) -> d(f(x1)) g(d(x1)) -> g(u(x1)) u(f(x1)) -> f(u(x1)) n(d(x1)) -> d(x1) The relative TRS consists of the following S rules: u(n(x1)) -> u(x1) f(x1) -> n(f(x1)) t(x1) -> n(c(t(x1))) n(c(x1)) -> c(n(x1)) o(c(x1)) -> c(o(x1)) o(c(x1)) -> o(x1) f(c(x1)) -> c(f(x1)) u(c(x1)) -> c(u(x1)) d(c(x1)) -> c(d(x1)) ---------------------------------------- (5) RelTRSRRRProof (EQUIVALENT) We used the following monotonic ordering for rule removal: Matrix interpretation [MATRO] to (N^2, +, *, >=, >) : <<< POL(u(x_1)) = [[0], [0]] + [[2, 0], [0, 2]] * x_1 >>> <<< POL(t(x_1)) = [[2], [2]] + [[1, 0], [2, 0]] * x_1 >>> <<< POL(d(x_1)) = [[0], [0]] + [[1, 0], [2, 2]] * x_1 >>> <<< POL(c(x_1)) = [[0], [0]] + [[1, 0], [0, 0]] * x_1 >>> <<< POL(f(x_1)) = [[0], [0]] + [[1, 0], [0, 1]] * x_1 >>> <<< POL(g(x_1)) = [[0], [0]] + [[1, 2], [0, 0]] * x_1 >>> <<< POL(n(x_1)) = [[0], [0]] + [[1, 0], [0, 1]] * x_1 >>> <<< POL(o(x_1)) = [[0], [2]] + [[1, 0], [0, 0]] * x_1 >>> With this ordering the following rules can be removed [MATRO] because they are oriented strictly: Rules from R: u(t(x1)) -> d(c(t(x1))) Rules from S: none ---------------------------------------- (6) Obligation: Relative term rewrite system: The relative TRS consists of the following R rules: f(d(x1)) -> d(f(x1)) g(d(x1)) -> g(u(x1)) u(f(x1)) -> f(u(x1)) n(d(x1)) -> d(x1) The relative TRS consists of the following S rules: u(n(x1)) -> u(x1) f(x1) -> n(f(x1)) t(x1) -> n(c(t(x1))) n(c(x1)) -> c(n(x1)) o(c(x1)) -> c(o(x1)) o(c(x1)) -> o(x1) f(c(x1)) -> c(f(x1)) u(c(x1)) -> c(u(x1)) d(c(x1)) -> c(d(x1)) ---------------------------------------- (7) RelTRSRRRProof (EQUIVALENT) We used the following monotonic ordering for rule removal: Polynomial interpretation [POLO]: POL(c(x_1)) = x_1 POL(d(x_1)) = 1 + x_1 POL(f(x_1)) = x_1 POL(g(x_1)) = x_1 POL(n(x_1)) = x_1 POL(o(x_1)) = x_1 POL(t(x_1)) = x_1 POL(u(x_1)) = x_1 With this ordering the following rules can be removed [MATRO] because they are oriented strictly: Rules from R: g(d(x1)) -> g(u(x1)) Rules from S: none ---------------------------------------- (8) Obligation: Relative term rewrite system: The relative TRS consists of the following R rules: f(d(x1)) -> d(f(x1)) u(f(x1)) -> f(u(x1)) n(d(x1)) -> d(x1) The relative TRS consists of the following S rules: u(n(x1)) -> u(x1) f(x1) -> n(f(x1)) t(x1) -> n(c(t(x1))) n(c(x1)) -> c(n(x1)) o(c(x1)) -> c(o(x1)) o(c(x1)) -> o(x1) f(c(x1)) -> c(f(x1)) u(c(x1)) -> c(u(x1)) d(c(x1)) -> c(d(x1)) ---------------------------------------- (9) RelTRSRRRProof (EQUIVALENT) We used the following monotonic ordering for rule removal: Matrix interpretation [MATRO] to (N^2, +, *, >=, >) : <<< POL(f(x_1)) = [[0], [1]] + [[2, 0], [0, 0]] * x_1 >>> <<< POL(d(x_1)) = [[1], [0]] + [[2, 0], [0, 0]] * x_1 >>> <<< POL(u(x_1)) = [[0], [0]] + [[1, 0], [0, 1]] * x_1 >>> <<< POL(n(x_1)) = [[0], [0]] + [[1, 0], [0, 1]] * x_1 >>> <<< POL(t(x_1)) = [[0], [0]] + [[1, 0], [0, 0]] * x_1 >>> <<< POL(c(x_1)) = [[0], [0]] + [[1, 0], [0, 0]] * x_1 >>> <<< POL(o(x_1)) = [[0], [0]] + [[1, 0], [2, 0]] * x_1 >>> With this ordering the following rules can be removed [MATRO] because they are oriented strictly: Rules from R: f(d(x1)) -> d(f(x1)) Rules from S: none ---------------------------------------- (10) Obligation: Relative term rewrite system: The relative TRS consists of the following R rules: u(f(x1)) -> f(u(x1)) n(d(x1)) -> d(x1) The relative TRS consists of the following S rules: u(n(x1)) -> u(x1) f(x1) -> n(f(x1)) t(x1) -> n(c(t(x1))) n(c(x1)) -> c(n(x1)) o(c(x1)) -> c(o(x1)) o(c(x1)) -> o(x1) f(c(x1)) -> c(f(x1)) u(c(x1)) -> c(u(x1)) d(c(x1)) -> c(d(x1)) ---------------------------------------- (11) RelTRSRRRProof (EQUIVALENT) We used the following monotonic ordering for rule removal: Matrix interpretation [MATRO] to (N^2, +, *, >=, >) : <<< POL(u(x_1)) = [[0], [2]] + [[2, 0], [2, 2]] * x_1 >>> <<< POL(f(x_1)) = [[1], [2]] + [[1, 0], [2, 0]] * x_1 >>> <<< POL(n(x_1)) = [[0], [0]] + [[1, 0], [0, 1]] * x_1 >>> <<< POL(d(x_1)) = [[0], [0]] + [[1, 0], [0, 0]] * x_1 >>> <<< POL(t(x_1)) = [[0], [0]] + [[2, 0], [0, 0]] * x_1 >>> <<< POL(c(x_1)) = [[0], [0]] + [[1, 0], [0, 0]] * x_1 >>> <<< POL(o(x_1)) = [[0], [2]] + [[2, 0], [0, 0]] * x_1 >>> With this ordering the following rules can be removed [MATRO] because they are oriented strictly: Rules from R: u(f(x1)) -> f(u(x1)) Rules from S: none ---------------------------------------- (12) Obligation: Relative term rewrite system: The relative TRS consists of the following R rules: n(d(x1)) -> d(x1) The relative TRS consists of the following S rules: u(n(x1)) -> u(x1) f(x1) -> n(f(x1)) t(x1) -> n(c(t(x1))) n(c(x1)) -> c(n(x1)) o(c(x1)) -> c(o(x1)) o(c(x1)) -> o(x1) f(c(x1)) -> c(f(x1)) u(c(x1)) -> c(u(x1)) d(c(x1)) -> c(d(x1)) ---------------------------------------- (13) RelTRSRRRProof (EQUIVALENT) We used the following monotonic ordering for rule removal: Matrix interpretation [MATRO] to (N^2, +, *, >=, >) : <<< POL(n(x_1)) = [[0], [0]] + [[1, 1], [0, 1]] * x_1 >>> <<< POL(d(x_1)) = [[0], [1]] + [[1, 0], [0, 0]] * x_1 >>> <<< POL(u(x_1)) = [[0], [0]] + [[1, 0], [0, 0]] * x_1 >>> <<< POL(f(x_1)) = [[0], [0]] + [[2, 0], [0, 0]] * x_1 >>> <<< POL(t(x_1)) = [[0], [0]] + [[1, 0], [0, 0]] * x_1 >>> <<< POL(c(x_1)) = [[0], [0]] + [[1, 0], [0, 1]] * x_1 >>> <<< POL(o(x_1)) = [[0], [0]] + [[1, 0], [0, 0]] * x_1 >>> With this ordering the following rules can be removed [MATRO] because they are oriented strictly: Rules from R: n(d(x1)) -> d(x1) Rules from S: none ---------------------------------------- (14) Obligation: Relative term rewrite system: R is empty. The relative TRS consists of the following S rules: u(n(x1)) -> u(x1) f(x1) -> n(f(x1)) t(x1) -> n(c(t(x1))) n(c(x1)) -> c(n(x1)) o(c(x1)) -> c(o(x1)) o(c(x1)) -> o(x1) f(c(x1)) -> c(f(x1)) u(c(x1)) -> c(u(x1)) d(c(x1)) -> c(d(x1)) ---------------------------------------- (15) RIsEmptyProof (EQUIVALENT) The TRS R is empty. Hence, termination is trivially proven. ---------------------------------------- (16) YES