/export/starexec/sandbox2/solver/bin/starexec_run_HigherOrder /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.xml /export/starexec/sandbox2/output/output_files -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- YES We consider the system theBenchmark. Alphabet: app : [] --> arrAB -> A -> B case : [] --> SAB -> A -> C -> B -> C -> C inl : [] --> A -> SAB inr : [] --> B -> SAB lam : [] --> A -> B -> arrAB Rules: app (lam (/\x.f x)) y => f y lam (/\x.app y x) => y case (inl x) (/\y.f y) (/\z.g z) => f x case (inr x) (/\y.f y) (/\z.g z) => g x Using the transformations described in [Kop11], this system can be brought in a form without leading free variables in the left-hand side, and where the left-hand side of a variable is always a functional term or application headed by a functional term. We now transform the resulting AFS into an AFSM by replacing all free variables by meta-variables (with arity 0). This leads to the following AFSM: Alphabet: app : [arrAB * A] --> B case : [SAB * A -> C * B -> C] --> C inl : [A] --> SAB inr : [B] --> SAB lam : [A -> B] --> arrAB ~AP1 : [A -> B * A] --> B ~AP2 : [A -> C * A] --> C ~AP3 : [B -> C * B] --> C Rules: app(lam(/\x.~AP1(F, x)), X) => ~AP1(F, X) lam(/\x.app(X, x)) => X case(inl(X), /\x.~AP2(F, x), /\y.~AP3(G, y)) => ~AP2(F, X) case(inr(X), /\x.~AP2(F, x), /\y.~AP3(G, y)) => ~AP3(G, X) app(lam(/\x.app(X, x)), Y) => app(X, Y) ~AP1(F, X) => F X ~AP2(F, X) => F X ~AP3(F, X) => F X We use the dependency pair framework as described in [Kop12, Ch. 6/7], with static dependency pairs (see [KusIsoSakBla09] and the adaptation for AFSMs and accessible arguments in [Kop13]). We thus obtain the following dependency pair problem (P_0, R_0, static, all): Dependency Pairs P_0: 0] app#(lam(/\x.~AP1(F, x)), X) =#> ~AP1#(F, X) 1] case#(inl(X), /\x.~AP2(F, x), /\y.~AP3(G, y)) =#> ~AP2#(F, X) 2] case#(inr(X), /\x.~AP2(F, x), /\y.~AP3(G, y)) =#> ~AP3#(G, X) 3] app#(lam(/\x.app(X, x)), Y) =#> app#(X, Y) Rules R_0: app(lam(/\x.~AP1(F, x)), X) => ~AP1(F, X) lam(/\x.app(X, x)) => X case(inl(X), /\x.~AP2(F, x), /\y.~AP3(G, y)) => ~AP2(F, X) case(inr(X), /\x.~AP2(F, x), /\y.~AP3(G, y)) => ~AP3(G, X) app(lam(/\x.app(X, x)), Y) => app(X, Y) ~AP1(F, X) => F X ~AP2(F, X) => F X ~AP3(F, X) => F X Thus, the original system is terminating if (P_0, R_0, static, all) is finite. We consider the dependency pair problem (P_0, R_0, static, all). 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 : * 2 : * 3 : 0, 3 This graph has the following strongly connected components: P_1: app#(lam(/\x.app(X, x)), Y) =#> app#(X, Y) 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). Thus, the original system is terminating if (P_1, R_0, static, all) is finite. We consider the dependency pair problem (P_1, R_0, static, all). We apply the subterm criterion with the following projection function: nu(app#) = 1 Thus, we can orient the dependency pairs as follows: nu(app#(lam(/\x.app(X, x)), Y)) = lam(/\y.app(X, y)) |> X = nu(app#(X, Y)) By [Kop12, Thm. 7.35] and [Kop13, Thm. 5], we may replace a dependency pair problem (P_1, R_0, static, f) by ({}, R_0, static, 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 +++ [Kop11] C. Kop. Simplifying Algebraic Functional Systems. In Proceedings of CAI 2011, volume 6742 of LNCS. 201--215, Springer, 2011. [Kop12] C. Kop. Higher Order Termination. PhD Thesis, 2012. [Kop13] C. Kop. Static Dependency Pairs with Accessibility. Unpublished manuscript, http://cl-informatik.uibk.ac.at/users/kop/static.pdf, 2013. [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.