/export/starexec/sandbox2/solver/bin/starexec_run_c /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.c /export/starexec/sandbox2/output/output_files


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


YES
proof of /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.c
# AProVE Commit ID: 48fb2092695e11cc9f56e44b17a92a5f88ffb256 marcel 20180622 unpublished dirty


Termination of the given C Problem could be proven:

(0) C Problem
(1) CToIRSProof [EQUIVALENT, 0 ms]
(2) IntTRS
(3) TerminationGraphProcessor [SOUND, 46 ms]
(4) IntTRS
(5) IntTRSCompressionProof [EQUIVALENT, 32 ms]
(6) IntTRS
(7) IntTRSUnneededArgumentFilterProof [EQUIVALENT, 0 ms]
(8) IntTRS
(9) PolynomialOrderProcessor [EQUIVALENT, 20 ms]
(10) YES


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

(0)
Obligation:
c file /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.c
----------------------------------------

(1) CToIRSProof (EQUIVALENT)
Parsed C Integer Program as IRS.
----------------------------------------

(2)
Obligation:
Rules:
f1(i, j, k, ell) -> f2(x_1, j, k, ell) :|: TRUE
f2(x, x1, x2, x3) -> f3(x, x4, x2, x3) :|: TRUE
f3(x5, x6, x7, x8) -> f4(x5, x6, x9, x8) :|: TRUE
f5(x10, x11, x12, x13) -> f6(x10, x11, x12, x10) :|: TRUE
f6(x14, x15, x16, x17) -> f7(x15, x15, x16, x17) :|: TRUE
f7(x18, x19, x20, x21) -> f8(x18, arith, x20, x21) :|: TRUE && arith = x21 + 1
f8(x38, x39, x40, x41) -> f9(x38, x39, x42, x41) :|: TRUE && x42 = x40 - 1
f4(x26, x27, x28, x29) -> f5(x26, x27, x28, x29) :|: x26 <= 100 && x27 <= x28
f9(x30, x31, x32, x33) -> f4(x30, x31, x32, x33) :|: TRUE
f4(x34, x35, x36, x37) -> f10(x34, x35, x36, x37) :|: x34 > 100
f4(x43, x44, x45, x46) -> f10(x43, x44, x45, x46) :|: x44 > x45
Start term: f1(i, j, k, ell)

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

(3) TerminationGraphProcessor (SOUND)
Constructed the termination graph and obtained one non-trivial SCC.

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

(4)
Obligation:
Rules:
f4(x26, x27, x28, x29) -> f5(x26, x27, x28, x29) :|: x26 <= 100 && x27 <= x28
f9(x30, x31, x32, x33) -> f4(x30, x31, x32, x33) :|: TRUE
f8(x38, x39, x40, x41) -> f9(x38, x39, x42, x41) :|: TRUE && x42 = x40 - 1
f7(x18, x19, x20, x21) -> f8(x18, arith, x20, x21) :|: TRUE && arith = x21 + 1
f6(x14, x15, x16, x17) -> f7(x15, x15, x16, x17) :|: TRUE
f5(x10, x11, x12, x13) -> f6(x10, x11, x12, x10) :|: TRUE

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

(5) IntTRSCompressionProof (EQUIVALENT)
Compressed rules.
----------------------------------------

(6)
Obligation:
Rules:
f6(x14:0, x15:0, x16:0, x17:0) -> f6(x15:0, x17:0 + 1, x16:0 - 1, x15:0) :|: x15:0 < 101 && x17:0 + 1 <= x16:0 - 1

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

(7) IntTRSUnneededArgumentFilterProof (EQUIVALENT)
Some arguments are removed because they cannot influence termination. We removed arguments according to the following replacements:

   f6(x1, x2, x3, x4) -> f6(x2, x3, x4)

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

(8)
Obligation:
Rules:
f6(x15:0, x16:0, x17:0) -> f6(x17:0 + 1, x16:0 - 1, x15:0) :|: x15:0 < 101 && x17:0 + 1 <= x16:0 - 1

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

(9) PolynomialOrderProcessor (EQUIVALENT)
Found the following polynomial interpretation:
[f6(x, x1, x2)] = 98 - x + x1 - x2

The following rules are decreasing:
f6(x15:0, x16:0, x17:0) -> f6(x17:0 + 1, x16:0 - 1, x15:0) :|: x15:0 < 101 && x17:0 + 1 <= x16:0 - 1
The following rules are bounded:
f6(x15:0, x16:0, x17:0) -> f6(x17:0 + 1, x16:0 - 1, x15:0) :|: x15:0 < 101 && x17:0 + 1 <= x16:0 - 1

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

(10)
YES