3.78/1.90 YES 3.78/1.91 proof of /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.itrs 3.78/1.91 # AProVE Commit ID: 48fb2092695e11cc9f56e44b17a92a5f88ffb256 marcel 20180622 unpublished dirty 3.78/1.91 3.78/1.91 3.78/1.91 Termination of the given ITRS could be proven: 3.78/1.91 3.78/1.91 (0) ITRS 3.78/1.91 (1) ITRStoIDPProof [EQUIVALENT, 0 ms] 3.78/1.91 (2) IDP 3.78/1.91 (3) UsableRulesProof [EQUIVALENT, 0 ms] 3.78/1.91 (4) IDP 3.78/1.91 (5) IDPNonInfProof [SOUND, 143 ms] 3.78/1.91 (6) IDP 3.78/1.91 (7) IDependencyGraphProof [EQUIVALENT, 0 ms] 3.78/1.91 (8) TRUE 3.78/1.91 3.78/1.91 3.78/1.91 ---------------------------------------- 3.78/1.91 3.78/1.91 (0) 3.78/1.91 Obligation: 3.78/1.91 ITRS problem: 3.78/1.91 3.78/1.91 The following function symbols are pre-defined: 3.78/1.91 <<< 3.78/1.91 & ~ Bwand: (Integer, Integer) -> Integer 3.78/1.91 >= ~ Ge: (Integer, Integer) -> Boolean 3.78/1.91 | ~ Bwor: (Integer, Integer) -> Integer 3.78/1.91 / ~ Div: (Integer, Integer) -> Integer 3.78/1.91 != ~ Neq: (Integer, Integer) -> Boolean 3.78/1.91 && ~ Land: (Boolean, Boolean) -> Boolean 3.78/1.91 ! ~ Lnot: (Boolean) -> Boolean 3.78/1.91 = ~ Eq: (Integer, Integer) -> Boolean 3.78/1.91 <= ~ Le: (Integer, Integer) -> Boolean 3.78/1.91 ^ ~ Bwxor: (Integer, Integer) -> Integer 3.78/1.91 % ~ Mod: (Integer, Integer) -> Integer 3.78/1.91 > ~ Gt: (Integer, Integer) -> Boolean 3.78/1.91 + ~ Add: (Integer, Integer) -> Integer 3.78/1.91 -1 ~ UnaryMinus: (Integer) -> Integer 3.78/1.91 < ~ Lt: (Integer, Integer) -> Boolean 3.78/1.91 || ~ Lor: (Boolean, Boolean) -> Boolean 3.78/1.91 - ~ Sub: (Integer, Integer) -> Integer 3.78/1.91 ~ ~ Bwnot: (Integer) -> Integer 3.78/1.91 * ~ Mul: (Integer, Integer) -> Integer 3.78/1.91 >>> 3.78/1.91 3.78/1.91 The TRS R consists of the following rules: 3.78/1.91 pow(x, y) -> if(y > 0, x, y) 3.78/1.91 if(TRUE, x, y) -> x * pow(x, y - 1) 3.78/1.91 if(FALSE, x, y) -> 1 3.78/1.91 The set Q consists of the following terms: 3.78/1.91 pow(x0, x1) 3.78/1.91 if(TRUE, x0, x1) 3.78/1.91 if(FALSE, x0, x1) 3.78/1.91 3.78/1.91 ---------------------------------------- 3.78/1.91 3.78/1.91 (1) ITRStoIDPProof (EQUIVALENT) 3.78/1.91 Added dependency pairs 3.78/1.91 ---------------------------------------- 3.78/1.91 3.78/1.91 (2) 3.78/1.91 Obligation: 3.78/1.91 IDP problem: 3.78/1.91 The following function symbols are pre-defined: 3.78/1.91 <<< 3.78/1.91 & ~ Bwand: (Integer, Integer) -> Integer 3.78/1.91 >= ~ Ge: (Integer, Integer) -> Boolean 3.78/1.91 | ~ Bwor: (Integer, Integer) -> Integer 3.78/1.91 / ~ Div: (Integer, Integer) -> Integer 3.78/1.91 != ~ Neq: (Integer, Integer) -> Boolean 3.78/1.91 && ~ Land: (Boolean, Boolean) -> Boolean 3.78/1.91 ! ~ Lnot: (Boolean) -> Boolean 3.78/1.91 = ~ Eq: (Integer, Integer) -> Boolean 3.78/1.91 <= ~ Le: (Integer, Integer) -> Boolean 3.78/1.91 ^ ~ Bwxor: (Integer, Integer) -> Integer 3.78/1.91 % ~ Mod: (Integer, Integer) -> Integer 3.78/1.91 > ~ Gt: (Integer, Integer) -> Boolean 3.78/1.91 + ~ Add: (Integer, Integer) -> Integer 3.78/1.91 -1 ~ UnaryMinus: (Integer) -> Integer 3.78/1.91 < ~ Lt: (Integer, Integer) -> Boolean 3.78/1.91 || ~ Lor: (Boolean, Boolean) -> Boolean 3.78/1.91 - ~ Sub: (Integer, Integer) -> Integer 3.78/1.91 ~ ~ Bwnot: (Integer) -> Integer 3.78/1.91 * ~ Mul: (Integer, Integer) -> Integer 3.78/1.91 >>> 3.78/1.91 3.78/1.91 3.78/1.91 The following domains are used: 3.78/1.91 Integer 3.78/1.91 3.78/1.91 The ITRS R consists of the following rules: 3.78/1.91 pow(x, y) -> if(y > 0, x, y) 3.78/1.91 if(TRUE, x, y) -> x * pow(x, y - 1) 3.78/1.91 if(FALSE, x, y) -> 1 3.78/1.91 3.78/1.91 The integer pair graph contains the following rules and edges: 3.78/1.91 (0): POW(x[0], y[0]) -> IF(y[0] > 0, x[0], y[0]) 3.78/1.91 (1): IF(TRUE, x[1], y[1]) -> POW(x[1], y[1] - 1) 3.78/1.91 3.78/1.91 (0) -> (1), if (y[0] > 0 & x[0] ->^* x[1] & y[0] ->^* y[1]) 3.78/1.91 (1) -> (0), if (x[1] ->^* x[0] & y[1] - 1 ->^* y[0]) 3.78/1.91 3.78/1.91 The set Q consists of the following terms: 3.78/1.91 pow(x0, x1) 3.78/1.91 if(TRUE, x0, x1) 3.78/1.91 if(FALSE, x0, x1) 3.78/1.91 3.78/1.91 ---------------------------------------- 3.78/1.91 3.78/1.91 (3) UsableRulesProof (EQUIVALENT) 3.78/1.91 As all Q-normal forms are R-normal forms we are in the innermost case. Hence, by the usable rules processor [LPAR04] we can delete all non-usable rules [FROCOS05] from R. 3.78/1.91 ---------------------------------------- 3.78/1.91 3.78/1.91 (4) 3.78/1.91 Obligation: 3.78/1.91 IDP problem: 3.78/1.91 The following function symbols are pre-defined: 3.78/1.91 <<< 3.78/1.91 & ~ Bwand: (Integer, Integer) -> Integer 3.78/1.91 >= ~ Ge: (Integer, Integer) -> Boolean 3.78/1.91 | ~ Bwor: (Integer, Integer) -> Integer 3.78/1.91 / ~ Div: (Integer, Integer) -> Integer 3.78/1.91 != ~ Neq: (Integer, Integer) -> Boolean 3.78/1.91 && ~ Land: (Boolean, Boolean) -> Boolean 3.78/1.91 ! ~ Lnot: (Boolean) -> Boolean 3.78/1.91 = ~ Eq: (Integer, Integer) -> Boolean 3.78/1.91 <= ~ Le: (Integer, Integer) -> Boolean 3.78/1.91 ^ ~ Bwxor: (Integer, Integer) -> Integer 3.78/1.91 % ~ Mod: (Integer, Integer) -> Integer 3.78/1.91 > ~ Gt: (Integer, Integer) -> Boolean 3.78/1.91 + ~ Add: (Integer, Integer) -> Integer 3.78/1.91 -1 ~ UnaryMinus: (Integer) -> Integer 3.78/1.91 < ~ Lt: (Integer, Integer) -> Boolean 3.78/1.91 || ~ Lor: (Boolean, Boolean) -> Boolean 3.78/1.91 - ~ Sub: (Integer, Integer) -> Integer 3.78/1.91 ~ ~ Bwnot: (Integer) -> Integer 3.78/1.91 * ~ Mul: (Integer, Integer) -> Integer 3.78/1.91 >>> 3.78/1.91 3.78/1.91 3.78/1.91 The following domains are used: 3.78/1.91 Integer 3.78/1.91 3.78/1.91 R is empty. 3.78/1.91 3.78/1.91 The integer pair graph contains the following rules and edges: 3.78/1.91 (0): POW(x[0], y[0]) -> IF(y[0] > 0, x[0], y[0]) 3.78/1.91 (1): IF(TRUE, x[1], y[1]) -> POW(x[1], y[1] - 1) 3.78/1.91 3.78/1.91 (0) -> (1), if (y[0] > 0 & x[0] ->^* x[1] & y[0] ->^* y[1]) 3.78/1.91 (1) -> (0), if (x[1] ->^* x[0] & y[1] - 1 ->^* y[0]) 3.78/1.91 3.78/1.91 The set Q consists of the following terms: 3.78/1.91 pow(x0, x1) 3.78/1.91 if(TRUE, x0, x1) 3.78/1.91 if(FALSE, x0, x1) 3.78/1.91 3.78/1.91 ---------------------------------------- 3.78/1.91 3.78/1.91 (5) IDPNonInfProof (SOUND) 3.78/1.91 Used the following options for this NonInfProof: 3.78/1.91 3.78/1.91 IDPGPoloSolver: 3.78/1.91 Range: [(-1,2)] 3.78/1.91 IsNat: false 3.78/1.91 Interpretation Shape Heuristic: aprove.DPFramework.IDPProblem.Processors.nonInf.poly.IdpDefaultShapeHeuristic@4c874750 3.78/1.91 Constraint Generator: NonInfConstraintGenerator: 3.78/1.91 PathGenerator: MetricPathGenerator: 3.78/1.91 Max Left Steps: 1 3.78/1.91 Max Right Steps: 1 3.78/1.91 3.78/1.91 3.78/1.91 3.78/1.91 The constraints were generated the following way: 3.78/1.91 3.78/1.91 The DP Problem is simplified using the Induction Calculus [NONINF] with the following steps: 3.78/1.91 3.78/1.91 Note that final constraints are written in bold face. 3.78/1.91 3.78/1.91 3.78/1.91 3.78/1.91 For Pair POW(x, y) -> IF(>(y, 0), x, y) the following chains were created: 3.78/1.91 *We consider the chain POW(x[0], y[0]) -> IF(>(y[0], 0), x[0], y[0]), IF(TRUE, x[1], y[1]) -> POW(x[1], -(y[1], 1)) which results in the following constraint: 3.78/1.91 3.78/1.91 (1) (>(y[0], 0)=TRUE & x[0]=x[1] & y[0]=y[1] ==> POW(x[0], y[0])_>=_NonInfC & POW(x[0], y[0])_>=_IF(>(y[0], 0), x[0], y[0]) & (U^Increasing(IF(>(y[0], 0), x[0], y[0])), >=)) 3.78/1.91 3.78/1.91 3.78/1.91 3.78/1.91 We simplified constraint (1) using rule (IV) which results in the following new constraint: 3.78/1.91 3.78/1.91 (2) (>(y[0], 0)=TRUE ==> POW(x[0], y[0])_>=_NonInfC & POW(x[0], y[0])_>=_IF(>(y[0], 0), x[0], y[0]) & (U^Increasing(IF(>(y[0], 0), x[0], y[0])), >=)) 3.78/1.91 3.78/1.91 3.78/1.91 3.78/1.91 We simplified constraint (2) using rule (POLY_CONSTRAINTS) which results in the following new constraint: 3.78/1.91 3.78/1.91 (3) (y[0] + [-1] >= 0 ==> (U^Increasing(IF(>(y[0], 0), x[0], y[0])), >=) & [(-1)bni_11 + (-1)Bound*bni_11] + [bni_11]y[0] >= 0 & [(-1)bso_12] >= 0) 3.78/1.91 3.78/1.91 3.78/1.91 3.78/1.91 We simplified constraint (3) using rule (IDP_POLY_SIMPLIFY) which results in the following new constraint: 3.78/1.91 3.78/1.91 (4) (y[0] + [-1] >= 0 ==> (U^Increasing(IF(>(y[0], 0), x[0], y[0])), >=) & [(-1)bni_11 + (-1)Bound*bni_11] + [bni_11]y[0] >= 0 & [(-1)bso_12] >= 0) 3.78/1.91 3.78/1.91 3.78/1.91 3.78/1.91 We simplified constraint (4) using rule (POLY_REMOVE_MIN_MAX) which results in the following new constraint: 3.78/1.91 3.78/1.91 (5) (y[0] + [-1] >= 0 ==> (U^Increasing(IF(>(y[0], 0), x[0], y[0])), >=) & [(-1)bni_11 + (-1)Bound*bni_11] + [bni_11]y[0] >= 0 & [(-1)bso_12] >= 0) 3.78/1.91 3.78/1.91 3.78/1.91 3.78/1.91 We simplified constraint (5) using rule (IDP_UNRESTRICTED_VARS) which results in the following new constraint: 3.78/1.91 3.78/1.91 (6) (y[0] + [-1] >= 0 ==> (U^Increasing(IF(>(y[0], 0), x[0], y[0])), >=) & 0 = 0 & [(-1)bni_11 + (-1)Bound*bni_11] + [bni_11]y[0] >= 0 & [(-1)bso_12] >= 0) 3.78/1.91 3.78/1.91 3.78/1.91 3.78/1.91 3.78/1.91 3.78/1.91 3.78/1.91 3.78/1.91 3.78/1.91 For Pair IF(TRUE, x, y) -> POW(x, -(y, 1)) the following chains were created: 3.78/1.91 *We consider the chain POW(x[0], y[0]) -> IF(>(y[0], 0), x[0], y[0]), IF(TRUE, x[1], y[1]) -> POW(x[1], -(y[1], 1)), POW(x[0], y[0]) -> IF(>(y[0], 0), x[0], y[0]) which results in the following constraint: 3.78/1.91 3.78/1.91 (1) (>(y[0], 0)=TRUE & x[0]=x[1] & y[0]=y[1] & x[1]=x[0]1 & -(y[1], 1)=y[0]1 ==> IF(TRUE, x[1], y[1])_>=_NonInfC & IF(TRUE, x[1], y[1])_>=_POW(x[1], -(y[1], 1)) & (U^Increasing(POW(x[1], -(y[1], 1))), >=)) 3.78/1.91 3.78/1.91 3.78/1.91 3.78/1.91 We simplified constraint (1) using rules (III), (IV) which results in the following new constraint: 3.78/1.91 3.78/1.91 (2) (>(y[0], 0)=TRUE ==> IF(TRUE, x[0], y[0])_>=_NonInfC & IF(TRUE, x[0], y[0])_>=_POW(x[0], -(y[0], 1)) & (U^Increasing(POW(x[1], -(y[1], 1))), >=)) 3.78/1.91 3.78/1.91 3.78/1.91 3.78/1.91 We simplified constraint (2) using rule (POLY_CONSTRAINTS) which results in the following new constraint: 3.78/1.91 3.78/1.91 (3) (y[0] + [-1] >= 0 ==> (U^Increasing(POW(x[1], -(y[1], 1))), >=) & [(-1)bni_13 + (-1)Bound*bni_13] + [bni_13]y[0] >= 0 & [1 + (-1)bso_14] >= 0) 3.78/1.91 3.78/1.91 3.78/1.91 3.78/1.91 We simplified constraint (3) using rule (IDP_POLY_SIMPLIFY) which results in the following new constraint: 3.78/1.91 3.78/1.91 (4) (y[0] + [-1] >= 0 ==> (U^Increasing(POW(x[1], -(y[1], 1))), >=) & [(-1)bni_13 + (-1)Bound*bni_13] + [bni_13]y[0] >= 0 & [1 + (-1)bso_14] >= 0) 3.78/1.91 3.78/1.91 3.78/1.91 3.78/1.91 We simplified constraint (4) using rule (POLY_REMOVE_MIN_MAX) which results in the following new constraint: 3.78/1.91 3.78/1.91 (5) (y[0] + [-1] >= 0 ==> (U^Increasing(POW(x[1], -(y[1], 1))), >=) & [(-1)bni_13 + (-1)Bound*bni_13] + [bni_13]y[0] >= 0 & [1 + (-1)bso_14] >= 0) 3.78/1.91 3.78/1.91 3.78/1.91 3.78/1.91 We simplified constraint (5) using rule (IDP_UNRESTRICTED_VARS) which results in the following new constraint: 3.78/1.91 3.78/1.91 (6) (y[0] + [-1] >= 0 ==> (U^Increasing(POW(x[1], -(y[1], 1))), >=) & 0 = 0 & [(-1)bni_13 + (-1)Bound*bni_13] + [bni_13]y[0] >= 0 & [1 + (-1)bso_14] >= 0) 3.78/1.91 3.78/1.91 3.78/1.91 3.78/1.91 3.78/1.91 3.78/1.91 3.78/1.91 3.78/1.91 3.78/1.91 To summarize, we get the following constraints P__>=_ for the following pairs. 3.78/1.91 3.78/1.91 *POW(x, y) -> IF(>(y, 0), x, y) 3.78/1.91 3.78/1.91 *(y[0] + [-1] >= 0 ==> (U^Increasing(IF(>(y[0], 0), x[0], y[0])), >=) & 0 = 0 & [(-1)bni_11 + (-1)Bound*bni_11] + [bni_11]y[0] >= 0 & [(-1)bso_12] >= 0) 3.78/1.91 3.78/1.91 3.78/1.91 3.78/1.91 3.78/1.91 *IF(TRUE, x, y) -> POW(x, -(y, 1)) 3.78/1.91 3.78/1.91 *(y[0] + [-1] >= 0 ==> (U^Increasing(POW(x[1], -(y[1], 1))), >=) & 0 = 0 & [(-1)bni_13 + (-1)Bound*bni_13] + [bni_13]y[0] >= 0 & [1 + (-1)bso_14] >= 0) 3.78/1.91 3.78/1.91 3.78/1.91 3.78/1.91 3.78/1.91 3.78/1.91 3.78/1.91 3.78/1.91 3.78/1.91 The constraints for P_> respective P_bound are constructed from P__>=_ where we just replace every occurence of "t _>=_ s" in P__>=_ by "t > s" respective "t _>=_ c". Here c stands for the fresh constant used for P_bound. 3.78/1.91 3.78/1.91 Using the following integer polynomial ordering the resulting constraints can be solved 3.78/1.91 3.78/1.91 Polynomial interpretation over integers[POLO]: 3.78/1.91 3.78/1.91 POL(TRUE) = 0 3.78/1.91 POL(FALSE) = 0 3.78/1.91 POL(POW(x_1, x_2)) = [-1] + x_2 3.78/1.91 POL(IF(x_1, x_2, x_3)) = [-1] + x_3 3.78/1.91 POL(>(x_1, x_2)) = [-1] 3.78/1.91 POL(0) = 0 3.78/1.91 POL(-(x_1, x_2)) = x_1 + [-1]x_2 3.78/1.91 POL(1) = [1] 3.78/1.91 3.78/1.91 3.78/1.91 The following pairs are in P_>: 3.78/1.91 3.78/1.91 3.78/1.91 IF(TRUE, x[1], y[1]) -> POW(x[1], -(y[1], 1)) 3.78/1.91 3.78/1.91 3.78/1.91 The following pairs are in P_bound: 3.78/1.91 3.78/1.91 3.78/1.91 POW(x[0], y[0]) -> IF(>(y[0], 0), x[0], y[0]) 3.78/1.91 IF(TRUE, x[1], y[1]) -> POW(x[1], -(y[1], 1)) 3.78/1.91 3.78/1.91 3.78/1.91 The following pairs are in P_>=: 3.78/1.91 3.78/1.91 3.78/1.91 POW(x[0], y[0]) -> IF(>(y[0], 0), x[0], y[0]) 3.78/1.91 3.78/1.91 3.78/1.91 There are no usable rules. 3.78/1.91 ---------------------------------------- 3.78/1.91 3.78/1.91 (6) 3.78/1.91 Obligation: 3.78/1.91 IDP problem: 3.78/1.91 The following function symbols are pre-defined: 3.78/1.91 <<< 3.78/1.91 & ~ Bwand: (Integer, Integer) -> Integer 3.78/1.91 >= ~ Ge: (Integer, Integer) -> Boolean 3.78/1.91 | ~ Bwor: (Integer, Integer) -> Integer 3.78/1.91 / ~ Div: (Integer, Integer) -> Integer 3.78/1.91 != ~ Neq: (Integer, Integer) -> Boolean 3.78/1.91 && ~ Land: (Boolean, Boolean) -> Boolean 3.78/1.91 ! ~ Lnot: (Boolean) -> Boolean 3.78/1.91 = ~ Eq: (Integer, Integer) -> Boolean 3.78/1.91 <= ~ Le: (Integer, Integer) -> Boolean 3.78/1.91 ^ ~ Bwxor: (Integer, Integer) -> Integer 3.78/1.91 % ~ Mod: (Integer, Integer) -> Integer 3.78/1.91 > ~ Gt: (Integer, Integer) -> Boolean 3.78/1.91 + ~ Add: (Integer, Integer) -> Integer 3.78/1.91 -1 ~ UnaryMinus: (Integer) -> Integer 3.78/1.91 < ~ Lt: (Integer, Integer) -> Boolean 3.78/1.91 || ~ Lor: (Boolean, Boolean) -> Boolean 3.78/1.91 - ~ Sub: (Integer, Integer) -> Integer 3.78/1.91 ~ ~ Bwnot: (Integer) -> Integer 3.78/1.91 * ~ Mul: (Integer, Integer) -> Integer 3.78/1.91 >>> 3.78/1.91 3.78/1.91 3.78/1.91 The following domains are used: 3.78/1.91 Integer 3.78/1.91 3.78/1.91 R is empty. 3.78/1.91 3.78/1.91 The integer pair graph contains the following rules and edges: 3.78/1.91 (0): POW(x[0], y[0]) -> IF(y[0] > 0, x[0], y[0]) 3.78/1.91 3.78/1.91 3.78/1.91 The set Q consists of the following terms: 3.78/1.91 pow(x0, x1) 3.78/1.91 if(TRUE, x0, x1) 3.78/1.91 if(FALSE, x0, x1) 3.78/1.91 3.78/1.91 ---------------------------------------- 3.78/1.91 3.78/1.91 (7) IDependencyGraphProof (EQUIVALENT) 3.78/1.91 The approximation of the Dependency Graph [LPAR04,FROCOS05,EDGSTAR] contains 0 SCCs with 1 less node. 3.78/1.91 ---------------------------------------- 3.78/1.91 3.78/1.91 (8) 3.78/1.91 TRUE 3.78/1.93 EOF