4.22/1.88	YES
4.22/1.89	proof of /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.c
4.22/1.89	# AProVE Commit ID: 48fb2092695e11cc9f56e44b17a92a5f88ffb256 marcel 20180622 unpublished dirty
4.22/1.89	
4.22/1.89	
4.22/1.89	Termination of the given C Problem could be proven:
4.22/1.89	
4.22/1.89	(0) C Problem
4.22/1.89	(1) CToIRSProof [EQUIVALENT, 0 ms]
4.22/1.89	(2) IntTRS
4.22/1.89	(3) TerminationGraphProcessor [SOUND, 43 ms]
4.22/1.89	(4) IntTRS
4.22/1.89	(5) IntTRSCompressionProof [EQUIVALENT, 0 ms]
4.22/1.89	(6) IntTRS
4.22/1.89	(7) IntTRSUnneededArgumentFilterProof [EQUIVALENT, 0 ms]
4.22/1.89	(8) IntTRS
4.22/1.89	(9) PolynomialOrderProcessor [EQUIVALENT, 0 ms]
4.22/1.89	(10) YES
4.22/1.89	
4.22/1.89	
4.22/1.89	----------------------------------------
4.22/1.89	
4.22/1.89	(0)
4.22/1.89	Obligation:
4.22/1.89	c file /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.c
4.22/1.89	----------------------------------------
4.22/1.89	
4.22/1.89	(1) CToIRSProof (EQUIVALENT)
4.22/1.89	Parsed C Integer Program as IRS.
4.22/1.89	----------------------------------------
4.22/1.89	
4.22/1.89	(2)
4.22/1.89	Obligation:
4.22/1.89	Rules:
4.22/1.89	f1(x, y, tmp) -> f2(x_1, y, tmp) :|: TRUE
4.22/1.89	f2(x1, x2, x3) -> f3(x1, x4, x3) :|: TRUE
4.22/1.89	f3(x5, x6, x7) -> f4(x5, x6, x8) :|: TRUE
4.22/1.89	f5(x9, x10, x11) -> f6(x9, x10, x9) :|: TRUE
4.22/1.89	f6(x12, x13, x14) -> f7(x13, x13, x14) :|: TRUE
4.22/1.89	f7(x15, x16, x17) -> f8(x15, x17, x17) :|: TRUE
4.22/1.89	f4(x18, x19, x20) -> f5(x18, x19, x20) :|: x18 > x19
4.22/1.89	f8(x21, x22, x23) -> f4(x21, x22, x23) :|: TRUE
4.22/1.89	f4(x24, x25, x26) -> f9(x24, x25, x26) :|: x24 <= x25
4.22/1.89	Start term: f1(x, y, tmp)
4.22/1.89	
4.22/1.89	----------------------------------------
4.22/1.89	
4.22/1.89	(3) TerminationGraphProcessor (SOUND)
4.22/1.89	Constructed the termination graph and obtained one non-trivial SCC.
4.22/1.89	
4.22/1.89	----------------------------------------
4.22/1.89	
4.22/1.89	(4)
4.22/1.89	Obligation:
4.22/1.89	Rules:
4.22/1.89	f4(x18, x19, x20) -> f5(x18, x19, x20) :|: x18 > x19
4.22/1.89	f8(x21, x22, x23) -> f4(x21, x22, x23) :|: TRUE
4.22/1.89	f7(x15, x16, x17) -> f8(x15, x17, x17) :|: TRUE
4.22/1.89	f6(x12, x13, x14) -> f7(x13, x13, x14) :|: TRUE
4.22/1.89	f5(x9, x10, x11) -> f6(x9, x10, x9) :|: TRUE
4.22/1.89	
4.22/1.89	----------------------------------------
4.22/1.89	
4.22/1.89	(5) IntTRSCompressionProof (EQUIVALENT)
4.22/1.89	Compressed rules.
4.22/1.89	----------------------------------------
4.22/1.89	
4.22/1.89	(6)
4.22/1.89	Obligation:
4.22/1.89	Rules:
4.22/1.89	f6(x12:0, x13:0, x14:0) -> f6(x13:0, x14:0, x13:0) :|: x14:0 < x13:0
4.22/1.89	
4.22/1.89	----------------------------------------
4.22/1.89	
4.22/1.89	(7) IntTRSUnneededArgumentFilterProof (EQUIVALENT)
4.22/1.89	Some arguments are removed because they cannot influence termination. We removed arguments according to the following replacements:
4.22/1.89	
4.22/1.89	   f6(x1, x2, x3) -> f6(x2, x3)
4.22/1.89	
4.22/1.89	----------------------------------------
4.22/1.89	
4.22/1.89	(8)
4.22/1.89	Obligation:
4.22/1.89	Rules:
4.22/1.89	f6(x13:0, x14:0) -> f6(x14:0, x13:0) :|: x14:0 < x13:0
4.22/1.89	
4.22/1.89	----------------------------------------
4.22/1.89	
4.22/1.89	(9) PolynomialOrderProcessor (EQUIVALENT)
4.22/1.89	Found the following polynomial interpretation:
4.22/1.89	[f6(x, x1)] = -1 + x - x1
4.22/1.89	
4.22/1.89	The following rules are decreasing:
4.22/1.89	f6(x13:0, x14:0) -> f6(x14:0, x13:0) :|: x14:0 < x13:0
4.22/1.89	The following rules are bounded:
4.22/1.89	f6(x13:0, x14:0) -> f6(x14:0, x13:0) :|: x14:0 < x13:0
4.22/1.89	
4.22/1.89	----------------------------------------
4.22/1.89	
4.22/1.89	(10)
4.22/1.89	YES
4.53/1.91	EOF