20.38/6.17 YES 20.95/6.34 proof of /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.xml 20.95/6.34 # AProVE Commit ID: 48fb2092695e11cc9f56e44b17a92a5f88ffb256 marcel 20180622 unpublished dirty 20.95/6.34 20.95/6.34 20.95/6.34 Termination w.r.t. Q of the given QTRS could be proven: 20.95/6.34 20.95/6.34 (0) QTRS 20.95/6.34 (1) DependencyPairsProof [EQUIVALENT, 17 ms] 20.95/6.34 (2) QDP 20.95/6.34 (3) DependencyGraphProof [EQUIVALENT, 0 ms] 20.95/6.34 (4) QDP 20.95/6.34 (5) QDPOrderProof [EQUIVALENT, 191 ms] 20.95/6.34 (6) QDP 20.95/6.34 (7) QDPOrderProof [EQUIVALENT, 33 ms] 20.95/6.34 (8) QDP 20.95/6.34 (9) UsableRulesProof [EQUIVALENT, 0 ms] 20.95/6.34 (10) QDP 20.95/6.34 (11) QDPSizeChangeProof [EQUIVALENT, 0 ms] 20.95/6.34 (12) YES 20.95/6.34 20.95/6.34 20.95/6.34 ---------------------------------------- 20.95/6.34 20.95/6.34 (0) 20.95/6.34 Obligation: 20.95/6.34 Q restricted rewrite system: 20.95/6.34 The TRS R consists of the following rules: 20.95/6.34 20.95/6.34 a(x1) -> b(x1) 20.95/6.34 b(b(c(x1))) -> c(a(c(b(a(x1))))) 20.95/6.34 c(c(x1)) -> x1 20.95/6.34 20.95/6.34 Q is empty. 20.95/6.34 20.95/6.34 ---------------------------------------- 20.95/6.34 20.95/6.34 (1) DependencyPairsProof (EQUIVALENT) 20.95/6.34 Using Dependency Pairs [AG00,LPAR04] we result in the following initial DP problem. 20.95/6.34 ---------------------------------------- 20.95/6.34 20.95/6.34 (2) 20.95/6.34 Obligation: 20.95/6.34 Q DP problem: 20.95/6.34 The TRS P consists of the following rules: 20.95/6.34 20.95/6.34 A(x1) -> B(x1) 20.95/6.34 B(b(c(x1))) -> C(a(c(b(a(x1))))) 20.95/6.34 B(b(c(x1))) -> A(c(b(a(x1)))) 20.95/6.34 B(b(c(x1))) -> C(b(a(x1))) 20.95/6.34 B(b(c(x1))) -> B(a(x1)) 20.95/6.34 B(b(c(x1))) -> A(x1) 20.95/6.34 20.95/6.34 The TRS R consists of the following rules: 20.95/6.34 20.95/6.34 a(x1) -> b(x1) 20.95/6.34 b(b(c(x1))) -> c(a(c(b(a(x1))))) 20.95/6.34 c(c(x1)) -> x1 20.95/6.34 20.95/6.34 Q is empty. 20.95/6.34 We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains. 20.95/6.34 ---------------------------------------- 20.95/6.34 20.95/6.34 (3) DependencyGraphProof (EQUIVALENT) 20.95/6.34 The approximation of the Dependency Graph [LPAR04,FROCOS05,EDGSTAR] contains 1 SCC with 2 less nodes. 20.95/6.34 ---------------------------------------- 20.95/6.34 20.95/6.34 (4) 20.95/6.34 Obligation: 20.95/6.34 Q DP problem: 20.95/6.34 The TRS P consists of the following rules: 20.95/6.34 20.95/6.34 B(b(c(x1))) -> A(c(b(a(x1)))) 20.95/6.34 A(x1) -> B(x1) 20.95/6.34 B(b(c(x1))) -> B(a(x1)) 20.95/6.34 B(b(c(x1))) -> A(x1) 20.95/6.34 20.95/6.34 The TRS R consists of the following rules: 20.95/6.34 20.95/6.34 a(x1) -> b(x1) 20.95/6.34 b(b(c(x1))) -> c(a(c(b(a(x1))))) 20.95/6.34 c(c(x1)) -> x1 20.95/6.34 20.95/6.34 Q is empty. 20.95/6.34 We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains. 20.95/6.34 ---------------------------------------- 20.95/6.34 20.95/6.34 (5) QDPOrderProof (EQUIVALENT) 20.95/6.34 We use the reduction pair processor [LPAR04,JAR06]. 20.95/6.34 20.95/6.34 20.95/6.34 The following pairs can be oriented strictly and are deleted. 20.95/6.34 20.95/6.34 B(b(c(x1))) -> A(c(b(a(x1)))) 20.95/6.34 The remaining pairs can at least be oriented weakly. 20.95/6.34 Used ordering: Matrix interpretation [MATRO] with arctic natural numbers [ARCTIC]: 20.95/6.34 20.95/6.34 <<< 20.95/6.34 POL(B(x_1)) = [[0A]] + [[0A, -I, 0A]] * x_1 20.95/6.34 >>> 20.95/6.34 20.95/6.34 <<< 20.95/6.34 POL(b(x_1)) = [[0A], [-I], [-I]] + [[0A, -I, 0A], [-I, -I, 0A], [-I, 0A, -I]] * x_1 20.95/6.34 >>> 20.95/6.34 20.95/6.34 <<< 20.95/6.34 POL(c(x_1)) = [[0A], [1A], [0A]] + [[-I, 0A, -I], [0A, 1A, 0A], [-I, 0A, -I]] * x_1 20.95/6.34 >>> 20.95/6.34 20.95/6.34 <<< 20.95/6.34 POL(A(x_1)) = [[0A]] + [[0A, -I, 0A]] * x_1 20.95/6.34 >>> 20.95/6.34 20.95/6.34 <<< 20.95/6.34 POL(a(x_1)) = [[1A], [-I], [-I]] + [[0A, 0A, 0A], [-I, -I, 0A], [-I, 0A, -I]] * x_1 20.95/6.34 >>> 20.95/6.34 20.95/6.34 20.95/6.34 The following usable rules [FROCOS05] with respect to the argument filtering of the ordering [JAR06] were oriented: 20.95/6.34 20.95/6.34 a(x1) -> b(x1) 20.95/6.34 b(b(c(x1))) -> c(a(c(b(a(x1))))) 20.95/6.34 c(c(x1)) -> x1 20.95/6.34 20.95/6.34 20.95/6.34 ---------------------------------------- 20.95/6.34 20.95/6.34 (6) 20.95/6.34 Obligation: 20.95/6.34 Q DP problem: 20.95/6.34 The TRS P consists of the following rules: 20.95/6.34 20.95/6.34 A(x1) -> B(x1) 20.95/6.34 B(b(c(x1))) -> B(a(x1)) 20.95/6.34 B(b(c(x1))) -> A(x1) 20.95/6.34 20.95/6.34 The TRS R consists of the following rules: 20.95/6.34 20.95/6.34 a(x1) -> b(x1) 20.95/6.34 b(b(c(x1))) -> c(a(c(b(a(x1))))) 20.95/6.34 c(c(x1)) -> x1 20.95/6.34 20.95/6.34 Q is empty. 20.95/6.34 We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains. 20.95/6.34 ---------------------------------------- 20.95/6.34 20.95/6.34 (7) QDPOrderProof (EQUIVALENT) 20.95/6.34 We use the reduction pair processor [LPAR04,JAR06]. 20.95/6.34 20.95/6.34 20.95/6.34 The following pairs can be oriented strictly and are deleted. 20.95/6.34 20.95/6.34 B(b(c(x1))) -> B(a(x1)) 20.95/6.34 The remaining pairs can at least be oriented weakly. 20.95/6.34 Used ordering: Matrix interpretation [MATRO] with arctic natural numbers [ARCTIC]: 20.95/6.34 20.95/6.34 <<< 20.95/6.34 POL(A(x_1)) = [[1A]] + [[0A, 0A, -I]] * x_1 20.95/6.34 >>> 20.95/6.34 20.95/6.34 <<< 20.95/6.34 POL(B(x_1)) = [[0A]] + [[-I, 0A, -I]] * x_1 20.95/6.34 >>> 20.95/6.34 20.95/6.34 <<< 20.95/6.34 POL(b(x_1)) = [[0A], [0A], [0A]] + [[-I, 0A, -I], [0A, -I, -I], [-I, 0A, 0A]] * x_1 20.95/6.34 >>> 20.95/6.34 20.95/6.34 <<< 20.95/6.34 POL(c(x_1)) = [[1A], [0A], [-I]] + [[1A, 0A, -I], [0A, -I, -I], [0A, -I, 0A]] * x_1 20.95/6.34 >>> 20.95/6.34 20.95/6.34 <<< 20.95/6.34 POL(a(x_1)) = [[0A], [0A], [0A]] + [[-I, 0A, -I], [0A, -I, -I], [0A, 0A, 0A]] * x_1 20.95/6.34 >>> 20.95/6.34 20.95/6.34 20.95/6.34 The following usable rules [FROCOS05] with respect to the argument filtering of the ordering [JAR06] were oriented: 20.95/6.34 20.95/6.34 a(x1) -> b(x1) 20.95/6.34 b(b(c(x1))) -> c(a(c(b(a(x1))))) 20.95/6.34 c(c(x1)) -> x1 20.95/6.34 20.95/6.34 20.95/6.34 ---------------------------------------- 20.95/6.34 20.95/6.34 (8) 20.95/6.34 Obligation: 20.95/6.34 Q DP problem: 20.95/6.34 The TRS P consists of the following rules: 20.95/6.34 20.95/6.34 A(x1) -> B(x1) 20.95/6.34 B(b(c(x1))) -> A(x1) 20.95/6.34 20.95/6.34 The TRS R consists of the following rules: 20.95/6.34 20.95/6.34 a(x1) -> b(x1) 20.95/6.34 b(b(c(x1))) -> c(a(c(b(a(x1))))) 20.95/6.34 c(c(x1)) -> x1 20.95/6.34 20.95/6.34 Q is empty. 20.95/6.34 We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains. 20.95/6.34 ---------------------------------------- 20.95/6.34 20.95/6.34 (9) UsableRulesProof (EQUIVALENT) 20.95/6.34 We can use the usable rules and reduction pair processor [LPAR04] with the Ce-compatible extension of the polynomial order that maps every function symbol to the sum of its arguments. Then, we can delete all non-usable rules [FROCOS05] from R. 20.95/6.34 ---------------------------------------- 20.95/6.34 20.95/6.34 (10) 20.95/6.34 Obligation: 20.95/6.34 Q DP problem: 20.95/6.34 The TRS P consists of the following rules: 20.95/6.34 20.95/6.34 A(x1) -> B(x1) 20.95/6.34 B(b(c(x1))) -> A(x1) 20.95/6.34 20.95/6.34 R is empty. 20.95/6.34 Q is empty. 20.95/6.34 We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains. 20.95/6.34 ---------------------------------------- 20.95/6.34 20.95/6.34 (11) QDPSizeChangeProof (EQUIVALENT) 20.95/6.34 By using the subterm criterion [SUBTERM_CRITERION] together with the size-change analysis [AAECC05] we have proven that there are no infinite chains for this DP problem. 20.95/6.34 20.95/6.34 From the DPs we obtained the following set of size-change graphs: 20.95/6.34 *B(b(c(x1))) -> A(x1) 20.95/6.34 The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1 20.95/6.34 20.95/6.34 20.95/6.34 *A(x1) -> B(x1) 20.95/6.34 The graph contains the following edges 1 >= 1 20.95/6.34 20.95/6.34 20.95/6.34 ---------------------------------------- 20.95/6.34 20.95/6.34 (12) 20.95/6.34 YES 21.34/6.41 EOF