27.16/7.74	YES
27.35/7.76	proof of /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.xml
27.35/7.76	# AProVE Commit ID: 48fb2092695e11cc9f56e44b17a92a5f88ffb256 marcel 20180622 unpublished dirty
27.35/7.76	
27.35/7.76	
27.35/7.76	Termination w.r.t. Q of the given QTRS could be proven:
27.35/7.76	
27.35/7.76	(0) QTRS
27.35/7.76	(1) DependencyPairsProof [EQUIVALENT, 1 ms]
27.35/7.76	(2) QDP
27.35/7.76	(3) DependencyGraphProof [EQUIVALENT, 0 ms]
27.35/7.76	(4) QDP
27.35/7.76	(5) QDPOrderProof [EQUIVALENT, 116 ms]
27.35/7.76	(6) QDP
27.35/7.76	(7) UsableRulesProof [EQUIVALENT, 0 ms]
27.35/7.76	(8) QDP
27.35/7.76	(9) QDPSizeChangeProof [EQUIVALENT, 0 ms]
27.35/7.76	(10) YES
27.35/7.76	
27.35/7.76	
27.35/7.76	----------------------------------------
27.35/7.76	
27.35/7.76	(0)
27.35/7.76	Obligation:
27.35/7.76	Q restricted rewrite system:
27.35/7.76	The TRS R consists of the following rules:
27.35/7.76	
27.35/7.76	   a(x1) -> x1
27.35/7.76	   a(b(x1)) -> b(a(c(a(x1))))
27.35/7.76	   b(x1) -> x1
27.35/7.76	   c(c(c(x1))) -> b(x1)
27.35/7.76	
27.35/7.76	Q is empty.
27.35/7.76	
27.35/7.76	----------------------------------------
27.35/7.76	
27.35/7.76	(1) DependencyPairsProof (EQUIVALENT)
27.35/7.76	Using Dependency Pairs [AG00,LPAR04] we result in the following initial DP problem.
27.35/7.76	----------------------------------------
27.35/7.76	
27.35/7.76	(2)
27.35/7.76	Obligation:
27.35/7.76	Q DP problem:
27.35/7.76	The TRS P consists of the following rules:
27.35/7.76	
27.35/7.76	   A(b(x1)) -> B(a(c(a(x1))))
27.35/7.76	   A(b(x1)) -> A(c(a(x1)))
27.35/7.76	   A(b(x1)) -> C(a(x1))
27.35/7.76	   A(b(x1)) -> A(x1)
27.35/7.76	   C(c(c(x1))) -> B(x1)
27.35/7.76	
27.35/7.76	The TRS R consists of the following rules:
27.35/7.76	
27.35/7.76	   a(x1) -> x1
27.35/7.76	   a(b(x1)) -> b(a(c(a(x1))))
27.35/7.76	   b(x1) -> x1
27.35/7.76	   c(c(c(x1))) -> b(x1)
27.35/7.76	
27.35/7.76	Q is empty.
27.35/7.76	We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
27.35/7.76	----------------------------------------
27.35/7.76	
27.35/7.76	(3) DependencyGraphProof (EQUIVALENT)
27.35/7.76	The approximation of the Dependency Graph [LPAR04,FROCOS05,EDGSTAR] contains 1 SCC with 3 less nodes.
27.35/7.76	----------------------------------------
27.35/7.76	
27.35/7.76	(4)
27.35/7.76	Obligation:
27.35/7.76	Q DP problem:
27.35/7.76	The TRS P consists of the following rules:
27.35/7.76	
27.35/7.76	   A(b(x1)) -> A(x1)
27.35/7.76	   A(b(x1)) -> A(c(a(x1)))
27.35/7.76	
27.35/7.76	The TRS R consists of the following rules:
27.35/7.76	
27.35/7.76	   a(x1) -> x1
27.35/7.76	   a(b(x1)) -> b(a(c(a(x1))))
27.35/7.76	   b(x1) -> x1
27.35/7.76	   c(c(c(x1))) -> b(x1)
27.35/7.76	
27.35/7.76	Q is empty.
27.35/7.76	We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
27.35/7.76	----------------------------------------
27.35/7.76	
27.35/7.76	(5) QDPOrderProof (EQUIVALENT)
27.35/7.76	We use the reduction pair processor [LPAR04,JAR06].
27.35/7.76	
27.35/7.76	
27.35/7.76	The following pairs can be oriented strictly and are deleted.
27.35/7.76	
27.35/7.76	   A(b(x1)) -> A(c(a(x1)))
27.35/7.76	The remaining pairs can at least be oriented weakly.
27.35/7.76	Used ordering:  Matrix interpretation [MATRO] with arctic natural numbers [ARCTIC]:
27.35/7.76	
27.35/7.76	   <<<
27.35/7.76	 POL(A(x_1)) =  	[[0A]] 	 +  	[[0A, 1A, 1A]] 	* 	x_1
27.35/7.76	>>>
27.35/7.76	
27.35/7.76	   <<<
27.35/7.76	 POL(b(x_1)) =  	[[0A], [0A], [0A]] 	 +  	[[0A, 0A, 1A], [1A, 1A, 0A], [-I, 0A, 0A]] 	* 	x_1
27.35/7.76	>>>
27.35/7.76	
27.35/7.76	   <<<
27.35/7.76	 POL(c(x_1)) =  	[[0A], [-I], [-I]] 	 +  	[[1A, 0A, 0A], [0A, -I, -I], [0A, -I, -I]] 	* 	x_1
27.35/7.76	>>>
27.35/7.76	
27.35/7.76	   <<<
27.35/7.76	 POL(a(x_1)) =  	[[-I], [-I], [-I]] 	 +  	[[0A, 0A, -I], [-I, 1A, 0A], [-I, 0A, 0A]] 	* 	x_1
27.35/7.76	>>>
27.35/7.76	
27.35/7.76	
27.35/7.76	The following usable rules [FROCOS05] with respect to the argument filtering of the ordering [JAR06] were oriented:
27.35/7.76	
27.35/7.76	   a(x1) -> x1
27.35/7.76	   a(b(x1)) -> b(a(c(a(x1))))
27.35/7.76	   c(c(c(x1))) -> b(x1)
27.35/7.76	   b(x1) -> x1
27.35/7.76	
27.35/7.76	
27.35/7.76	----------------------------------------
27.35/7.76	
27.35/7.76	(6)
27.35/7.76	Obligation:
27.35/7.76	Q DP problem:
27.35/7.76	The TRS P consists of the following rules:
27.35/7.76	
27.35/7.76	   A(b(x1)) -> A(x1)
27.35/7.76	
27.35/7.76	The TRS R consists of the following rules:
27.35/7.76	
27.35/7.76	   a(x1) -> x1
27.35/7.76	   a(b(x1)) -> b(a(c(a(x1))))
27.35/7.76	   b(x1) -> x1
27.35/7.76	   c(c(c(x1))) -> b(x1)
27.35/7.76	
27.35/7.76	Q is empty.
27.35/7.76	We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
27.35/7.76	----------------------------------------
27.35/7.76	
27.35/7.76	(7) UsableRulesProof (EQUIVALENT)
27.35/7.76	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.
27.35/7.76	----------------------------------------
27.35/7.76	
27.35/7.76	(8)
27.35/7.76	Obligation:
27.35/7.76	Q DP problem:
27.35/7.76	The TRS P consists of the following rules:
27.35/7.76	
27.35/7.76	   A(b(x1)) -> A(x1)
27.35/7.76	
27.35/7.76	R is empty.
27.35/7.76	Q is empty.
27.35/7.76	We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
27.35/7.76	----------------------------------------
27.35/7.76	
27.35/7.76	(9) QDPSizeChangeProof (EQUIVALENT)
27.35/7.76	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. 
27.35/7.76	
27.35/7.76	From the DPs we obtained the following set of size-change graphs:
27.35/7.76	*A(b(x1)) -> A(x1)
27.35/7.76	The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1
27.35/7.76	
27.35/7.76	
27.35/7.76	----------------------------------------
27.35/7.76	
27.35/7.76	(10)
27.35/7.76	YES
27.43/7.80	EOF