3.30/1.72	NO
3.30/1.74	proof of /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.xml
3.30/1.74	# AProVE Commit ID: 48fb2092695e11cc9f56e44b17a92a5f88ffb256 marcel 20180622 unpublished dirty
3.30/1.74	
3.30/1.74	
3.30/1.74	Termination w.r.t. Q of the given QTRS could be disproven:
3.30/1.74	
3.30/1.74	(0) QTRS
3.30/1.74	(1) NonTerminationProof [COMPLETE, 0 ms]
3.30/1.74	(2) NO
3.30/1.74	
3.30/1.74	
3.30/1.74	----------------------------------------
3.30/1.74	
3.30/1.74	(0)
3.30/1.74	Obligation:
3.30/1.74	Q restricted rewrite system:
3.30/1.74	The TRS R consists of the following rules:
3.30/1.74	
3.30/1.74	   a(x1) -> x1
3.30/1.74	   a(b(x1)) -> a(c(b(b(a(a(x1))))))
3.30/1.74	   b(x1) -> x1
3.30/1.74	   c(c(x1)) -> x1
3.30/1.74	
3.30/1.74	Q is empty.
3.30/1.74	
3.30/1.74	----------------------------------------
3.30/1.74	
3.30/1.74	(1) NonTerminationProof (COMPLETE)
3.30/1.74	We used the non-termination processor [OPPELT08] to show that the SRS problem is infinite.
3.30/1.74	
3.30/1.74	Found the self-embedding DerivationStructure: 
3.30/1.74	"a b b -> a b b a"
3.30/1.74	a b b -> a b b a
3.30/1.74	by OverlapClosure OC 3"a b b -> a c c b b a
3.30/1.74	by OverlapClosure OC 3"a b b -> a c b c b b a
3.30/1.74	by OverlapClosure OC 2"a b -> a c b a
3.30/1.74	by OverlapClosure OC 3"a b -> a c b b a
3.30/1.74	by OverlapClosure OC 2"a b -> a c b b a a
3.30/1.74	by original rule (OC 1)""a -> 
3.30/1.74	by original rule (OC 1)"""b -> 
3.30/1.74	by original rule (OC 1)"""a b -> c b b a
3.30/1.74	by OverlapClosure OC 3"a b -> a c b b a
3.30/1.74	by OverlapClosure OC 2"a b -> a c b b a a
3.30/1.74	by original rule (OC 1)""a -> 
3.30/1.74	by original rule (OC 1)"""a -> 
3.30/1.74	by original rule (OC 1)""""b -> 
3.30/1.74	by original rule (OC 1)"""c c -> 
3.30/1.74	by original rule (OC 1)"
3.30/1.74	
3.30/1.74	----------------------------------------
3.30/1.74	
3.30/1.74	(2)
3.30/1.74	NO
3.30/1.77	EOF