13.78/4.48 YES 14.26/4.62 proof of /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.xml 14.26/4.62 # AProVE Commit ID: 48fb2092695e11cc9f56e44b17a92a5f88ffb256 marcel 20180622 unpublished dirty 14.26/4.62 14.26/4.62 14.26/4.62 Termination w.r.t. Q of the given QTRS could be proven: 14.26/4.62 14.26/4.62 (0) QTRS 14.26/4.62 (1) DependencyPairsProof [EQUIVALENT, 1 ms] 14.26/4.62 (2) QDP 14.26/4.62 (3) MRRProof [EQUIVALENT, 48 ms] 14.26/4.62 (4) QDP 14.26/4.62 (5) DependencyGraphProof [EQUIVALENT, 0 ms] 14.26/4.62 (6) TRUE 14.26/4.62 14.26/4.62 14.26/4.62 ---------------------------------------- 14.26/4.62 14.26/4.62 (0) 14.26/4.62 Obligation: 14.26/4.62 Q restricted rewrite system: 14.26/4.62 The TRS R consists of the following rules: 14.26/4.62 14.26/4.62 a(a(x1)) -> b(x1) 14.26/4.62 b(a(x1)) -> a(b(x1)) 14.26/4.62 b(b(c(x1))) -> c(a(x1)) 14.26/4.62 b(b(x1)) -> a(a(a(x1))) 14.26/4.62 c(a(x1)) -> b(a(c(x1))) 14.26/4.62 14.26/4.62 Q is empty. 14.26/4.62 14.26/4.62 ---------------------------------------- 14.26/4.62 14.26/4.62 (1) DependencyPairsProof (EQUIVALENT) 14.26/4.62 Using Dependency Pairs [AG00,LPAR04] we result in the following initial DP problem. 14.26/4.62 ---------------------------------------- 14.26/4.62 14.26/4.62 (2) 14.26/4.62 Obligation: 14.26/4.62 Q DP problem: 14.26/4.62 The TRS P consists of the following rules: 14.26/4.62 14.26/4.62 A(a(x1)) -> B(x1) 14.26/4.62 B(a(x1)) -> A(b(x1)) 14.26/4.62 B(a(x1)) -> B(x1) 14.26/4.62 B(b(c(x1))) -> C(a(x1)) 14.26/4.62 B(b(c(x1))) -> A(x1) 14.26/4.62 B(b(x1)) -> A(a(a(x1))) 14.26/4.62 B(b(x1)) -> A(a(x1)) 14.26/4.62 B(b(x1)) -> A(x1) 14.26/4.62 C(a(x1)) -> B(a(c(x1))) 14.26/4.62 C(a(x1)) -> A(c(x1)) 14.26/4.62 C(a(x1)) -> C(x1) 14.26/4.62 14.26/4.62 The TRS R consists of the following rules: 14.26/4.62 14.26/4.62 a(a(x1)) -> b(x1) 14.26/4.62 b(a(x1)) -> a(b(x1)) 14.26/4.62 b(b(c(x1))) -> c(a(x1)) 14.26/4.62 b(b(x1)) -> a(a(a(x1))) 14.26/4.62 c(a(x1)) -> b(a(c(x1))) 14.26/4.62 14.26/4.62 Q is empty. 14.26/4.62 We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains. 14.26/4.62 ---------------------------------------- 14.26/4.62 14.26/4.62 (3) MRRProof (EQUIVALENT) 14.26/4.62 By using the rule removal processor [LPAR04] with the following ordering, at least one Dependency Pair or term rewrite system rule of this QDP problem can be strictly oriented. 14.26/4.62 14.26/4.62 Strictly oriented dependency pairs: 14.26/4.62 14.26/4.62 B(a(x1)) -> A(b(x1)) 14.26/4.62 B(a(x1)) -> B(x1) 14.26/4.62 B(b(c(x1))) -> A(x1) 14.26/4.62 B(b(x1)) -> A(a(a(x1))) 14.26/4.62 B(b(x1)) -> A(a(x1)) 14.26/4.62 B(b(x1)) -> A(x1) 14.26/4.62 C(a(x1)) -> B(a(c(x1))) 14.26/4.62 C(a(x1)) -> A(c(x1)) 14.26/4.62 C(a(x1)) -> C(x1) 14.26/4.62 14.26/4.62 Strictly oriented rules of the TRS R: 14.26/4.62 14.26/4.62 a(a(x1)) -> b(x1) 14.26/4.62 c(a(x1)) -> b(a(c(x1))) 14.26/4.62 14.26/4.62 Used ordering: Polynomial interpretation [POLO]: 14.26/4.62 14.26/4.62 POL(A(x_1)) = 1 + x_1 14.26/4.62 POL(B(x_1)) = 3 + x_1 14.26/4.62 POL(C(x_1)) = 2 + 3*x_1 14.26/4.62 POL(a(x_1)) = 2 + x_1 14.26/4.62 POL(b(x_1)) = 3 + x_1 14.26/4.62 POL(c(x_1)) = 2 + 3*x_1 14.26/4.62 14.26/4.62 14.26/4.62 ---------------------------------------- 14.26/4.62 14.26/4.62 (4) 14.26/4.62 Obligation: 14.26/4.62 Q DP problem: 14.26/4.62 The TRS P consists of the following rules: 14.26/4.62 14.26/4.62 A(a(x1)) -> B(x1) 14.26/4.62 B(b(c(x1))) -> C(a(x1)) 14.26/4.62 14.26/4.62 The TRS R consists of the following rules: 14.26/4.62 14.26/4.62 b(a(x1)) -> a(b(x1)) 14.26/4.62 b(b(c(x1))) -> c(a(x1)) 14.26/4.62 b(b(x1)) -> a(a(a(x1))) 14.26/4.62 14.26/4.62 Q is empty. 14.26/4.62 We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains. 14.26/4.62 ---------------------------------------- 14.26/4.62 14.26/4.62 (5) DependencyGraphProof (EQUIVALENT) 14.26/4.62 The approximation of the Dependency Graph [LPAR04,FROCOS05,EDGSTAR] contains 0 SCCs with 2 less nodes. 14.26/4.62 ---------------------------------------- 14.26/4.62 14.26/4.62 (6) 14.26/4.62 TRUE 14.63/4.73 EOF