YES proof of /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.xml # AProVE Commit ID: 794c25de1cacf0d048858bcd21c9a779e1221865 marcel 20200619 unpublished dirty Termination w.r.t. Q of the given QTRS could be proven: (0) QTRS (1) DependencyPairsProof [EQUIVALENT, 0 ms] (2) QDP (3) DependencyGraphProof [EQUIVALENT, 0 ms] (4) AND (5) QDP (6) UsableRulesProof [EQUIVALENT, 0 ms] (7) QDP (8) MRRProof [EQUIVALENT, 0 ms] (9) QDP (10) DependencyGraphProof [EQUIVALENT, 0 ms] (11) AND (12) QDP (13) MRRProof [EQUIVALENT, 0 ms] (14) QDP (15) DependencyGraphProof [EQUIVALENT, 0 ms] (16) TRUE (17) QDP (18) MNOCProof [EQUIVALENT, 0 ms] (19) QDP (20) UsableRulesProof [EQUIVALENT, 0 ms] (21) QDP (22) QReductionProof [EQUIVALENT, 0 ms] (23) QDP (24) QDPSizeChangeProof [EQUIVALENT, 0 ms] (25) YES (26) QDP (27) UsableRulesProof [EQUIVALENT, 0 ms] (28) QDP (29) QDPSizeChangeProof [EQUIVALENT, 0 ms] (30) YES (31) QDP (32) QDPOrderProof [EQUIVALENT, 12 ms] (33) QDP (34) PisEmptyProof [EQUIVALENT, 0 ms] (35) YES ---------------------------------------- (0) Obligation: Q restricted rewrite system: The TRS R consists of the following rules: minus(x, 0) -> x minus(s(x), s(y)) -> minus(x, y) quot(0, s(y)) -> 0 quot(s(x), s(y)) -> s(quot(minus(x, y), s(y))) plus(0, y) -> y plus(s(x), y) -> s(plus(x, y)) plus(minus(x, s(0)), minus(y, s(s(z)))) -> plus(minus(y, s(s(z))), minus(x, s(0))) Q is empty. ---------------------------------------- (1) DependencyPairsProof (EQUIVALENT) Using Dependency Pairs [AG00,LPAR04] we result in the following initial DP problem. ---------------------------------------- (2) Obligation: Q DP problem: The TRS P consists of the following rules: MINUS(s(x), s(y)) -> MINUS(x, y) QUOT(s(x), s(y)) -> QUOT(minus(x, y), s(y)) QUOT(s(x), s(y)) -> MINUS(x, y) PLUS(s(x), y) -> PLUS(x, y) PLUS(minus(x, s(0)), minus(y, s(s(z)))) -> PLUS(minus(y, s(s(z))), minus(x, s(0))) The TRS R consists of the following rules: minus(x, 0) -> x minus(s(x), s(y)) -> minus(x, y) quot(0, s(y)) -> 0 quot(s(x), s(y)) -> s(quot(minus(x, y), s(y))) plus(0, y) -> y plus(s(x), y) -> s(plus(x, y)) plus(minus(x, s(0)), minus(y, s(s(z)))) -> plus(minus(y, s(s(z))), minus(x, s(0))) Q is empty. We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains. ---------------------------------------- (3) DependencyGraphProof (EQUIVALENT) The approximation of the Dependency Graph [LPAR04,FROCOS05,EDGSTAR] contains 3 SCCs with 1 less node. ---------------------------------------- (4) Complex Obligation (AND) ---------------------------------------- (5) Obligation: Q DP problem: The TRS P consists of the following rules: PLUS(minus(x, s(0)), minus(y, s(s(z)))) -> PLUS(minus(y, s(s(z))), minus(x, s(0))) PLUS(s(x), y) -> PLUS(x, y) The TRS R consists of the following rules: minus(x, 0) -> x minus(s(x), s(y)) -> minus(x, y) quot(0, s(y)) -> 0 quot(s(x), s(y)) -> s(quot(minus(x, y), s(y))) plus(0, y) -> y plus(s(x), y) -> s(plus(x, y)) plus(minus(x, s(0)), minus(y, s(s(z)))) -> plus(minus(y, s(s(z))), minus(x, s(0))) Q is empty. We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains. ---------------------------------------- (6) UsableRulesProof (EQUIVALENT) 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. ---------------------------------------- (7) Obligation: Q DP problem: The TRS P consists of the following rules: PLUS(minus(x, s(0)), minus(y, s(s(z)))) -> PLUS(minus(y, s(s(z))), minus(x, s(0))) PLUS(s(x), y) -> PLUS(x, y) The TRS R consists of the following rules: minus(s(x), s(y)) -> minus(x, y) minus(x, 0) -> x Q is empty. We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains. ---------------------------------------- (8) MRRProof (EQUIVALENT) 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. Strictly oriented rules of the TRS R: minus(x, 0) -> x Used ordering: Polynomial interpretation [POLO]: POL(0) = 0 POL(PLUS(x_1, x_2)) = 2*x_1 + 2*x_2 POL(minus(x_1, x_2)) = 1 + x_1 + 2*x_2 POL(s(x_1)) = 2*x_1 ---------------------------------------- (9) Obligation: Q DP problem: The TRS P consists of the following rules: PLUS(minus(x, s(0)), minus(y, s(s(z)))) -> PLUS(minus(y, s(s(z))), minus(x, s(0))) PLUS(s(x), y) -> PLUS(x, y) The TRS R consists of the following rules: minus(s(x), s(y)) -> minus(x, y) Q is empty. We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains. ---------------------------------------- (10) DependencyGraphProof (EQUIVALENT) The approximation of the Dependency Graph [LPAR04,FROCOS05,EDGSTAR] contains 2 SCCs. ---------------------------------------- (11) Complex Obligation (AND) ---------------------------------------- (12) Obligation: Q DP problem: The TRS P consists of the following rules: PLUS(minus(x, s(0)), minus(y, s(s(z)))) -> PLUS(minus(y, s(s(z))), minus(x, s(0))) The TRS R consists of the following rules: minus(s(x), s(y)) -> minus(x, y) Q is empty. We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains. ---------------------------------------- (13) MRRProof (EQUIVALENT) 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. Strictly oriented rules of the TRS R: minus(s(x), s(y)) -> minus(x, y) Used ordering: Polynomial interpretation [POLO]: POL(0) = 0 POL(PLUS(x_1, x_2)) = 2*x_1 + 2*x_2 POL(minus(x_1, x_2)) = 2*x_1 + 2*x_2 POL(s(x_1)) = 2 + 2*x_1 ---------------------------------------- (14) Obligation: Q DP problem: The TRS P consists of the following rules: PLUS(minus(x, s(0)), minus(y, s(s(z)))) -> PLUS(minus(y, s(s(z))), minus(x, s(0))) R is empty. Q is empty. We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains. ---------------------------------------- (15) DependencyGraphProof (EQUIVALENT) The approximation of the Dependency Graph [LPAR04,FROCOS05,EDGSTAR] contains 0 SCCs with 1 less node. ---------------------------------------- (16) TRUE ---------------------------------------- (17) Obligation: Q DP problem: The TRS P consists of the following rules: PLUS(s(x), y) -> PLUS(x, y) The TRS R consists of the following rules: minus(s(x), s(y)) -> minus(x, y) Q is empty. We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains. ---------------------------------------- (18) MNOCProof (EQUIVALENT) We use the modular non-overlap check [LPAR04] to enlarge Q to all left-hand sides of R. ---------------------------------------- (19) Obligation: Q DP problem: The TRS P consists of the following rules: PLUS(s(x), y) -> PLUS(x, y) The TRS R consists of the following rules: minus(s(x), s(y)) -> minus(x, y) The set Q consists of the following terms: minus(s(x0), s(x1)) We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains. ---------------------------------------- (20) UsableRulesProof (EQUIVALENT) As all Q-normal forms are R-normal forms we are in the innermost case. Hence, by the usable rules processor [LPAR04] we can delete all non-usable rules [FROCOS05] from R. ---------------------------------------- (21) Obligation: Q DP problem: The TRS P consists of the following rules: PLUS(s(x), y) -> PLUS(x, y) R is empty. The set Q consists of the following terms: minus(s(x0), s(x1)) We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains. ---------------------------------------- (22) QReductionProof (EQUIVALENT) We deleted the following terms from Q as each root-symbol of these terms does neither occur in P nor in R.[THIEMANN]. minus(s(x0), s(x1)) ---------------------------------------- (23) Obligation: Q DP problem: The TRS P consists of the following rules: PLUS(s(x), y) -> PLUS(x, y) R is empty. Q is empty. We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains. ---------------------------------------- (24) QDPSizeChangeProof (EQUIVALENT) 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. From the DPs we obtained the following set of size-change graphs: *PLUS(s(x), y) -> PLUS(x, y) The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1, 2 >= 2 ---------------------------------------- (25) YES ---------------------------------------- (26) Obligation: Q DP problem: The TRS P consists of the following rules: MINUS(s(x), s(y)) -> MINUS(x, y) The TRS R consists of the following rules: minus(x, 0) -> x minus(s(x), s(y)) -> minus(x, y) quot(0, s(y)) -> 0 quot(s(x), s(y)) -> s(quot(minus(x, y), s(y))) plus(0, y) -> y plus(s(x), y) -> s(plus(x, y)) plus(minus(x, s(0)), minus(y, s(s(z)))) -> plus(minus(y, s(s(z))), minus(x, s(0))) Q is empty. We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains. ---------------------------------------- (27) UsableRulesProof (EQUIVALENT) 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. ---------------------------------------- (28) Obligation: Q DP problem: The TRS P consists of the following rules: MINUS(s(x), s(y)) -> MINUS(x, y) R is empty. Q is empty. We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains. ---------------------------------------- (29) QDPSizeChangeProof (EQUIVALENT) 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. From the DPs we obtained the following set of size-change graphs: *MINUS(s(x), s(y)) -> MINUS(x, y) The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1, 2 > 2 ---------------------------------------- (30) YES ---------------------------------------- (31) Obligation: Q DP problem: The TRS P consists of the following rules: QUOT(s(x), s(y)) -> QUOT(minus(x, y), s(y)) The TRS R consists of the following rules: minus(x, 0) -> x minus(s(x), s(y)) -> minus(x, y) quot(0, s(y)) -> 0 quot(s(x), s(y)) -> s(quot(minus(x, y), s(y))) plus(0, y) -> y plus(s(x), y) -> s(plus(x, y)) plus(minus(x, s(0)), minus(y, s(s(z)))) -> plus(minus(y, s(s(z))), minus(x, s(0))) Q is empty. We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains. ---------------------------------------- (32) QDPOrderProof (EQUIVALENT) We use the reduction pair processor [LPAR04,JAR06]. The following pairs can be oriented strictly and are deleted. QUOT(s(x), s(y)) -> QUOT(minus(x, y), s(y)) The remaining pairs can at least be oriented weakly. Used ordering: Combined order from the following AFS and order. QUOT(x1, x2) = QUOT(x1, x2) s(x1) = s(x1) minus(x1, x2) = x1 0 = 0 Recursive path order with status [RPO]. Quasi-Precedence: QUOT_2 > s_1 Status: QUOT_2: [2,1] s_1: [1] 0: multiset status The following usable rules [FROCOS05] with respect to the argument filtering of the ordering [JAR06] were oriented: minus(x, 0) -> x minus(s(x), s(y)) -> minus(x, y) ---------------------------------------- (33) Obligation: Q DP problem: P is empty. The TRS R consists of the following rules: minus(x, 0) -> x minus(s(x), s(y)) -> minus(x, y) quot(0, s(y)) -> 0 quot(s(x), s(y)) -> s(quot(minus(x, y), s(y))) plus(0, y) -> y plus(s(x), y) -> s(plus(x, y)) plus(minus(x, s(0)), minus(y, s(s(z)))) -> plus(minus(y, s(s(z))), minus(x, s(0))) Q is empty. We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains. ---------------------------------------- (34) PisEmptyProof (EQUIVALENT) The TRS P is empty. Hence, there is no (P,Q,R) chain. ---------------------------------------- (35) YES