YES proof of /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.xml # AProVE Commit ID: 794c25de1cacf0d048858bcd21c9a779e1221865 marcel 20200619 unpublished dirty Termination of the given RelTRS could be proven: (0) RelTRS (1) RelTRS Reverse [SOUND, 0 ms] (2) RelTRS (3) RelTRSRRRProof [EQUIVALENT, 16 ms] (4) RelTRS (5) RelTRSRRRProof [EQUIVALENT, 0 ms] (6) RelTRS (7) RelTRSRRRProof [EQUIVALENT, 19 ms] (8) RelTRS (9) RIsEmptyProof [EQUIVALENT, 0 ms] (10) YES ---------------------------------------- (0) Obligation: Relative term rewrite system: The relative TRS consists of the following R rules: g(s(x)) -> f(x) f(0) -> s(0) f(s(x)) -> s(s(g(x))) g(0) -> 0 The relative TRS consists of the following S rules: rand(x) -> x rand(x) -> rand(s(x)) ---------------------------------------- (1) RelTRS Reverse (SOUND) We have reversed the following relative TRS [REVERSE]: The set of rules R is g(s(x)) -> f(x) f(0) -> s(0) f(s(x)) -> s(s(g(x))) g(0) -> 0 The set of rules S is rand(x) -> x rand(x) -> rand(s(x)) We have obtained the following relative TRS: The set of rules R is s(g(x)) -> f(x) 0'(f(x)) -> 0'(s(x)) s(f(x)) -> g(s(s(x))) 0'(g(x)) -> 0'(x) The set of rules S is rand(x) -> x rand(x) -> s(rand(x)) ---------------------------------------- (2) Obligation: Relative term rewrite system: The relative TRS consists of the following R rules: s(g(x)) -> f(x) 0'(f(x)) -> 0'(s(x)) s(f(x)) -> g(s(s(x))) 0'(g(x)) -> 0'(x) The relative TRS consists of the following S rules: rand(x) -> x rand(x) -> s(rand(x)) ---------------------------------------- (3) RelTRSRRRProof (EQUIVALENT) We used the following monotonic ordering for rule removal: Polynomial interpretation [POLO]: POL(0'(x_1)) = x_1 POL(f(x_1)) = x_1 POL(g(x_1)) = x_1 POL(rand(x_1)) = 1 + x_1 POL(s(x_1)) = x_1 With this ordering the following rules can be removed [MATRO] because they are oriented strictly: Rules from R: none Rules from S: rand(x) -> x ---------------------------------------- (4) Obligation: Relative term rewrite system: The relative TRS consists of the following R rules: s(g(x)) -> f(x) 0'(f(x)) -> 0'(s(x)) s(f(x)) -> g(s(s(x))) 0'(g(x)) -> 0'(x) The relative TRS consists of the following S rules: rand(x) -> s(rand(x)) ---------------------------------------- (5) RelTRSRRRProof (EQUIVALENT) We used the following monotonic ordering for rule removal: Polynomial interpretation [POLO]: POL(0'(x_1)) = x_1 POL(f(x_1)) = 1 + x_1 POL(g(x_1)) = 1 + x_1 POL(rand(x_1)) = x_1 POL(s(x_1)) = x_1 With this ordering the following rules can be removed [MATRO] because they are oriented strictly: Rules from R: 0'(f(x)) -> 0'(s(x)) 0'(g(x)) -> 0'(x) Rules from S: none ---------------------------------------- (6) Obligation: Relative term rewrite system: The relative TRS consists of the following R rules: s(g(x)) -> f(x) s(f(x)) -> g(s(s(x))) The relative TRS consists of the following S rules: rand(x) -> s(rand(x)) ---------------------------------------- (7) RelTRSRRRProof (EQUIVALENT) We used the following monotonic ordering for rule removal: Matrix interpretation [MATRO] to (N^2, +, *, >=, >) : <<< POL(s(x_1)) = [[0], [0]] + [[1, 2], [0, 1]] * x_1 >>> <<< POL(g(x_1)) = [[0], [2]] + [[1, 0], [0, 1]] * x_1 >>> <<< POL(f(x_1)) = [[0], [2]] + [[1, 2], [0, 1]] * x_1 >>> <<< POL(rand(x_1)) = [[0], [0]] + [[1, 0], [0, 0]] * x_1 >>> With this ordering the following rules can be removed [MATRO] because they are oriented strictly: Rules from R: s(g(x)) -> f(x) s(f(x)) -> g(s(s(x))) Rules from S: none ---------------------------------------- (8) Obligation: Relative term rewrite system: R is empty. The relative TRS consists of the following S rules: rand(x) -> s(rand(x)) ---------------------------------------- (9) RIsEmptyProof (EQUIVALENT) The TRS R is empty. Hence, termination is trivially proven. ---------------------------------------- (10) YES