YES
proof of /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.xml
# AProVE Commit ID: 794c25de1cacf0d048858bcd21c9a779e1221865 marcel 20200619 unpublished dirty


Termination of the given RelTRS could be proven:

(0) RelTRS
(1) RelTRS Reverse [EQUIVALENT, 0 ms]
(2) RelTRS
(3) RelTRSRRRProof [EQUIVALENT, 669 ms]
(4) RelTRS
(5) RelTRSRRRProof [EQUIVALENT, 0 ms]
(6) RelTRS
(7) RIsEmptyProof [EQUIVALENT, 0 ms]
(8) YES


----------------------------------------

(0)
Obligation:
Relative term rewrite system:
The relative TRS consists of the following R rules:

   a(b(a(x1))) -> c(c(c(x1)))
   c(c(c(x1))) -> a(c(a(x1)))

The relative TRS consists of the following S rules:

   a(x1) -> b(c(b(x1)))


----------------------------------------

(1) RelTRS Reverse (EQUIVALENT)
We have reversed the following relative TRS [REVERSE]:
The set of rules R is 
   a(b(a(x1))) -> c(c(c(x1)))
   c(c(c(x1))) -> a(c(a(x1)))

The set of rules S is 
   a(x1) -> b(c(b(x1)))

We have obtained the following relative TRS:
The set of rules R is 
   a(b(a(x1))) -> c(c(c(x1)))
   c(c(c(x1))) -> a(c(a(x1)))

The set of rules S is 
   a(x1) -> b(c(b(x1)))


----------------------------------------

(2)
Obligation:
Relative term rewrite system:
The relative TRS consists of the following R rules:

   a(b(a(x1))) -> c(c(c(x1)))
   c(c(c(x1))) -> a(c(a(x1)))

The relative TRS consists of the following S rules:

   a(x1) -> b(c(b(x1)))


----------------------------------------

(3) RelTRSRRRProof (EQUIVALENT)
We used the following monotonic ordering for rule removal:
Matrix interpretation [MATRO] to (N^6, +, *, >=, >) :

   <<<
 POL(a(x_1)) =  	[[0], [0], [1], [0], [0], [0]] 	 +  	[[1, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0], [0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0], [0, 1, 0, 0, 1, 0], [0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0], [0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0], [0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0]] 	* 	x_1
>>>

   <<<
 POL(b(x_1)) =  	[[0], [0], [0], [0], [0], [0]] 	 +  	[[1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0], [0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0], [0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0], [0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0], [0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0], [0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0]] 	* 	x_1
>>>

   <<<
 POL(c(x_1)) =  	[[0], [0], [0], [0], [0], [1]] 	 +  	[[1, 0, 0, 0, 1, 0], [0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0], [0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1], [0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0], [0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0], [0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0]] 	* 	x_1
>>>

With this ordering the following rules can be removed [MATRO] because they are oriented strictly:
Rules from R:

   a(b(a(x1))) -> c(c(c(x1)))
Rules from S:
none




----------------------------------------

(4)
Obligation:
Relative term rewrite system:
The relative TRS consists of the following R rules:

   c(c(c(x1))) -> a(c(a(x1)))

The relative TRS consists of the following S rules:

   a(x1) -> b(c(b(x1)))


----------------------------------------

(5) RelTRSRRRProof (EQUIVALENT)
We used the following monotonic ordering for rule removal:
Matrix interpretation [MATRO] to (N^2, +, *, >=, >) :

   <<<
 POL(c(x_1)) =  	[[0], [1]] 	 +  	[[1, 2], [0, 0]] 	* 	x_1
>>>

   <<<
 POL(a(x_1)) =  	[[0], [0]] 	 +  	[[1, 0], [0, 0]] 	* 	x_1
>>>

   <<<
 POL(b(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:

   c(c(c(x1))) -> a(c(a(x1)))
Rules from S:
none




----------------------------------------

(6)
Obligation:
Relative term rewrite system:
R is empty.
The relative TRS consists of the following S rules:

   a(x1) -> b(c(b(x1)))


----------------------------------------

(7) RIsEmptyProof (EQUIVALENT)
The TRS R is empty. Hence, termination is trivially proven.
----------------------------------------

(8)
YES