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# AProVE Commit ID: 794c25de1cacf0d048858bcd21c9a779e1221865 marcel 20200619 unpublished dirty Termination w.r.t. Q of the given QTRS could be proven: (0) QTRS (1) DependencyPairsProof [EQUIVALENT, 0 ms] (2) QDP (3) DependencyGraphProof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) MNOCProof [EQUIVALENT, 0 ms] (9) QDP (10) QDPOrderProof [EQUIVALENT, 2 ms] (11) QDP (12) PisEmptyProof [EQUIVALENT, 0 ms] (13) YES (14) QDP (15) QDPOrderProof [EQUIVALENT, 50 ms] (16) QDP (17) UsableRulesProof [EQUIVALENT, 0 ms] (18) QDP (19) QDPSizeChangeProof [EQUIVALENT, 0 ms] (20) YES ---------------------------------------- (0) Obligation: Q restricted rewrite system: The TRS R consists of the following rules: a(x1) -> x1 a(a(x1)) -> a(b(x1)) b(x1) -> x1 c(b(x1)) -> a(b(c(c(x1)))) 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: A(a(x1)) -> A(b(x1)) A(a(x1)) -> B(x1) C(b(x1)) -> A(b(c(c(x1)))) C(b(x1)) -> B(c(c(x1))) C(b(x1)) -> C(c(x1)) C(b(x1)) -> C(x1) The TRS R consists of the following rules: a(x1) -> x1 a(a(x1)) -> a(b(x1)) b(x1) -> x1 c(b(x1)) -> a(b(c(c(x1)))) 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 2 SCCs with 3 less nodes. ---------------------------------------- (4) Complex Obligation (AND) ---------------------------------------- (5) Obligation: Q DP problem: The TRS P consists of the following rules: A(a(x1)) -> A(b(x1)) The TRS R consists of the following rules: a(x1) -> x1 a(a(x1)) -> a(b(x1)) b(x1) -> x1 c(b(x1)) -> a(b(c(c(x1)))) 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: A(a(x1)) -> A(b(x1)) The TRS R consists of the following rules: b(x1) -> x1 Q is empty. We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains. ---------------------------------------- (8) MNOCProof (EQUIVALENT) We use the modular non-overlap check [LPAR04] to enlarge Q to all left-hand sides of R. ---------------------------------------- (9) Obligation: Q DP problem: The TRS P consists of the following rules: A(a(x1)) -> A(b(x1)) The TRS R consists of the following rules: b(x1) -> x1 The set Q consists of the following terms: b(x0) We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains. ---------------------------------------- (10) QDPOrderProof (EQUIVALENT) We use the reduction pair processor [LPAR04,JAR06]. The following pairs can be oriented strictly and are deleted. A(a(x1)) -> A(b(x1)) The remaining pairs can at least be oriented weakly. Used ordering: Polynomial interpretation [POLO]: POL(A(x_1)) = x_1 POL(a(x_1)) = 1 + x_1 POL(b(x_1)) = x_1 The following usable rules [FROCOS05] with respect to the argument filtering of the ordering [JAR06] were oriented: b(x1) -> x1 ---------------------------------------- (11) Obligation: Q DP problem: P is empty. The TRS R consists of the following rules: b(x1) -> x1 The set Q consists of the following terms: b(x0) We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains. ---------------------------------------- (12) PisEmptyProof (EQUIVALENT) The TRS P is empty. Hence, there is no (P,Q,R) chain. ---------------------------------------- (13) YES ---------------------------------------- (14) Obligation: Q DP problem: The TRS P consists of the following rules: C(b(x1)) -> C(x1) C(b(x1)) -> C(c(x1)) The TRS R consists of the following rules: a(x1) -> x1 a(a(x1)) -> a(b(x1)) b(x1) -> x1 c(b(x1)) -> a(b(c(c(x1)))) Q is empty. We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains. ---------------------------------------- (15) QDPOrderProof (EQUIVALENT) We use the reduction pair processor [LPAR04,JAR06]. The following pairs can be oriented strictly and are deleted. C(b(x1)) -> C(c(x1)) The remaining pairs can at least be oriented weakly. Used ordering: Matrix interpretation [MATRO] with arctic natural numbers [ARCTIC]: <<< POL(C(x_1)) = [[0A]] + [[1A, 1A, 1A]] * x_1 >>> <<< POL(b(x_1)) = [[-I], [-I], [0A]] + [[1A, 0A, 1A], [0A, 0A, 0A], [-I, -I, 0A]] * x_1 >>> <<< POL(c(x_1)) = [[-I], [-I], [-I]] + [[0A, -I, -I], [0A, -I, 0A], [-I, -I, 0A]] * x_1 >>> <<< POL(a(x_1)) = [[-I], [0A], [0A]] + [[0A, 1A, -I], [0A, 1A, 0A], [-I, -I, 0A]] * x_1 >>> The following usable rules [FROCOS05] with respect to the argument filtering of the ordering [JAR06] were oriented: c(b(x1)) -> a(b(c(c(x1)))) b(x1) -> x1 a(x1) -> x1 a(a(x1)) -> a(b(x1)) ---------------------------------------- (16) Obligation: Q DP problem: The TRS P consists of the following rules: C(b(x1)) -> C(x1) The TRS R consists of the following rules: a(x1) -> x1 a(a(x1)) -> a(b(x1)) b(x1) -> x1 c(b(x1)) -> a(b(c(c(x1)))) Q is empty. We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains. ---------------------------------------- (17) 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. ---------------------------------------- (18) Obligation: Q DP problem: The TRS P consists of the following rules: C(b(x1)) -> C(x1) R is empty. Q is empty. We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains. ---------------------------------------- (19) 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: *C(b(x1)) -> C(x1) The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1 ---------------------------------------- (20) YES