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# AProVE Commit ID: 794c25de1cacf0d048858bcd21c9a779e1221865 marcel 20200619 unpublished dirty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, 17 ms]
(2) QDP
(3) DependencyGraphProof [EQUIVALENT, 0 ms]
(4) QDP
(5) QDPOrderProof [EQUIVALENT, 36 ms]
(6) QDP
(7) QDPOrderProof [EQUIVALENT, 195 ms]
(8) QDP
(9) DependencyGraphProof [EQUIVALENT, 0 ms]
(10) TRUE


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

(0)
Obligation:
Q restricted rewrite system:
The TRS R consists of the following rules:

   a(a(x1)) -> c(b(a(b(a(x1)))))
   b(a(b(x1))) -> b(x1)
   a(a(a(x1))) -> c(c(a(x1)))
   c(c(x1)) -> a(b(c(b(a(x1)))))
   a(c(a(x1))) -> c(c(a(x1)))
   c(a(c(x1))) -> a(a(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)) -> C(b(a(b(a(x1)))))
   A(a(x1)) -> B(a(b(a(x1))))
   A(a(x1)) -> A(b(a(x1)))
   A(a(x1)) -> B(a(x1))
   A(a(a(x1))) -> C(c(a(x1)))
   A(a(a(x1))) -> C(a(x1))
   C(c(x1)) -> A(b(c(b(a(x1)))))
   C(c(x1)) -> B(c(b(a(x1))))
   C(c(x1)) -> C(b(a(x1)))
   C(c(x1)) -> B(a(x1))
   C(c(x1)) -> A(x1)
   A(c(a(x1))) -> C(c(a(x1)))
   C(a(c(x1))) -> A(a(c(x1)))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

   a(a(x1)) -> c(b(a(b(a(x1)))))
   b(a(b(x1))) -> b(x1)
   a(a(a(x1))) -> c(c(a(x1)))
   c(c(x1)) -> a(b(c(b(a(x1)))))
   a(c(a(x1))) -> c(c(a(x1)))
   c(a(c(x1))) -> a(a(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 1 SCC with 4 less nodes.
----------------------------------------

(4)
Obligation:
Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:

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

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

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

Q is empty.
We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
----------------------------------------

(5) QDPOrderProof (EQUIVALENT)
We use the reduction pair processor [LPAR04,JAR06].


The following pairs can be oriented strictly and are deleted.

   C(c(x1)) -> A(b(c(b(a(x1)))))
   A(a(x1)) -> C(b(a(b(a(x1)))))
   C(c(x1)) -> C(b(a(x1)))
   C(c(x1)) -> A(x1)
   A(a(x1)) -> A(b(a(x1)))
   A(a(a(x1))) -> C(a(x1))
The remaining pairs can at least be oriented weakly.
Used ordering:  Polynomial interpretation [POLO]:

   POL(A(x_1)) = 1 + x_1
   POL(C(x_1)) = 1 + x_1
   POL(a(x_1)) = 1 + x_1
   POL(b(x_1)) = 0
   POL(c(x_1)) = 1 + x_1

The following usable rules [FROCOS05] with respect to the argument filtering of the ordering [JAR06] were oriented:

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


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

(6)
Obligation:
Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:

   A(a(a(x1))) -> C(c(a(x1)))
   C(a(c(x1))) -> A(a(c(x1)))
   A(c(a(x1))) -> C(c(a(x1)))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

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

Q is empty.
We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
----------------------------------------

(7) QDPOrderProof (EQUIVALENT)
We use the reduction pair processor [LPAR04,JAR06].


The following pairs can be oriented strictly and are deleted.

   A(a(a(x1))) -> C(c(a(x1)))
   A(c(a(x1))) -> C(c(a(x1)))
The remaining pairs can at least be oriented weakly.
Used ordering:  Matrix interpretation [MATRO] with arctic natural numbers [ARCTIC]:

   <<<
 POL(A(x_1)) =  	[[0A]] 	 +  	[[-I, 1A, -I]] 	* 	x_1
>>>

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

   <<<
 POL(C(x_1)) =  	[[0A]] 	 +  	[[-I, -I, 0A]] 	* 	x_1
>>>

   <<<
 POL(c(x_1)) =  	[[0A], [-I], [-I]] 	 +  	[[0A, 0A, 0A], [0A, 0A, 0A], [0A, 0A, -I]] 	* 	x_1
>>>

   <<<
 POL(b(x_1)) =  	[[0A], [-I], [0A]] 	 +  	[[-I, 0A, -I], [-I, -I, -I], [-I, 0A, -I]] 	* 	x_1
>>>


The following usable rules [FROCOS05] with respect to the argument filtering of the ordering [JAR06] were oriented:

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


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

(8)
Obligation:
Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:

   C(a(c(x1))) -> A(a(c(x1)))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

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

Q is empty.
We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
----------------------------------------

(9) DependencyGraphProof (EQUIVALENT)
The approximation of the Dependency Graph [LPAR04,FROCOS05,EDGSTAR] contains 0 SCCs with 1 less node.
----------------------------------------

(10)
TRUE