YES After renaming modulo { a->0, c->1, b->2, d->3 }, it remains to prove termination of the 7-rule system { 0 1 -> 1 2 1 1 0 , 2 2 2 -> 1 2 , 3 3 -> 3 2 3 2 3 , 0 0 -> 0 3 0 , 0 2 -> 1 1 0 , 1 1 -> 1 2 1 2 1 , 1 1 1 -> 1 2 2 } The system was filtered by the following matrix interpretation of type E_J with J = {1,...,2} and dimension 3: 0 is interpreted by / \ | 1 0 0 | | 0 1 0 | | 0 0 0 | \ / 1 is interpreted by / \ | 1 0 0 | | 0 1 0 | | 0 0 0 | \ / 2 is interpreted by / \ | 1 0 0 | | 0 1 0 | | 0 0 0 | \ / 3 is interpreted by / \ | 1 0 1 | | 0 1 0 | | 0 1 0 | \ / After renaming modulo { 0->0, 1->1, 2->2, 3->3 }, it remains to prove termination of the 6-rule system { 0 1 -> 1 2 1 1 0 , 2 2 2 -> 1 2 , 0 0 -> 0 3 0 , 0 2 -> 1 1 0 , 1 1 -> 1 2 1 2 1 , 1 1 1 -> 1 2 2 } The system was reversed. After renaming modulo { 1->0, 0->1, 2->2, 3->3 }, it remains to prove termination of the 6-rule system { 0 1 -> 1 0 0 2 0 , 2 2 2 -> 2 0 , 1 1 -> 1 3 1 , 2 1 -> 1 0 0 , 0 0 -> 0 2 0 2 0 , 0 0 0 -> 2 2 0 } Applying the dependency pairs transformation. After renaming modulo { (0,true)->0, (1,false)->1, (1,true)->2, (0,false)->3, (2,false)->4, (2,true)->5, (3,false)->6 }, it remains to prove termination of the 26-rule system { 0 1 -> 2 3 3 4 3 , 0 1 -> 0 3 4 3 , 0 1 -> 0 4 3 , 0 1 -> 5 3 , 0 1 -> 0 , 5 4 4 -> 5 3 , 5 4 4 -> 0 , 2 1 -> 2 6 1 , 2 1 -> 2 , 5 1 -> 2 3 3 , 5 1 -> 0 3 , 5 1 -> 0 , 0 3 -> 0 4 3 4 3 , 0 3 -> 5 3 4 3 , 0 3 -> 0 4 3 , 0 3 -> 5 3 , 0 3 -> 0 , 0 3 3 -> 5 4 3 , 0 3 3 -> 5 3 , 0 3 3 -> 0 , 3 1 ->= 1 3 3 4 3 , 4 4 4 ->= 4 3 , 1 1 ->= 1 6 1 , 4 1 ->= 1 3 3 , 3 3 ->= 3 4 3 4 3 , 3 3 3 ->= 4 4 3 } The system was filtered by the following matrix interpretation of type E_J with J = {1,...,2} and dimension 2: 0 is interpreted by / \ | 1 0 | | 0 1 | \ / 1 is interpreted by / \ | 1 1 | | 0 1 | \ / 2 is interpreted by / \ | 1 0 | | 0 1 | \ / 3 is interpreted by / \ | 1 0 | | 0 1 | \ / 4 is interpreted by / \ | 1 0 | | 0 1 | \ / 5 is interpreted by / \ | 1 0 | | 0 1 | \ / 6 is interpreted by / \ | 1 0 | | 0 1 | \ / After renaming modulo { 5->0, 4->1, 3->2, 0->3, 2->4, 1->5, 6->6 }, it remains to prove termination of the 17-rule system { 0 1 1 -> 0 2 , 0 1 1 -> 3 , 4 5 -> 4 6 5 , 3 2 -> 3 1 2 1 2 , 3 2 -> 0 2 1 2 , 3 2 -> 3 1 2 , 3 2 -> 0 2 , 3 2 -> 3 , 3 2 2 -> 0 1 2 , 3 2 2 -> 0 2 , 3 2 2 -> 3 , 2 5 ->= 5 2 2 1 2 , 1 1 1 ->= 1 2 , 5 5 ->= 5 6 5 , 1 5 ->= 5 2 2 , 2 2 ->= 2 1 2 1 2 , 2 2 2 ->= 1 1 2 } The system was filtered by the following matrix interpretation of type E_J with J = {1,...,2} and dimension 3: 0 is interpreted by / \ | 1 0 0 | | 0 1 0 | | 0 0 0 | \ / 1 is interpreted by / \ | 1 0 0 | | 0 1 0 | | 0 0 1 | \ / 2 is interpreted by / \ | 1 0 0 | | 0 1 0 | | 0 0 1 | \ / 3 is interpreted by / \ | 1 0 0 | | 0 1 0 | | 0 0 0 | \ / 4 is interpreted by / \ | 1 0 0 | | 0 1 0 | | 0 0 0 | \ / 5 is interpreted by / \ | 1 0 1 | | 0 1 0 | | 0 1 0 | \ / 6 is interpreted by / \ | 1 0 0 | | 0 1 0 | | 0 0 0 | \ / After renaming modulo { 0->0, 1->1, 2->2, 3->3, 4->4, 5->5, 6->6 }, it remains to prove termination of the 16-rule system { 0 1 1 -> 0 2 , 0 1 1 -> 3 , 4 5 -> 4 6 5 , 3 2 -> 3 1 2 1 2 , 3 2 -> 0 2 1 2 , 3 2 -> 3 1 2 , 3 2 -> 0 2 , 3 2 -> 3 , 3 2 2 -> 0 1 2 , 3 2 2 -> 0 2 , 3 2 2 -> 3 , 2 5 ->= 5 2 2 1 2 , 1 1 1 ->= 1 2 , 1 5 ->= 5 2 2 , 2 2 ->= 2 1 2 1 2 , 2 2 2 ->= 1 1 2 } The system was filtered by the following matrix interpretation of type E_J with J = {1,...,2} and dimension 3: 0 is interpreted by / \ | 1 0 0 | | 0 1 0 | | 0 0 0 | \ / 1 is interpreted by / \ | 1 0 0 | | 0 1 0 | | 0 1 0 | \ / 2 is interpreted by / \ | 1 0 0 | | 0 1 0 | | 0 1 0 | \ / 3 is interpreted by / \ | 1 0 0 | | 0 1 0 | | 0 0 0 | \ / 4 is interpreted by / \ | 1 0 1 | | 0 1 0 | | 0 0 0 | \ / 5 is interpreted by / \ | 1 0 0 | | 0 1 0 | | 0 1 0 | \ / 6 is interpreted by / \ | 1 0 0 | | 0 1 0 | | 0 0 0 | \ / After renaming modulo { 0->0, 1->1, 2->2, 3->3, 5->4 }, it remains to prove termination of the 15-rule system { 0 1 1 -> 0 2 , 0 1 1 -> 3 , 3 2 -> 3 1 2 1 2 , 3 2 -> 0 2 1 2 , 3 2 -> 3 1 2 , 3 2 -> 0 2 , 3 2 -> 3 , 3 2 2 -> 0 1 2 , 3 2 2 -> 0 2 , 3 2 2 -> 3 , 2 4 ->= 4 2 2 1 2 , 1 1 1 ->= 1 2 , 1 4 ->= 4 2 2 , 2 2 ->= 2 1 2 1 2 , 2 2 2 ->= 1 1 2 } The system was filtered by the following matrix interpretation of type E_J with J = {1,...,2} and dimension 5: 0 is interpreted by / \ | 1 0 0 1 0 | | 0 1 0 0 0 | | 0 0 0 0 0 | | 0 0 0 0 0 | | 0 0 0 0 0 | \ / 1 is interpreted by / \ | 1 0 0 0 0 | | 0 1 0 0 0 | | 0 0 0 0 2 | | 0 0 0 0 1 | | 0 1 2 1 1 | \ / 2 is interpreted by / \ | 1 0 0 0 0 | | 0 1 0 0 0 | | 0 1 4 0 0 | | 0 0 1 0 0 | | 0 0 1 0 0 | \ / 3 is interpreted by / \ | 1 0 1 0 0 | | 0 1 0 0 0 | | 0 0 0 0 0 | | 0 0 0 0 0 | | 0 0 0 0 0 | \ / 4 is interpreted by / \ | 1 0 0 0 0 | | 0 1 0 0 0 | | 0 0 0 0 0 | | 0 0 0 0 0 | | 0 0 0 0 0 | \ / After renaming modulo { 2->0, 4->1, 1->2 }, it remains to prove termination of the 5-rule system { 0 1 ->= 1 0 0 2 0 , 2 2 2 ->= 2 0 , 2 1 ->= 1 0 0 , 0 0 ->= 0 2 0 2 0 , 0 0 0 ->= 2 2 0 } The system is trivially terminating.