YES proof of /export/starexec/sandbox2/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# AProVE Commit ID: 794c25de1cacf0d048858bcd21c9a779e1221865 marcel 20200619 unpublished dirty Termination w.r.t. Q of the given QTRS could be proven: (0) QTRS (1) QTRS Reverse [EQUIVALENT, 0 ms] (2) QTRS (3) QTRSRRRProof [EQUIVALENT, 14 ms] (4) QTRS (5) Overlay + Local Confluence [EQUIVALENT, 2 ms] (6) QTRS (7) DependencyPairsProof [EQUIVALENT, 10 ms] (8) QDP (9) UsableRulesProof [EQUIVALENT, 0 ms] (10) QDP (11) QReductionProof [EQUIVALENT, 0 ms] (12) QDP (13) QDPSizeChangeProof [EQUIVALENT, 0 ms] (14) YES ---------------------------------------- (0) Obligation: Q restricted rewrite system: The TRS R consists of the following rules: b(c(x1)) -> a(x1) b(b(x1)) -> a(c(x1)) a(x1) -> c(b(x1)) c(c(c(x1))) -> b(x1) Q is empty. ---------------------------------------- (1) QTRS Reverse (EQUIVALENT) We applied the QTRS Reverse Processor [REVERSE]. ---------------------------------------- (2) Obligation: Q restricted rewrite system: The TRS R consists of the following rules: c(b(x1)) -> a(x1) b(b(x1)) -> c(a(x1)) a(x1) -> b(c(x1)) c(c(c(x1))) -> b(x1) Q is empty. ---------------------------------------- (3) QTRSRRRProof (EQUIVALENT) Used ordering: Polynomial interpretation [POLO]: POL(a(x_1)) = 7 + x_1 POL(b(x_1)) = 5 + x_1 POL(c(x_1)) = 2 + x_1 With this ordering the following rules can be removed by the rule removal processor [LPAR04] because they are oriented strictly: b(b(x1)) -> c(a(x1)) c(c(c(x1))) -> b(x1) ---------------------------------------- (4) Obligation: Q restricted rewrite system: The TRS R consists of the following rules: c(b(x1)) -> a(x1) a(x1) -> b(c(x1)) Q is empty. ---------------------------------------- (5) Overlay + Local Confluence (EQUIVALENT) The TRS is overlay and locally confluent. By [NOC] we can switch to innermost. ---------------------------------------- (6) Obligation: Q restricted rewrite system: The TRS R consists of the following rules: c(b(x1)) -> a(x1) a(x1) -> b(c(x1)) The set Q consists of the following terms: c(b(x0)) a(x0) ---------------------------------------- (7) DependencyPairsProof (EQUIVALENT) Using Dependency Pairs [AG00,LPAR04] we result in the following initial DP problem. ---------------------------------------- (8) Obligation: Q DP problem: The TRS P consists of the following rules: C(b(x1)) -> A(x1) A(x1) -> C(x1) The TRS R consists of the following rules: c(b(x1)) -> a(x1) a(x1) -> b(c(x1)) The set Q consists of the following terms: c(b(x0)) a(x0) We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains. ---------------------------------------- (9) UsableRulesProof (EQUIVALENT) As all Q-normal forms are R-normal forms we are in the innermost case. Hence, by the usable rules processor [LPAR04] we can delete all non-usable rules [FROCOS05] from R. ---------------------------------------- (10) Obligation: Q DP problem: The TRS P consists of the following rules: C(b(x1)) -> A(x1) A(x1) -> C(x1) R is empty. The set Q consists of the following terms: c(b(x0)) a(x0) We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains. ---------------------------------------- (11) QReductionProof (EQUIVALENT) We deleted the following terms from Q as each root-symbol of these terms does neither occur in P nor in R.[THIEMANN]. c(b(x0)) a(x0) ---------------------------------------- (12) Obligation: Q DP problem: The TRS P consists of the following rules: C(b(x1)) -> A(x1) A(x1) -> C(x1) R is empty. Q is empty. We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains. ---------------------------------------- (13) 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: *A(x1) -> C(x1) The graph contains the following edges 1 >= 1 *C(b(x1)) -> A(x1) The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1 ---------------------------------------- (14) YES