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# AProVE Commit ID: 794c25de1cacf0d048858bcd21c9a779e1221865 marcel 20200619 unpublished dirty Termination w.r.t. Q of the given QTRS could be proven: (0) QTRS (1) QTRSRRRProof [EQUIVALENT, 47 ms] (2) QTRS (3) QTRSRRRProof [EQUIVALENT, 0 ms] (4) QTRS (5) QTRSRRRProof [EQUIVALENT, 5 ms] (6) QTRS (7) DependencyPairsProof [EQUIVALENT, 0 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__f(b, X, c) -> a__f(X, a__c, X) a__c -> b mark(f(X1, X2, X3)) -> a__f(X1, mark(X2), X3) mark(c) -> a__c mark(b) -> b a__f(X1, X2, X3) -> f(X1, X2, X3) a__c -> c The set Q consists of the following terms: a__c mark(f(x0, x1, x2)) mark(c) mark(b) a__f(x0, x1, x2) ---------------------------------------- (1) QTRSRRRProof (EQUIVALENT) Used ordering: Polynomial interpretation [POLO]: POL(a__c) = 0 POL(a__f(x_1, x_2, x_3)) = 2 + x_1 + 2*x_2 + x_3 POL(b) = 0 POL(c) = 0 POL(f(x_1, x_2, x_3)) = 2 + x_1 + 2*x_2 + x_3 POL(mark(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: mark(f(X1, X2, X3)) -> a__f(X1, mark(X2), X3) ---------------------------------------- (2) Obligation: Q restricted rewrite system: The TRS R consists of the following rules: a__f(b, X, c) -> a__f(X, a__c, X) a__c -> b mark(c) -> a__c mark(b) -> b a__f(X1, X2, X3) -> f(X1, X2, X3) a__c -> c The set Q consists of the following terms: a__c mark(f(x0, x1, x2)) mark(c) mark(b) a__f(x0, x1, x2) ---------------------------------------- (3) QTRSRRRProof (EQUIVALENT) Used ordering: Polynomial interpretation [POLO]: POL(a__c) = 0 POL(a__f(x_1, x_2, x_3)) = 1 + x_1 + 2*x_2 + x_3 POL(b) = 0 POL(c) = 0 POL(f(x_1, x_2, x_3)) = x_1 + 2*x_2 + x_3 POL(mark(x_1)) = x_1 With this ordering the following rules can be removed by the rule removal processor [LPAR04] because they are oriented strictly: a__f(X1, X2, X3) -> f(X1, X2, X3) ---------------------------------------- (4) Obligation: Q restricted rewrite system: The TRS R consists of the following rules: a__f(b, X, c) -> a__f(X, a__c, X) a__c -> b mark(c) -> a__c mark(b) -> b a__c -> c The set Q consists of the following terms: a__c mark(f(x0, x1, x2)) mark(c) mark(b) a__f(x0, x1, x2) ---------------------------------------- (5) QTRSRRRProof (EQUIVALENT) Used ordering: Polynomial interpretation [POLO]: POL(a__c) = 0 POL(a__f(x_1, x_2, x_3)) = x_1 + 2*x_2 + x_3 POL(b) = 0 POL(c) = 0 POL(mark(x_1)) = 2 + 2*x_1 With this ordering the following rules can be removed by the rule removal processor [LPAR04] because they are oriented strictly: mark(c) -> a__c mark(b) -> b ---------------------------------------- (6) Obligation: Q restricted rewrite system: The TRS R consists of the following rules: a__f(b, X, c) -> a__f(X, a__c, X) a__c -> b a__c -> c The set Q consists of the following terms: a__c mark(f(x0, x1, x2)) mark(c) mark(b) a__f(x0, x1, x2) ---------------------------------------- (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: A__F(b, X, c) -> A__F(X, a__c, X) A__F(b, X, c) -> A__C The TRS R consists of the following rules: a__f(b, X, c) -> a__f(X, a__c, X) a__c -> b a__c -> c The set Q consists of the following terms: a__c mark(f(x0, x1, x2)) mark(c) mark(b) a__f(x0, x1, x2) 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 2 less nodes. ---------------------------------------- (10) TRUE