YES
proof of /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.c
# AProVE Commit ID: 794c25de1cacf0d048858bcd21c9a779e1221865 marcel 20200619 unpublished dirty


Termination of the given C Problem could be proven:

(0) C Problem
(1) CToIRSProof [EQUIVALENT, 0 ms]
(2) IntTRS
(3) TerminationGraphProcessor [SOUND, 75 ms]
(4) IntTRS
(5) IntTRSCompressionProof [EQUIVALENT, 0 ms]
(6) IntTRS
(7) IntTRSUnneededArgumentFilterProof [EQUIVALENT, 0 ms]
(8) IntTRS
(9) PolynomialOrderProcessor [EQUIVALENT, 10 ms]
(10) YES


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

(0)
Obligation:
c file /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.c
----------------------------------------

(1) CToIRSProof (EQUIVALENT)
Parsed C Integer Program as IRS.
----------------------------------------

(2)
Obligation:
Rules:
f1(c, x, y, z) -> f2(c, x_1, y, z) :|: TRUE
f2(x1, x2, x3, x4) -> f3(x1, x2, x5, x4) :|: TRUE
f3(x6, x7, x8, x9) -> f4(x6, x7, x8, x10) :|: TRUE
f4(x11, x12, x13, x14) -> f5(0, x12, x13, x14) :|: TRUE
f7(x15, x16, x17, x18) -> f8(x15, arith, x17, x18) :|: TRUE && arith = x16 - 1
f8(x51, x52, x53, x54) -> f9(x51, x52, x55, x54) :|: TRUE && x55 = x53 - 1
f9(x56, x57, x58, x59) -> f10(x60, x57, x58, x59) :|: TRUE && x60 = x56 + 1
f6(x27, x28, x29, x30) -> f7(x27, x28, x29, x30) :|: x29 > x30
f10(x31, x32, x33, x34) -> f6(x31, x32, x33, x34) :|: TRUE
f6(x35, x36, x37, x38) -> f11(x35, x36, x37, x38) :|: x37 <= x38
f5(x39, x40, x41, x42) -> f6(x39, x40, x41, x42) :|: x40 = x41 && x40 > x42
f11(x43, x44, x45, x46) -> f5(x43, x44, x45, x46) :|: TRUE
f5(x47, x48, x49, x50) -> f12(x47, x48, x49, x50) :|: x48 <= x50
f5(x61, x62, x63, x64) -> f12(x61, x62, x63, x64) :|: x62 < x63
f5(x65, x66, x67, x68) -> f12(x65, x66, x67, x68) :|: x66 > x67
Start term: f1(c, x, y, z)

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

(3) TerminationGraphProcessor (SOUND)
Constructed the termination graph and obtained one non-trivial SCC.

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

(4)
Obligation:
Rules:
f5(x39, x40, x41, x42) -> f6(x39, x40, x41, x42) :|: x40 = x41 && x40 > x42
f11(x43, x44, x45, x46) -> f5(x43, x44, x45, x46) :|: TRUE
f6(x35, x36, x37, x38) -> f11(x35, x36, x37, x38) :|: x37 <= x38
f10(x31, x32, x33, x34) -> f6(x31, x32, x33, x34) :|: TRUE
f9(x56, x57, x58, x59) -> f10(x60, x57, x58, x59) :|: TRUE && x60 = x56 + 1
f8(x51, x52, x53, x54) -> f9(x51, x52, x55, x54) :|: TRUE && x55 = x53 - 1
f7(x15, x16, x17, x18) -> f8(x15, arith, x17, x18) :|: TRUE && arith = x16 - 1
f6(x27, x28, x29, x30) -> f7(x27, x28, x29, x30) :|: x29 > x30

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

(5) IntTRSCompressionProof (EQUIVALENT)
Compressed rules.
----------------------------------------

(6)
Obligation:
Rules:
f6(x27:0, x28:0, x29:0, x30:0) -> f6(x27:0 + 1, x28:0 - 1, x29:0 - 1, x30:0) :|: x30:0 < x29:0

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

(7) IntTRSUnneededArgumentFilterProof (EQUIVALENT)
Some arguments are removed because they cannot influence termination. We removed arguments according to the following replacements:

   f6(x1, x2, x3, x4) -> f6(x3, x4)

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

(8)
Obligation:
Rules:
f6(x29:0, x30:0) -> f6(x29:0 - 1, x30:0) :|: x30:0 < x29:0

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

(9) PolynomialOrderProcessor (EQUIVALENT)
Found the following polynomial interpretation:
[f6(x, x1)] = x - x1

The following rules are decreasing:
f6(x29:0, x30:0) -> f6(x29:0 - 1, x30:0) :|: x30:0 < x29:0
The following rules are bounded:
f6(x29:0, x30:0) -> f6(x29:0 - 1, x30:0) :|: x30:0 < x29:0

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

(10)
YES