/export/starexec/sandbox/solver/bin/starexec_run_standard /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.xml /export/starexec/sandbox/output/output_files -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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# AProVE Commit ID: 794c25de1cacf0d048858bcd21c9a779e1221865 marcel 20200619 unpublished dirty Termination w.r.t. Q of the given QTRS could be proven: (0) QTRS (1) FlatCCProof [EQUIVALENT, 0 ms] (2) QTRS (3) RootLabelingProof [EQUIVALENT, 0 ms] (4) QTRS (5) QTRSRRRProof [EQUIVALENT, 44 ms] (6) QTRS (7) QTRSRRRProof [EQUIVALENT, 2 ms] (8) QTRS (9) DependencyPairsProof [EQUIVALENT, 0 ms] (10) QDP (11) QDPSizeChangeProof [EQUIVALENT, 5 ms] (12) YES ---------------------------------------- (0) Obligation: Q restricted rewrite system: The TRS R consists of the following rules: b(b(a(b(x1)))) -> b(a(b(b(x1)))) b(a(b(b(x1)))) -> b(b(b(b(x1)))) a(b(b(a(x1)))) -> b(a(a(a(x1)))) b(a(b(a(x1)))) -> a(a(a(a(x1)))) Q is empty. ---------------------------------------- (1) FlatCCProof (EQUIVALENT) We used flat context closure [ROOTLAB] As Q is empty the flat context closure was sound AND complete. ---------------------------------------- (2) Obligation: Q restricted rewrite system: The TRS R consists of the following rules: b(b(a(b(x1)))) -> b(a(b(b(x1)))) b(a(b(b(x1)))) -> b(b(b(b(x1)))) b(a(b(b(a(x1))))) -> b(b(a(a(a(x1))))) a(a(b(b(a(x1))))) -> a(b(a(a(a(x1))))) b(b(a(b(a(x1))))) -> b(a(a(a(a(x1))))) a(b(a(b(a(x1))))) -> a(a(a(a(a(x1))))) Q is empty. ---------------------------------------- (3) RootLabelingProof (EQUIVALENT) We used plain root labeling [ROOTLAB] with the following heuristic: LabelAll: All function symbols get labeled As Q is empty the root labeling was sound AND complete. ---------------------------------------- (4) Obligation: Q restricted rewrite system: The TRS R consists of the following rules: b_{b_1}(b_{a_1}(a_{b_1}(b_{b_1}(x1)))) -> b_{a_1}(a_{b_1}(b_{b_1}(b_{b_1}(x1)))) b_{b_1}(b_{a_1}(a_{b_1}(b_{a_1}(x1)))) -> b_{a_1}(a_{b_1}(b_{b_1}(b_{a_1}(x1)))) b_{a_1}(a_{b_1}(b_{b_1}(b_{b_1}(x1)))) -> b_{b_1}(b_{b_1}(b_{b_1}(b_{b_1}(x1)))) b_{a_1}(a_{b_1}(b_{b_1}(b_{a_1}(x1)))) -> b_{b_1}(b_{b_1}(b_{b_1}(b_{a_1}(x1)))) b_{a_1}(a_{b_1}(b_{b_1}(b_{a_1}(a_{b_1}(x1))))) -> b_{b_1}(b_{a_1}(a_{a_1}(a_{a_1}(a_{b_1}(x1))))) b_{a_1}(a_{b_1}(b_{b_1}(b_{a_1}(a_{a_1}(x1))))) -> b_{b_1}(b_{a_1}(a_{a_1}(a_{a_1}(a_{a_1}(x1))))) a_{a_1}(a_{b_1}(b_{b_1}(b_{a_1}(a_{b_1}(x1))))) -> a_{b_1}(b_{a_1}(a_{a_1}(a_{a_1}(a_{b_1}(x1))))) a_{a_1}(a_{b_1}(b_{b_1}(b_{a_1}(a_{a_1}(x1))))) -> a_{b_1}(b_{a_1}(a_{a_1}(a_{a_1}(a_{a_1}(x1))))) b_{b_1}(b_{a_1}(a_{b_1}(b_{a_1}(a_{b_1}(x1))))) -> b_{a_1}(a_{a_1}(a_{a_1}(a_{a_1}(a_{b_1}(x1))))) b_{b_1}(b_{a_1}(a_{b_1}(b_{a_1}(a_{a_1}(x1))))) -> b_{a_1}(a_{a_1}(a_{a_1}(a_{a_1}(a_{a_1}(x1))))) a_{b_1}(b_{a_1}(a_{b_1}(b_{a_1}(a_{b_1}(x1))))) -> a_{a_1}(a_{a_1}(a_{a_1}(a_{a_1}(a_{b_1}(x1))))) a_{b_1}(b_{a_1}(a_{b_1}(b_{a_1}(a_{a_1}(x1))))) -> a_{a_1}(a_{a_1}(a_{a_1}(a_{a_1}(a_{a_1}(x1))))) Q is empty. ---------------------------------------- (5) QTRSRRRProof (EQUIVALENT) Used ordering: Polynomial interpretation [POLO]: POL(a_{a_1}(x_1)) = x_1 POL(a_{b_1}(x_1)) = 1 + x_1 POL(b_{a_1}(x_1)) = x_1 POL(b_{b_1}(x_1)) = x_1 With this ordering the following rules can be removed by the rule removal processor [LPAR04] because they are oriented strictly: b_{a_1}(a_{b_1}(b_{b_1}(b_{b_1}(x1)))) -> b_{b_1}(b_{b_1}(b_{b_1}(b_{b_1}(x1)))) b_{a_1}(a_{b_1}(b_{b_1}(b_{a_1}(x1)))) -> b_{b_1}(b_{b_1}(b_{b_1}(b_{a_1}(x1)))) b_{a_1}(a_{b_1}(b_{b_1}(b_{a_1}(a_{b_1}(x1))))) -> b_{b_1}(b_{a_1}(a_{a_1}(a_{a_1}(a_{b_1}(x1))))) b_{a_1}(a_{b_1}(b_{b_1}(b_{a_1}(a_{a_1}(x1))))) -> b_{b_1}(b_{a_1}(a_{a_1}(a_{a_1}(a_{a_1}(x1))))) b_{b_1}(b_{a_1}(a_{b_1}(b_{a_1}(a_{b_1}(x1))))) -> b_{a_1}(a_{a_1}(a_{a_1}(a_{a_1}(a_{b_1}(x1))))) b_{b_1}(b_{a_1}(a_{b_1}(b_{a_1}(a_{a_1}(x1))))) -> b_{a_1}(a_{a_1}(a_{a_1}(a_{a_1}(a_{a_1}(x1))))) a_{b_1}(b_{a_1}(a_{b_1}(b_{a_1}(a_{b_1}(x1))))) -> a_{a_1}(a_{a_1}(a_{a_1}(a_{a_1}(a_{b_1}(x1))))) a_{b_1}(b_{a_1}(a_{b_1}(b_{a_1}(a_{a_1}(x1))))) -> a_{a_1}(a_{a_1}(a_{a_1}(a_{a_1}(a_{a_1}(x1))))) ---------------------------------------- (6) Obligation: Q restricted rewrite system: The TRS R consists of the following rules: b_{b_1}(b_{a_1}(a_{b_1}(b_{b_1}(x1)))) -> b_{a_1}(a_{b_1}(b_{b_1}(b_{b_1}(x1)))) b_{b_1}(b_{a_1}(a_{b_1}(b_{a_1}(x1)))) -> b_{a_1}(a_{b_1}(b_{b_1}(b_{a_1}(x1)))) a_{a_1}(a_{b_1}(b_{b_1}(b_{a_1}(a_{b_1}(x1))))) -> a_{b_1}(b_{a_1}(a_{a_1}(a_{a_1}(a_{b_1}(x1))))) a_{a_1}(a_{b_1}(b_{b_1}(b_{a_1}(a_{a_1}(x1))))) -> a_{b_1}(b_{a_1}(a_{a_1}(a_{a_1}(a_{a_1}(x1))))) Q is empty. ---------------------------------------- (7) QTRSRRRProof (EQUIVALENT) Used ordering: Polynomial interpretation [POLO]: POL(a_{a_1}(x_1)) = x_1 POL(a_{b_1}(x_1)) = x_1 POL(b_{a_1}(x_1)) = x_1 POL(b_{b_1}(x_1)) = 1 + x_1 With this ordering the following rules can be removed by the rule removal processor [LPAR04] because they are oriented strictly: a_{a_1}(a_{b_1}(b_{b_1}(b_{a_1}(a_{b_1}(x1))))) -> a_{b_1}(b_{a_1}(a_{a_1}(a_{a_1}(a_{b_1}(x1))))) a_{a_1}(a_{b_1}(b_{b_1}(b_{a_1}(a_{a_1}(x1))))) -> a_{b_1}(b_{a_1}(a_{a_1}(a_{a_1}(a_{a_1}(x1))))) ---------------------------------------- (8) Obligation: Q restricted rewrite system: The TRS R consists of the following rules: b_{b_1}(b_{a_1}(a_{b_1}(b_{b_1}(x1)))) -> b_{a_1}(a_{b_1}(b_{b_1}(b_{b_1}(x1)))) b_{b_1}(b_{a_1}(a_{b_1}(b_{a_1}(x1)))) -> b_{a_1}(a_{b_1}(b_{b_1}(b_{a_1}(x1)))) Q is empty. ---------------------------------------- (9) DependencyPairsProof (EQUIVALENT) Using Dependency Pairs [AG00,LPAR04] we result in the following initial DP problem. ---------------------------------------- (10) Obligation: Q DP problem: The TRS P consists of the following rules: B_{B_1}(b_{a_1}(a_{b_1}(b_{b_1}(x1)))) -> B_{B_1}(b_{b_1}(x1)) B_{B_1}(b_{a_1}(a_{b_1}(b_{a_1}(x1)))) -> B_{B_1}(b_{a_1}(x1)) The TRS R consists of the following rules: b_{b_1}(b_{a_1}(a_{b_1}(b_{b_1}(x1)))) -> b_{a_1}(a_{b_1}(b_{b_1}(b_{b_1}(x1)))) b_{b_1}(b_{a_1}(a_{b_1}(b_{a_1}(x1)))) -> b_{a_1}(a_{b_1}(b_{b_1}(b_{a_1}(x1)))) Q is empty. We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains. ---------------------------------------- (11) 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: *B_{B_1}(b_{a_1}(a_{b_1}(b_{b_1}(x1)))) -> B_{B_1}(b_{b_1}(x1)) The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1 *B_{B_1}(b_{a_1}(a_{b_1}(b_{a_1}(x1)))) -> B_{B_1}(b_{a_1}(x1)) The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1 ---------------------------------------- (12) YES