/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# AProVE Commit ID: 794c25de1cacf0d048858bcd21c9a779e1221865 marcel 20200619 unpublished dirty Termination w.r.t. Q of the given QTRS could be proven: (0) QTRS (1) QTRS Reverse [EQUIVALENT, 0 ms] (2) QTRS (3) DependencyPairsProof [EQUIVALENT, 1 ms] (4) QDP (5) DependencyGraphProof [EQUIVALENT, 1 ms] (6) AND (7) QDP (8) UsableRulesProof [EQUIVALENT, 0 ms] (9) QDP (10) QDPSizeChangeProof [EQUIVALENT, 0 ms] (11) YES (12) QDP (13) QDPOrderProof [EQUIVALENT, 16 ms] (14) QDP (15) QDPOrderProof [EQUIVALENT, 10 ms] (16) QDP (17) QDPOrderProof [EQUIVALENT, 75 ms] (18) QDP (19) PisEmptyProof [EQUIVALENT, 0 ms] (20) YES ---------------------------------------- (0) Obligation: Q restricted rewrite system: The TRS R consists of the following rules: a(b(a(b(x1)))) -> b(b(a(a(x1)))) a(a(a(b(x1)))) -> a(a(b(a(x1)))) b(b(a(b(x1)))) -> b(a(b(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: b(a(b(a(x1)))) -> a(a(b(b(x1)))) b(a(a(a(x1)))) -> a(b(a(a(x1)))) b(a(b(b(x1)))) -> b(b(a(b(x1)))) Q is empty. ---------------------------------------- (3) DependencyPairsProof (EQUIVALENT) Using Dependency Pairs [AG00,LPAR04] we result in the following initial DP problem. ---------------------------------------- (4) Obligation: Q DP problem: The TRS P consists of the following rules: B(a(b(a(x1)))) -> B(b(x1)) B(a(b(a(x1)))) -> B(x1) B(a(a(a(x1)))) -> B(a(a(x1))) B(a(b(b(x1)))) -> B(b(a(b(x1)))) B(a(b(b(x1)))) -> B(a(b(x1))) The TRS R consists of the following rules: b(a(b(a(x1)))) -> a(a(b(b(x1)))) b(a(a(a(x1)))) -> a(b(a(a(x1)))) b(a(b(b(x1)))) -> b(b(a(b(x1)))) Q is empty. We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains. ---------------------------------------- (5) DependencyGraphProof (EQUIVALENT) The approximation of the Dependency Graph [LPAR04,FROCOS05,EDGSTAR] contains 2 SCCs. ---------------------------------------- (6) Complex Obligation (AND) ---------------------------------------- (7) Obligation: Q DP problem: The TRS P consists of the following rules: B(a(a(a(x1)))) -> B(a(a(x1))) The TRS R consists of the following rules: b(a(b(a(x1)))) -> a(a(b(b(x1)))) b(a(a(a(x1)))) -> a(b(a(a(x1)))) b(a(b(b(x1)))) -> b(b(a(b(x1)))) Q is empty. We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains. ---------------------------------------- (8) UsableRulesProof (EQUIVALENT) We can use the usable rules and reduction pair processor [LPAR04] with the Ce-compatible extension of the polynomial order that maps every function symbol to the sum of its arguments. Then, we can delete all non-usable rules [FROCOS05] from R. ---------------------------------------- (9) Obligation: Q DP problem: The TRS P consists of the following rules: B(a(a(a(x1)))) -> B(a(a(x1))) R is empty. Q is empty. We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains. ---------------------------------------- (10) 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(a(a(a(x1)))) -> B(a(a(x1))) The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1 ---------------------------------------- (11) YES ---------------------------------------- (12) Obligation: Q DP problem: The TRS P consists of the following rules: B(a(b(a(x1)))) -> B(x1) B(a(b(a(x1)))) -> B(b(x1)) B(a(b(b(x1)))) -> B(b(a(b(x1)))) B(a(b(b(x1)))) -> B(a(b(x1))) The TRS R consists of the following rules: b(a(b(a(x1)))) -> a(a(b(b(x1)))) b(a(a(a(x1)))) -> a(b(a(a(x1)))) b(a(b(b(x1)))) -> b(b(a(b(x1)))) Q is empty. We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains. ---------------------------------------- (13) QDPOrderProof (EQUIVALENT) We use the reduction pair processor [LPAR04,JAR06]. The following pairs can be oriented strictly and are deleted. B(a(b(a(x1)))) -> B(x1) B(a(b(b(x1)))) -> B(a(b(x1))) The remaining pairs can at least be oriented weakly. Used ordering: Polynomial interpretation [POLO]: POL(B(x_1)) = x_1 POL(a(x_1)) = x_1 POL(b(x_1)) = 1 + x_1 The following usable rules [FROCOS05] with respect to the argument filtering of the ordering [JAR06] were oriented: b(a(b(a(x1)))) -> a(a(b(b(x1)))) b(a(a(a(x1)))) -> a(b(a(a(x1)))) b(a(b(b(x1)))) -> b(b(a(b(x1)))) ---------------------------------------- (14) Obligation: Q DP problem: The TRS P consists of the following rules: B(a(b(a(x1)))) -> B(b(x1)) B(a(b(b(x1)))) -> B(b(a(b(x1)))) The TRS R consists of the following rules: b(a(b(a(x1)))) -> a(a(b(b(x1)))) b(a(a(a(x1)))) -> a(b(a(a(x1)))) b(a(b(b(x1)))) -> b(b(a(b(x1)))) Q is empty. We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains. ---------------------------------------- (15) QDPOrderProof (EQUIVALENT) We use the reduction pair processor [LPAR04,JAR06]. The following pairs can be oriented strictly and are deleted. B(a(b(a(x1)))) -> B(b(x1)) The remaining pairs can at least be oriented weakly. Used ordering: Polynomial interpretation [POLO]: POL(B(x_1)) = x_1 POL(a(x_1)) = 1 + x_1 POL(b(x_1)) = x_1 The following usable rules [FROCOS05] with respect to the argument filtering of the ordering [JAR06] were oriented: b(a(b(a(x1)))) -> a(a(b(b(x1)))) b(a(a(a(x1)))) -> a(b(a(a(x1)))) b(a(b(b(x1)))) -> b(b(a(b(x1)))) ---------------------------------------- (16) Obligation: Q DP problem: The TRS P consists of the following rules: B(a(b(b(x1)))) -> B(b(a(b(x1)))) The TRS R consists of the following rules: b(a(b(a(x1)))) -> a(a(b(b(x1)))) b(a(a(a(x1)))) -> a(b(a(a(x1)))) b(a(b(b(x1)))) -> b(b(a(b(x1)))) Q is empty. We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains. ---------------------------------------- (17) QDPOrderProof (EQUIVALENT) We use the reduction pair processor [LPAR04,JAR06]. The following pairs can be oriented strictly and are deleted. B(a(b(b(x1)))) -> B(b(a(b(x1)))) The remaining pairs can at least be oriented weakly. Used ordering: Matrix interpretation [MATRO] with arctic natural numbers [ARCTIC]: <<< POL(B(x_1)) = [[-I]] + [[0A, 0A, 0A]] * x_1 >>> <<< POL(a(x_1)) = [[0A], [0A], [0A]] + [[-I, -I, 0A], [-I, -I, 1A], [-I, -I, -I]] * x_1 >>> <<< POL(b(x_1)) = [[1A], [1A], [0A]] + [[0A, -I, 0A], [0A, -I, 0A], [0A, -I, 0A]] * x_1 >>> The following usable rules [FROCOS05] with respect to the argument filtering of the ordering [JAR06] were oriented: b(a(b(a(x1)))) -> a(a(b(b(x1)))) b(a(a(a(x1)))) -> a(b(a(a(x1)))) b(a(b(b(x1)))) -> b(b(a(b(x1)))) ---------------------------------------- (18) Obligation: Q DP problem: P is empty. The TRS R consists of the following rules: b(a(b(a(x1)))) -> a(a(b(b(x1)))) b(a(a(a(x1)))) -> a(b(a(a(x1)))) b(a(b(b(x1)))) -> b(b(a(b(x1)))) Q is empty. We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains. ---------------------------------------- (19) PisEmptyProof (EQUIVALENT) The TRS P is empty. Hence, there is no (P,Q,R) chain. ---------------------------------------- (20) YES