/export/starexec/sandbox/solver/bin/starexec_run_default /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.xml /export/starexec/sandbox/output/output_files


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


MAYBE

** BEGIN proof description **
## Searching for a generalized rewrite rule
(a rule whose right-hand side contains a variable
that does not occur in the left-hand side)...
No generalized rewrite rule found!

## Applying the DP framework...
## 4 initial DP problems to solve.
## First, we try to decompose these problems into smaller problems.
## Round 1 [4 DP problems]:
  ## DP problem:
  Dependency pairs = [top^#(mark(_0)) -> top^#(proper(_0)), top^#(ok(_0)) -> top^#(active(_0))]
  TRS = {active(c) -> mark(f(g(c))), active(f(g(_0))) -> mark(g(_0)), proper(c) -> ok(c), proper(f(_0)) -> f(proper(_0)), proper(g(_0)) -> g(proper(_0)), f(ok(_0)) -> ok(f(_0)), g(ok(_0)) -> ok(g(_0)), top(mark(_0)) -> top(proper(_0)), top(ok(_0)) -> top(active(_0))}
    ## Trying with homeomorphic embeddings... Failed!
    ## Trying with polynomial interpretations... This DP problem is too complex! Aborting!
    ## Trying with lexicographic path orders... Failed!
    ## Trying with Knuth-Bendix orders... Failed!
  Don't know whether this DP problem is finite.
  ## DP problem:
  Dependency pairs = [proper^#(f(_0)) -> proper^#(_0), proper^#(g(_0)) -> proper^#(_0)]
  TRS = {active(c) -> mark(f(g(c))), active(f(g(_0))) -> mark(g(_0)), proper(c) -> ok(c), proper(f(_0)) -> f(proper(_0)), proper(g(_0)) -> g(proper(_0)), f(ok(_0)) -> ok(f(_0)), g(ok(_0)) -> ok(g(_0)), top(mark(_0)) -> top(proper(_0)), top(ok(_0)) -> top(active(_0))}
    ## Trying with homeomorphic embeddings... Success!
  This DP problem is finite.
  ## DP problem:
  Dependency pairs = [g^#(ok(_0)) -> g^#(_0)]
  TRS = {active(c) -> mark(f(g(c))), active(f(g(_0))) -> mark(g(_0)), proper(c) -> ok(c), proper(f(_0)) -> f(proper(_0)), proper(g(_0)) -> g(proper(_0)), f(ok(_0)) -> ok(f(_0)), g(ok(_0)) -> ok(g(_0)), top(mark(_0)) -> top(proper(_0)), top(ok(_0)) -> top(active(_0))}
    ## Trying with homeomorphic embeddings... Success!
  This DP problem is finite.
  ## DP problem:
  Dependency pairs = [f^#(ok(_0)) -> f^#(_0)]
  TRS = {active(c) -> mark(f(g(c))), active(f(g(_0))) -> mark(g(_0)), proper(c) -> ok(c), proper(f(_0)) -> f(proper(_0)), proper(g(_0)) -> g(proper(_0)), f(ok(_0)) -> ok(f(_0)), g(ok(_0)) -> ok(g(_0)), top(mark(_0)) -> top(proper(_0)), top(ok(_0)) -> top(active(_0))}
    ## Trying with homeomorphic embeddings... Success!
  This DP problem is finite.
## A DP problem could not be proved finite.
## Now, we try to prove that this problem is infinite.
## Could not solve the following DP problems:
1: Dependency pairs = [top^#(mark(_0)) -> top^#(proper(_0)), top^#(ok(_0)) -> top^#(active(_0))]
TRS = {active(c) -> mark(f(g(c))), active(f(g(_0))) -> mark(g(_0)), proper(c) -> ok(c), proper(f(_0)) -> f(proper(_0)), proper(g(_0)) -> g(proper(_0)), f(ok(_0)) -> ok(f(_0)), g(ok(_0)) -> ok(g(_0)), top(mark(_0)) -> top(proper(_0)), top(ok(_0)) -> top(active(_0))}
Hence, could not prove (non)termination of the TRS under analysis.
Proof run on Linux version 3.10.0-1160.25.1.el7.x86_64 for amd64
using Java version 1.8.0_292
** END proof description **
Total number of generated unfolded rules = 384