/export/starexec/sandbox2/solver/bin/starexec_run_default /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.xml /export/starexec/sandbox2/output/output_files


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


NO

** BEGIN proof argument **
The following rule was generated while unfolding the analyzed TRS:
[iteration = 8] isNatList(n__cons(n__0,n__zeros)) -> isNatList(n__cons(n__0,n__zeros))
Let l be the left-hand side and r be the right-hand side of this rule.
Let p = epsilon, theta1 = {} and theta2 = {}.
We have r|p = isNatList(n__cons(n__0,n__zeros)) and theta2(theta1(l)) = theta1(r|p).
Hence, the term theta1(l) = isNatList(n__cons(n__0,n__zeros)) loops w.r.t. the analyzed TRS.
** END proof argument **

** 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...
## 1 initial DP problem to solve.
## First, we try to decompose this problem into smaller problems.
## Round 1 [1 DP problem]:
  ## DP problem:
  Dependency pairs = [U11^#(tt,_0) -> length^#(activate(_0)), length^#(cons(_0,_1)) -> U11^#(and(isNatList(activate(_1)),n__isNat(_0)),activate(_1)), activate^#(n__length(_0)) -> length^#(activate(_0)), and^#(tt,_0) -> activate^#(_0), length^#(cons(_0,_1)) -> and^#(isNatList(activate(_1)),n__isNat(_0)), isNatList^#(n__cons(_0,_1)) -> and^#(isNat(activate(_0)),n__isNatList(activate(_1))), isNatIList^#(n__cons(_0,_1)) -> and^#(isNat(activate(_0)),n__isNatIList(activate(_1))), activate^#(n__isNatIList(_0)) -> isNatIList^#(_0), isNat^#(n__length(_0)) -> activate^#(_0), isNat^#(n__s(_0)) -> isNat^#(activate(_0)), isNatList^#(n__cons(_0,_1)) -> isNat^#(activate(_0)), isNat^#(n__length(_0)) -> isNatList^#(activate(_0)), activate^#(n__isNat(_0)) -> isNat^#(_0), isNatList^#(n__cons(_0,_1)) -> activate^#(_0), activate^#(n__isNatList(_0)) -> isNatList^#(_0), activate^#(n__length(_0)) -> activate^#(_0), activate^#(n__s(_0)) -> activate^#(_0), activate^#(n__cons(_0,_1)) -> activate^#(_0), length^#(cons(_0,_1)) -> activate^#(_1), length^#(cons(_0,_1)) -> activate^#(_1), isNatList^#(n__cons(_0,_1)) -> activate^#(_1), length^#(cons(_0,_1)) -> isNatList^#(activate(_1)), isNatIList^#(_0) -> isNatList^#(activate(_0)), isNatIList^#(n__cons(_0,_1)) -> activate^#(_1), isNatIList^#(n__cons(_0,_1)) -> activate^#(_0), isNatIList^#(_0) -> activate^#(_0), isNat^#(n__s(_0)) -> activate^#(_0), isNatIList^#(n__cons(_0,_1)) -> isNat^#(activate(_0)), U11^#(tt,_0) -> activate^#(_0)]
  TRS = {zeros -> cons(0,n__zeros), U11(tt,_0) -> s(length(activate(_0))), and(tt,_0) -> activate(_0), isNat(n__0) -> tt, isNat(n__length(_0)) -> isNatList(activate(_0)), isNat(n__s(_0)) -> isNat(activate(_0)), isNatIList(_0) -> isNatList(activate(_0)), isNatIList(n__zeros) -> tt, isNatIList(n__cons(_0,_1)) -> and(isNat(activate(_0)),n__isNatIList(activate(_1))), isNatList(n__nil) -> tt, isNatList(n__cons(_0,_1)) -> and(isNat(activate(_0)),n__isNatList(activate(_1))), length(nil) -> 0, length(cons(_0,_1)) -> U11(and(isNatList(activate(_1)),n__isNat(_0)),activate(_1)), zeros -> n__zeros, 0 -> n__0, length(_0) -> n__length(_0), s(_0) -> n__s(_0), cons(_0,_1) -> n__cons(_0,_1), isNatIList(_0) -> n__isNatIList(_0), nil -> n__nil, isNatList(_0) -> n__isNatList(_0), isNat(_0) -> n__isNat(_0), activate(n__zeros) -> zeros, activate(n__0) -> 0, activate(n__length(_0)) -> length(activate(_0)), activate(n__s(_0)) -> s(activate(_0)), activate(n__cons(_0,_1)) -> cons(activate(_0),_1), activate(n__isNatIList(_0)) -> isNatIList(_0), activate(n__nil) -> nil, activate(n__isNatList(_0)) -> isNatList(_0), activate(n__isNat(_0)) -> isNat(_0), activate(_0) -> _0}
    ## Trying with homeomorphic embeddings... Failed!
    ## Trying with polynomial interpretations... This DP problem is too complex! Aborting!
    ## Trying with lexicographic path orders... Too many argument filtering possibilities (165888)! Aborting!
    ## Trying with Knuth-Bendix orders... This DP problem is too complex! Aborting!
  Don't know whether this DP problem is finite.
## A DP problem could not be proved finite.
## Now, we try to prove that this problem is infinite.
    ## Trying to find a loop (forward=true, backward=false, max=-1)
      # max_depth=4, unfold_variables=false:
        # Iteration 0: no loop found, 29 unfolded rules generated.
        # Iteration 1: no loop found, 257 unfolded rules generated.
        # Iteration 2: no loop found, 1480 unfolded rules generated.
        # Iteration 3: no loop found, 5100 unfolded rules generated.
        # Iteration 4: no loop found, 15305 unfolded rules generated.
        # Iteration 5: no loop found, 45610 unfolded rules generated.
        # Iteration 6: no loop found, 142419 unfolded rules generated.
        # Iteration 7: no loop found, 393313 unfolded rules generated.
        # Iteration 8: success, found a loop, 402726 unfolded rules generated.
        Here is the successful unfolding. Let IR be the TRS under analysis.
        L0 = isNatList^#(n__cons(_0,_1)) -> and^#(isNat(activate(_0)),n__isNatList(activate(_1))) [trans] is in U_IR^0.
        D = and^#(tt,_0) -> activate^#(_0) is a dependency pair of IR.
        We build a composed triple from L0 and D.
        ==> L1 = [isNatList^#(n__cons(_0,_1)) -> and^#(isNat(activate(_0)),n__isNatList(activate(_1))), and^#(tt,_2) -> activate^#(_2)] [comp] is in U_IR^1.
        Let p1 = [0, 0].
        We unfold the first rule of L1 forwards at position p1
        with the rule activate(_0) -> _0.
        ==> L2 = [isNatList^#(n__cons(_0,_1)) -> and^#(isNat(_0),n__isNatList(activate(_1))), and^#(tt,_2) -> activate^#(_2)] [comp] is in U_IR^2.
        Let p2 = [0].
        We unfold the first rule of L2 forwards at position p2
        with the rule isNat(n__0) -> tt.
        ==> L3 = [isNatList^#(n__cons(n__0,_0)) -> and^#(tt,n__isNatList(activate(_0))), and^#(tt,_1) -> activate^#(_1)] [comp] is in U_IR^3.
        Let p3 = [1, 0].
        We unfold the first rule of L3 forwards at position p3
        with the rule activate(n__zeros) -> zeros.
        ==> L4 = [isNatList^#(n__cons(n__0,n__zeros)) -> and^#(tt,n__isNatList(zeros)), and^#(tt,_0) -> activate^#(_0)] [comp] is in U_IR^4.
        Let p4 = [1, 0].
        We unfold the first rule of L4 forwards at position p4
        with the rule zeros -> cons(0,n__zeros).
        ==> L5 = [isNatList^#(n__cons(n__0,n__zeros)) -> and^#(tt,n__isNatList(cons(0,n__zeros))), and^#(tt,_0) -> activate^#(_0)] [comp] is in U_IR^5.
        Let p5 = [1, 0].
        We unfold the first rule of L5 forwards at position p5
        with the rule cons(_0,_1) -> n__cons(_0,_1).
        ==> L6 = [isNatList^#(n__cons(n__0,n__zeros)) -> and^#(tt,n__isNatList(n__cons(0,n__zeros))), and^#(tt,_0) -> activate^#(_0)] [comp] is in U_IR^6.
        Let p6 = [1, 0, 0].
        We unfold the first rule of L6 forwards at position p6
        with the rule 0 -> n__0.
        ==> L7 = isNatList^#(n__cons(n__0,n__zeros)) -> activate^#(n__isNatList(n__cons(n__0,n__zeros))) [trans] is in U_IR^7.
        D = activate^#(n__isNatList(_0)) -> isNatList^#(_0) is a dependency pair of IR.
        We build a composed triple from L7 and D.
        ==> L8 = isNatList^#(n__cons(n__0,n__zeros)) -> isNatList^#(n__cons(n__0,n__zeros)) [trans] is in U_IR^8.
  This DP problem is infinite.
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 = 2878736