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


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


NO

** BEGIN proof argument **
The following pattern rule was generated by the strategy
presented in Sect. 3 of [Emmes, Enger, Giesl, IJCAR'12]:
[iteration = 1] pairNs{}^n{} -> incr(pairNs){}^n{}
We apply Theorem 8 of [Emmes, Enger, Giesl, IJCAR'12]
on this rule with m = 1, b = 0, pi = [0],
sigma' = {} and mu' = {}.
Hence the term pairNs, obtained from
instantiating n with 0 in the left-hand side of
the rule, starts an infinite derivation 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...
## 2 initial DP problems to solve.
## First, we try to decompose these problems into smaller problems.
## Round 1 [2 DP problems]:
  ## DP problem:
  Dependency pairs = [pairNs^# -> oddNs^#, oddNs^# -> pairNs^#]
  TRS = {pairNs -> cons(0,n__incr(oddNs)), oddNs -> incr(pairNs), incr(cons(_0,_1)) -> cons(s(_0),n__incr(activate(_1))), take(0,_0) -> nil, take(s(_0),cons(_1,_2)) -> cons(_1,n__take(_0,activate(_2))), zip(nil,_0) -> nil, zip(_0,nil) -> nil, zip(cons(_0,_1),cons(_2,_3)) -> cons(pair(_0,_2),n__zip(activate(_1),activate(_3))), tail(cons(_0,_1)) -> activate(_1), repItems(nil) -> nil, repItems(cons(_0,_1)) -> cons(_0,n__cons(_0,n__repItems(activate(_1)))), incr(_0) -> n__incr(_0), take(_0,_1) -> n__take(_0,_1), zip(_0,_1) -> n__zip(_0,_1), cons(_0,_1) -> n__cons(_0,_1), repItems(_0) -> n__repItems(_0), activate(n__incr(_0)) -> incr(_0), activate(n__take(_0,_1)) -> take(_0,_1), activate(n__zip(_0,_1)) -> zip(_0,_1), activate(n__cons(_0,_1)) -> cons(_0,_1), activate(n__repItems(_0)) -> repItems(_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 (279936)! Aborting!
    ## Trying with Knuth-Bendix orders... This DP problem is too complex! Aborting!
  Don't know whether this DP problem is finite.
  ## DP problem:
  Dependency pairs = [incr^#(cons(_0,_1)) -> activate^#(_1), activate^#(n__incr(_0)) -> incr^#(_0), take^#(s(_0),cons(_1,_2)) -> activate^#(_2), activate^#(n__take(_0,_1)) -> take^#(_0,_1), zip^#(cons(_0,_1),cons(_2,_3)) -> activate^#(_1), activate^#(n__zip(_0,_1)) -> zip^#(_0,_1), repItems^#(cons(_0,_1)) -> activate^#(_1), activate^#(n__repItems(_0)) -> repItems^#(_0), zip^#(cons(_0,_1),cons(_2,_3)) -> activate^#(_3)]
  TRS = {pairNs -> cons(0,n__incr(oddNs)), oddNs -> incr(pairNs), incr(cons(_0,_1)) -> cons(s(_0),n__incr(activate(_1))), take(0,_0) -> nil, take(s(_0),cons(_1,_2)) -> cons(_1,n__take(_0,activate(_2))), zip(nil,_0) -> nil, zip(_0,nil) -> nil, zip(cons(_0,_1),cons(_2,_3)) -> cons(pair(_0,_2),n__zip(activate(_1),activate(_3))), tail(cons(_0,_1)) -> activate(_1), repItems(nil) -> nil, repItems(cons(_0,_1)) -> cons(_0,n__cons(_0,n__repItems(activate(_1)))), incr(_0) -> n__incr(_0), take(_0,_1) -> n__take(_0,_1), zip(_0,_1) -> n__zip(_0,_1), cons(_0,_1) -> n__cons(_0,_1), repItems(_0) -> n__repItems(_0), activate(n__incr(_0)) -> incr(_0), activate(n__take(_0,_1)) -> take(_0,_1), activate(n__zip(_0,_1)) -> zip(_0,_1), activate(n__cons(_0,_1)) -> cons(_0,_1), activate(n__repItems(_0)) -> repItems(_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 (279936)! Aborting!
    ## Trying with Knuth-Bendix orders... This DP problem is too complex! Aborting!
  Don't know whether this DP problem is finite.
## Some DP problems could not be proved finite.
## Now, we try to prove that one of these problems is infinite.
    ## Trying to prove non-looping nontermination
      # Iteration 0: non-looping nontermination not proved, 2 unfolded rules generated.
      # Iteration 1: success, non-looping nontermination proved, 1 unfolded rule generated.
      Here is the successful unfolding. Let IR be the TRS under analysis.
      IR contains the dependency pair pairNs^# -> oddNs^#.
      We apply (I) of [Emmes, Enger, Giesl, IJCAR'12] to this dependency pair.
      ==> P0 = pairNs^#{}^n{} -> oddNs^#{}^n{} is in U_IR^0.
      We apply (VI) of [Emmes, Enger, Giesl, IJCAR'12] to this pattern rule
      at position epsilon using the pattern rule
      oddNs{}^n{} -> incr(pairNs){}^n{}
      obtained from IR.
      ==> P1 = pairNs^#{}^n{} -> incr(pairNs){}^n{} is in U_IR^1.
  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 = 7