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


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


YES

** BEGIN proof argument **
All the DP problems were proved finite.
As all the involved DP processors are sound,
the TRS under analysis terminates.
** 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 = [+^#(+(_0,_1),_2) -> +^#(_0,+(_1,_2)), +^#(+(_0,_1),_2) -> +^#(_1,_2)]
  TRS = {+(p1,p1) -> p2, +(p1,+(p2,p2)) -> p5, +(p5,p5) -> p10, +(+(_0,_1),_2) -> +(_0,+(_1,_2)), +(p1,+(p1,_0)) -> +(p2,_0), +(p1,+(p2,+(p2,_0))) -> +(p5,_0), +(p2,p1) -> +(p1,p2), +(p2,+(p1,_0)) -> +(p1,+(p2,_0)), +(p2,+(p2,p2)) -> +(p1,p5), +(p2,+(p2,+(p2,_0))) -> +(p1,+(p5,_0)), +(p5,p1) -> +(p1,p5), +(p5,+(p1,_0)) -> +(p1,+(p5,_0)), +(p5,p2) -> +(p2,p5), +(p5,+(p2,_0)) -> +(p2,+(p5,_0)), +(p5,+(p5,_0)) -> +(p10,_0), +(p10,p1) -> +(p1,p10), +(p10,+(p1,_0)) -> +(p1,+(p10,_0)), +(p10,p2) -> +(p2,p10), +(p10,+(p2,_0)) -> +(p2,+(p10,_0)), +(p10,p5) -> +(p5,p10), +(p10,+(p5,_0)) -> +(p5,+(p10,_0))}
    ## Trying with homeomorphic embeddings... Failed!
    ## Trying with polynomial interpretations...
      The constraints are satisfied by the polynomials:
      {p2:[0], p10:[0], p1:[0], p5:[0], +(_0,_1):[1 + _0 + _1], +^#(_0,_1):[_0]}
      for all instantiations of the variables with values greater than or equal to mu = 0.
  This DP problem is finite.
  ## DP problem:
  Dependency pairs = [+^#(p1,+(p1,_0)) -> +^#(p2,_0), +^#(p2,+(p1,_0)) -> +^#(p1,+(p2,_0)), +^#(p2,+(p1,_0)) -> +^#(p2,_0), +^#(p5,+(p2,_0)) -> +^#(p2,+(p5,_0)), +^#(p1,+(p2,+(p2,_0))) -> +^#(p5,_0), +^#(p10,+(p1,_0)) -> +^#(p1,+(p10,_0)), +^#(p5,+(p1,_0)) -> +^#(p1,+(p5,_0)), +^#(p2,+(p2,+(p2,_0))) -> +^#(p1,+(p5,_0)), +^#(p10,+(p2,_0)) -> +^#(p2,+(p10,_0)), +^#(p5,+(p5,_0)) -> +^#(p10,_0), +^#(p5,+(p1,_0)) -> +^#(p5,_0), +^#(p5,+(p2,_0)) -> +^#(p5,_0), +^#(p10,+(p5,_0)) -> +^#(p5,+(p10,_0)), +^#(p10,+(p1,_0)) -> +^#(p10,_0), +^#(p10,+(p2,_0)) -> +^#(p10,_0), +^#(p10,+(p5,_0)) -> +^#(p10,_0), +^#(p2,+(p2,+(p2,_0))) -> +^#(p5,_0)]
  TRS = {+(p1,p1) -> p2, +(p1,+(p2,p2)) -> p5, +(p5,p5) -> p10, +(+(_0,_1),_2) -> +(_0,+(_1,_2)), +(p1,+(p1,_0)) -> +(p2,_0), +(p1,+(p2,+(p2,_0))) -> +(p5,_0), +(p2,p1) -> +(p1,p2), +(p2,+(p1,_0)) -> +(p1,+(p2,_0)), +(p2,+(p2,p2)) -> +(p1,p5), +(p2,+(p2,+(p2,_0))) -> +(p1,+(p5,_0)), +(p5,p1) -> +(p1,p5), +(p5,+(p1,_0)) -> +(p1,+(p5,_0)), +(p5,p2) -> +(p2,p5), +(p5,+(p2,_0)) -> +(p2,+(p5,_0)), +(p5,+(p5,_0)) -> +(p10,_0), +(p10,p1) -> +(p1,p10), +(p10,+(p1,_0)) -> +(p1,+(p10,_0)), +(p10,p2) -> +(p2,p10), +(p10,+(p2,_0)) -> +(p2,+(p10,_0)), +(p10,p5) -> +(p5,p10), +(p10,+(p5,_0)) -> +(p5,+(p10,_0))}
    ## Trying with homeomorphic embeddings... Failed!
    ## Trying with polynomial interpretations...
      The constraints are satisfied by the polynomials:
      {p2:[0], p10:[0], p1:[0], p5:[0], +(_0,_1):[1 + _0 + _1], +^#(_0,_1):[_0]}
      for all instantiations of the variables with values greater than or equal to mu = 0.
  This DP problem is finite.
## All the DP problems were proved finite.
As all the involved DP processors are sound,
the TRS under analysis terminates.
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 = 0