/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), *^#(_0,+(_1,_2)) -> *^#(_0,_2), *^#(+(_0,_1),_2) -> *^#(_2,_0), *^#(+(_0,_1),_2) -> *^#(_2,_1), *^#(*(_0,_1),_2) -> *^#(_0,*(_1,_2)), *^#(*(_0,_1),_2) -> *^#(_1,_2)]
  TRS = {*(_0,+(_1,_2)) -> +(*(_0,_1),*(_0,_2)), *(+(_0,_1),_2) -> +(*(_2,_0),*(_2,_1)), *(*(_0,_1),_2) -> *(_0,*(_1,_2)), +(+(_0,_1),_2) -> +(_0,+(_1,_2))}
    ## Trying with homeomorphic embeddings... Failed!
    ## Trying with polynomial interpretations...
    Successfully decomposed the DP problem into 1 smaller problem to solve!
  ## DP problem:
  Dependency pairs = [+^#(+(_0,_1),_2) -> +^#(_0,+(_1,_2)), +^#(+(_0,_1),_2) -> +^#(_1,_2)]
  TRS = {*(_0,+(_1,_2)) -> +(*(_0,_1),*(_0,_2)), *(+(_0,_1),_2) -> +(*(_2,_0),*(_2,_1)), *(*(_0,_1),_2) -> *(_0,*(_1,_2)), +(+(_0,_1),_2) -> +(_0,+(_1,_2))}
    ## Trying with homeomorphic embeddings... Failed!
    ## Trying with polynomial interpretations...
      The constraints are satisfied by the polynomials:
      {+(_0,_1):[_0 + _1], *(_0,_1):[_0 * _1], +^#(_0,_1):[_0]}
      for all instantiations of the variables with values greater than or equal to mu = 1.
  This DP problem is finite.
## Round 2 [1 DP problem]:
  ## DP problem:
  Dependency pairs = [*^#(*(_0,_1),_2) -> *^#(_1,_2), *^#(*(_0,_1),_2) -> *^#(_0,*(_1,_2))]
  TRS = {*(_0,+(_1,_2)) -> +(*(_0,_1),*(_0,_2)), *(+(_0,_1),_2) -> +(*(_2,_0),*(_2,_1)), *(*(_0,_1),_2) -> *(_0,*(_1,_2)), +(+(_0,_1),_2) -> +(_0,+(_1,_2))}
    ## Trying with homeomorphic embeddings... Failed!
    ## Trying with polynomial interpretations...
    Successfully decomposed the DP problem into 1 smaller problem to solve!
## Round 3 [1 DP problem]:
  ## DP problem:
  Dependency pairs = [*^#(*(_0,_1),_2) -> *^#(_0,*(_1,_2))]
  TRS = {*(_0,+(_1,_2)) -> +(*(_0,_1),*(_0,_2)), *(+(_0,_1),_2) -> +(*(_2,_0),*(_2,_1)), *(*(_0,_1),_2) -> *(_0,*(_1,_2)), +(+(_0,_1),_2) -> +(_0,+(_1,_2))}
    ## Trying with homeomorphic embeddings... Failed!
    ## Trying with polynomial interpretations...
      The constraints are satisfied by the polynomials:
      {+(_0,_1):[_0 + _1], *(_0,_1):[_0 * _1], *^#(_0,_1):[_0]}
      for all instantiations of the variables with values greater than or equal to mu = 2.
  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