/export/starexec/sandbox2/solver/bin/starexec_run_default /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.xml /export/starexec/sandbox2/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...
## 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 = [h^#(_0,c(_1,_2)) -> h^#(c(s(_1),_0),_2), h^#(c(s(_0),c(s(0),_1)),_2) -> h^#(_1,c(s(0),c(_0,_2)))]
  TRS = {h(_0,c(_1,_2)) -> h(c(s(_1),_0),_2), h(c(s(_0),c(s(0),_1)),_2) -> h(_1,c(s(0),c(_0,_2)))}
    ## Trying with homeomorphic embeddings... Failed!
    ## Trying with polynomial interpretations... Failed!
    ## Trying with lexicographic path orders... Failed!
    ## Trying with Knuth-Bendix orders... Failed!
  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.
## Could not solve the following DP problems:
1: Dependency pairs = [h^#(_0,c(_1,_2)) -> h^#(c(s(_1),_0),_2), h^#(c(s(_0),c(s(0),_1)),_2) -> h^#(_1,c(s(0),c(_0,_2)))]
TRS = {h(_0,c(_1,_2)) -> h(c(s(_1),_0),_2), h(c(s(_0),c(s(0),_1)),_2) -> h(_1,c(s(0),c(_0,_2)))}
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 = 271