/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 = 0] nats(_0) -> nats(s(_0))
Let l be the left-hand side and r be the right-hand side of this rule.
Let p = epsilon, theta1 = {} and theta2 = {_0->s(_0)}.
We have r|p = nats(s(_0)) and theta2(theta1(l)) = theta1(r|p).
Hence, the term theta1(l) = nats(_0) 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...
## 3 initial DP problems to solve.
## First, we try to decompose these problems into smaller problems.
## Round 1 [3 DP problems]:
  ## DP problem:
  Dependency pairs = [nats^#(_0) -> nats^#(s(_0))]
  TRS = {filter(cons(_0,_1),0,_2) -> cons(0,filter(_1,_2,_2)), filter(cons(_0,_1),s(_2),_3) -> cons(_0,filter(_1,_2,_3)), sieve(cons(0,_0)) -> cons(0,sieve(_0)), sieve(cons(s(_0),_1)) -> cons(s(_0),sieve(filter(_1,_0,_0))), nats(_0) -> cons(_0,nats(s(_0))), zprimes -> sieve(nats(s(s(0))))}
    ## Trying with homeomorphic embeddings... Failed!
    ## Trying with polynomial interpretations... This DP problem is too complex! Aborting!
    ## Trying with lexicographic path orders... Failed!
    ## Trying with Knuth-Bendix orders... Failed!
  Don't know whether this DP problem is finite.
  ## DP problem:
  Dependency pairs = [sieve^#(cons(0,_0)) -> sieve^#(_0), sieve^#(cons(s(_0),_1)) -> sieve^#(filter(_1,_0,_0))]
  TRS = {filter(cons(_0,_1),0,_2) -> cons(0,filter(_1,_2,_2)), filter(cons(_0,_1),s(_2),_3) -> cons(_0,filter(_1,_2,_3)), sieve(cons(0,_0)) -> cons(0,sieve(_0)), sieve(cons(s(_0),_1)) -> cons(s(_0),sieve(filter(_1,_0,_0))), nats(_0) -> cons(_0,nats(s(_0))), zprimes -> sieve(nats(s(s(0))))}
    ## Trying with homeomorphic embeddings... Failed!
    ## Trying with polynomial interpretations... This DP problem is too complex! Aborting!
    ## Trying with lexicographic path orders... Failed!
    ## Trying with Knuth-Bendix orders... Failed!
  Don't know whether this DP problem is finite.
  ## DP problem:
  Dependency pairs = [filter^#(cons(_0,_1),0,_2) -> filter^#(_1,_2,_2), filter^#(cons(_0,_1),s(_2),_3) -> filter^#(_1,_2,_3)]
  TRS = {filter(cons(_0,_1),0,_2) -> cons(0,filter(_1,_2,_2)), filter(cons(_0,_1),s(_2),_3) -> cons(_0,filter(_1,_2,_3)), sieve(cons(0,_0)) -> cons(0,sieve(_0)), sieve(cons(s(_0),_1)) -> cons(s(_0),sieve(filter(_1,_0,_0))), nats(_0) -> cons(_0,nats(s(_0))), zprimes -> sieve(nats(s(s(0))))}
    ## Trying with homeomorphic embeddings... Failed!
    ## Trying with polynomial interpretations... This DP problem is too complex! Aborting!
    ## Trying with lexicographic path orders... Failed!
    ## Trying with Knuth-Bendix orders... Failed!
  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 find a loop (forward=true, backward=false, max=-1)
      # max_depth=4, unfold_variables=false:
        # Iteration 0: success, found a loop, 1 unfolded rule generated.
        Here is the successful unfolding. Let IR be the TRS under analysis.
        L0 = nats^#(_0) -> nats^#(s(_0)) [trans] is in U_IR^0.
  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 = 22