/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 rule was generated while unfolding the analyzed TRS:
[iteration = 2] g(f(f(_0,_1),_2)) -> g(f(f(g(g(_0)),g(g(_1))),f(g(g(_0)),g(g(_1)))))
Let l be the left-hand side and r be the right-hand side of this rule.
Let p = epsilon, theta1 = {} and theta2 = {_2->f(g(g(_0)),g(g(_1))), _0->g(g(_0)), _1->g(g(_1))}.
We have r|p = g(f(f(g(g(_0)),g(g(_1))),f(g(g(_0)),g(g(_1))))) and theta2(theta1(l)) = theta1(r|p).
Hence, the term theta1(l) = g(f(f(_0,_1),_2)) 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...
## 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 = [g^#(f(_0,_1)) -> g^#(g(_0)), g^#(f(_0,_1)) -> g^#(_0), g^#(f(_0,_1)) -> g^#(g(_1)), g^#(f(_0,_1)) -> g^#(_1), g^#(f(_0,_1)) -> g^#(g(_0)), g^#(f(_0,_1)) -> g^#(_0), g^#(f(_0,_1)) -> g^#(g(_1)), g^#(f(_0,_1)) -> g^#(_1)]
  TRS = {g(f(_0,_1)) -> f(f(g(g(_0)),g(g(_1))),f(g(g(_0)),g(g(_1))))}
    ## 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.
    ## Trying to find a loop (forward=true, backward=true, max=20)
      # max_depth=20, unfold_variables=false:
        # Iteration 0: no loop found, 8 unfolded rules generated.
        # Iteration 1: no loop found, 88 unfolded rules generated.
        # Iteration 2: success, found a loop, 1 unfolded rule generated.
        Here is the successful unfolding. Let IR be the TRS under analysis.
        L0 = g^#(f(_0,_1)) -> g^#(g(_0)) [trans] is in U_IR^0.
        D = g^#(f(_0,_1)) -> g^#(_0) is a dependency pair of IR.
        We build a composed triple from L0 and D.
        ==> L1 = [g^#(f(_0,_1)) -> g^#(g(_0)), g^#(f(_2,_3)) -> g^#(_2)] [comp] is in U_IR^1.
        Let p1 = [0].
        We unfold the first rule of L1 forwards at position p1
        with the rule g(f(_0,_1)) -> f(f(g(g(_0)),g(g(_1))),f(g(g(_0)),g(g(_1)))).
        ==> L2 = [g^#(f(f(_0,_1),_2)) -> g^#(f(f(g(g(_0)),g(g(_1))),f(g(g(_0)),g(g(_1))))), g^#(f(_3,_4)) -> g^#(_3)] [comp] is in U_IR^2.
  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 = 204