/export/starexec/sandbox/solver/bin/starexec_run_default /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.xml /export/starexec/sandbox/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 = [D^#(b(_0,_1)) -> D^#(_0), D^#(b(_0,_1)) -> D^#(_1), D^#(c(_0,_1)) -> D^#(_0), D^#(c(_0,_1)) -> D^#(_1), D^#(m(_0,_1)) -> D^#(_0), D^#(m(_0,_1)) -> D^#(_1), D^#(opp(_0)) -> D^#(_0), D^#(div(_0,_1)) -> D^#(_0), D^#(div(_0,_1)) -> D^#(_1), D^#(ln(_0)) -> D^#(_0), D^#(pow(_0,_1)) -> D^#(_0), D^#(pow(_0,_1)) -> D^#(_1)]
  TRS = {D(t) -> s(h), D(constant) -> h, D(b(_0,_1)) -> b(D(_0),D(_1)), D(c(_0,_1)) -> b(c(_1,D(_0)),c(_0,D(_1))), D(m(_0,_1)) -> m(D(_0),D(_1)), D(opp(_0)) -> opp(D(_0)), D(div(_0,_1)) -> m(div(D(_0),_1),div(c(_0,D(_1)),pow(_1,2))), D(ln(_0)) -> div(D(_0),_0), D(pow(_0,_1)) -> b(c(c(_1,pow(_0,m(_1,1))),D(_0)),c(c(pow(_0,_1),ln(_0)),D(_1))), b(h,_0) -> _0, b(_0,h) -> _0, b(s(_0),s(_1)) -> s(s(b(_0,_1))), b(b(_0,_1),_2) -> b(_0,b(_1,_2))}
    ## Trying with homeomorphic embeddings... Success!
  This DP problem is finite.
  ## DP problem:
  Dependency pairs = [b^#(s(_0),s(_1)) -> b^#(_0,_1), b^#(b(_0,_1),_2) -> b^#(_0,b(_1,_2)), b^#(b(_0,_1),_2) -> b^#(_1,_2)]
  TRS = {D(t) -> s(h), D(constant) -> h, D(b(_0,_1)) -> b(D(_0),D(_1)), D(c(_0,_1)) -> b(c(_1,D(_0)),c(_0,D(_1))), D(m(_0,_1)) -> m(D(_0),D(_1)), D(opp(_0)) -> opp(D(_0)), D(div(_0,_1)) -> m(div(D(_0),_1),div(c(_0,D(_1)),pow(_1,2))), D(ln(_0)) -> div(D(_0),_0), D(pow(_0,_1)) -> b(c(c(_1,pow(_0,m(_1,1))),D(_0)),c(c(pow(_0,_1),ln(_0)),D(_1))), b(h,_0) -> _0, b(_0,h) -> _0, b(s(_0),s(_1)) -> s(s(b(_0,_1))), b(b(_0,_1),_2) -> b(_0,b(_1,_2))}
    ## Trying with homeomorphic embeddings... Failed!
    ## Trying with polynomial interpretations... This DP problem is too complex! Aborting!
    ## Trying with lexicographic path orders...
      The constraints are satisfied by the lexicographic path order using
      the argument filtering:
      {opp:[0], m:[0, 1], ln:[0], b:[0, 1], c:[0, 1], s:[0], div:[1], pow:[0, 1], D:[0], b^#:[0, 1]}
      and the  precedence:
      b^# > [b, s], ln > [m, 1, div, pow, 2], b > [s], t > [h, s], div > [m, 1, pow, 2], pow > [m, 1], constant > [h], D > [opp, m, ln, b, c, 1, div, pow, s, 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