/export/starexec/sandbox/solver/bin/starexec_run_standard /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.xml /export/starexec/sandbox/output/output_files -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- NO proof of /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.xml # AProVE Commit ID: c69e44bd14796315568835c1ffa2502984884775 mhark 20210624 unpublished Termination w.r.t. Q of the given QTRS could be disproven: (0) QTRS (1) DependencyPairsProof [EQUIVALENT, 0 ms] (2) QDP (3) DependencyGraphProof [EQUIVALENT, 0 ms] (4) AND (5) QDP (6) UsableRulesProof [EQUIVALENT, 0 ms] (7) QDP (8) QDPSizeChangeProof [EQUIVALENT, 0 ms] (9) YES (10) QDP (11) UsableRulesProof [EQUIVALENT, 0 ms] (12) QDP (13) NonTerminationLoopProof [COMPLETE, 0 ms] (14) NO ---------------------------------------- (0) Obligation: Q restricted rewrite system: The TRS R consists of the following rules: f(g(x), s(0), y) -> f(g(s(0)), y, g(x)) g(s(x)) -> s(g(x)) g(0) -> 0 Q is empty. ---------------------------------------- (1) DependencyPairsProof (EQUIVALENT) Using Dependency Pairs [AG00,LPAR04] we result in the following initial DP problem. ---------------------------------------- (2) Obligation: Q DP problem: The TRS P consists of the following rules: F(g(x), s(0), y) -> F(g(s(0)), y, g(x)) F(g(x), s(0), y) -> G(s(0)) G(s(x)) -> G(x) The TRS R consists of the following rules: f(g(x), s(0), y) -> f(g(s(0)), y, g(x)) g(s(x)) -> s(g(x)) g(0) -> 0 Q is empty. We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains. ---------------------------------------- (3) DependencyGraphProof (EQUIVALENT) The approximation of the Dependency Graph [LPAR04,FROCOS05,EDGSTAR] contains 2 SCCs with 1 less node. ---------------------------------------- (4) Complex Obligation (AND) ---------------------------------------- (5) Obligation: Q DP problem: The TRS P consists of the following rules: G(s(x)) -> G(x) The TRS R consists of the following rules: f(g(x), s(0), y) -> f(g(s(0)), y, g(x)) g(s(x)) -> s(g(x)) g(0) -> 0 Q is empty. We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains. ---------------------------------------- (6) UsableRulesProof (EQUIVALENT) We can use the usable rules and reduction pair processor [LPAR04] with the Ce-compatible extension of the polynomial order that maps every function symbol to the sum of its arguments. Then, we can delete all non-usable rules [FROCOS05] from R. ---------------------------------------- (7) Obligation: Q DP problem: The TRS P consists of the following rules: G(s(x)) -> G(x) R is empty. Q is empty. We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains. ---------------------------------------- (8) QDPSizeChangeProof (EQUIVALENT) By using the subterm criterion [SUBTERM_CRITERION] together with the size-change analysis [AAECC05] we have proven that there are no infinite chains for this DP problem. From the DPs we obtained the following set of size-change graphs: *G(s(x)) -> G(x) The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1 ---------------------------------------- (9) YES ---------------------------------------- (10) Obligation: Q DP problem: The TRS P consists of the following rules: F(g(x), s(0), y) -> F(g(s(0)), y, g(x)) The TRS R consists of the following rules: f(g(x), s(0), y) -> f(g(s(0)), y, g(x)) g(s(x)) -> s(g(x)) g(0) -> 0 Q is empty. We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains. ---------------------------------------- (11) UsableRulesProof (EQUIVALENT) We can use the usable rules and reduction pair processor [LPAR04] with the Ce-compatible extension of the polynomial order that maps every function symbol to the sum of its arguments. Then, we can delete all non-usable rules [FROCOS05] from R. ---------------------------------------- (12) Obligation: Q DP problem: The TRS P consists of the following rules: F(g(x), s(0), y) -> F(g(s(0)), y, g(x)) The TRS R consists of the following rules: g(s(x)) -> s(g(x)) g(0) -> 0 Q is empty. We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains. ---------------------------------------- (13) NonTerminationLoopProof (COMPLETE) We used the non-termination processor [FROCOS05] to show that the DP problem is infinite. Found a loop by narrowing to the left: s = F(g(x), g(s(0)), y) evaluates to t =F(g(s(0)), y, g(x)) Thus s starts an infinite chain as s semiunifies with t with the following substitutions: * Matcher: [ ] * Semiunifier: [x / s(0), y / g(s(0))] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rewriting sequence F(g(s(0)), g(s(0)), g(s(0))) -> F(g(s(0)), s(g(0)), g(s(0))) with rule g(s(x')) -> s(g(x')) at position [1] and matcher [x' / 0] F(g(s(0)), s(g(0)), g(s(0))) -> F(g(s(0)), s(0), g(s(0))) with rule g(0) -> 0 at position [1,0] and matcher [ ] F(g(s(0)), s(0), g(s(0))) -> F(g(s(0)), g(s(0)), g(s(0))) with rule F(g(x), s(0), y) -> F(g(s(0)), y, g(x)) Now applying the matcher to the start term leads to a term which is equal to the last term in the rewriting sequence All these steps are and every following step will be a correct step w.r.t to Q. ---------------------------------------- (14) NO