/export/starexec/sandbox/solver/bin/starexec_run_standard /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.xml /export/starexec/sandbox/output/output_files -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- YES 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# AProVE Commit ID: c69e44bd14796315568835c1ffa2502984884775 mhark 20210624 unpublished Termination w.r.t. Q of the given QTRS could be proven: (0) QTRS (1) QTRS Reverse [EQUIVALENT, 0 ms] (2) QTRS (3) QTRSRRRProof [EQUIVALENT, 11 ms] (4) QTRS (5) DependencyPairsProof [EQUIVALENT, 13 ms] (6) QDP (7) DependencyGraphProof [EQUIVALENT, 1 ms] (8) AND (9) QDP (10) UsableRulesProof [EQUIVALENT, 0 ms] (11) QDP (12) QDPSizeChangeProof [EQUIVALENT, 0 ms] (13) YES (14) QDP (15) UsableRulesProof [EQUIVALENT, 0 ms] (16) QDP (17) QDPSizeChangeProof [EQUIVALENT, 0 ms] (18) YES (19) QDP (20) UsableRulesProof [EQUIVALENT, 0 ms] (21) QDP (22) QDPSizeChangeProof [EQUIVALENT, 0 ms] (23) YES (24) QDP (25) UsableRulesProof [EQUIVALENT, 0 ms] (26) QDP (27) QDPOrderProof [EQUIVALENT, 17 ms] (28) QDP (29) PisEmptyProof [EQUIVALENT, 0 ms] (30) YES ---------------------------------------- (0) Obligation: Q restricted rewrite system: The TRS R consists of the following rules: t(f(x1)) -> t(c(n(x1))) n(f(x1)) -> f(n(x1)) o(f(x1)) -> f(o(x1)) n(s(x1)) -> f(s(x1)) o(s(x1)) -> f(s(x1)) c(f(x1)) -> f(c(x1)) c(n(x1)) -> n(c(x1)) c(o(x1)) -> o(c(x1)) c(o(x1)) -> o(x1) Q is empty. ---------------------------------------- (1) QTRS Reverse (EQUIVALENT) We applied the QTRS Reverse Processor [REVERSE]. ---------------------------------------- (2) Obligation: Q restricted rewrite system: The TRS R consists of the following rules: f(t(x1)) -> n(c(t(x1))) f(n(x1)) -> n(f(x1)) f(o(x1)) -> o(f(x1)) s(n(x1)) -> s(f(x1)) s(o(x1)) -> s(f(x1)) f(c(x1)) -> c(f(x1)) n(c(x1)) -> c(n(x1)) o(c(x1)) -> c(o(x1)) o(c(x1)) -> o(x1) Q is empty. ---------------------------------------- (3) QTRSRRRProof (EQUIVALENT) Used ordering: Polynomial interpretation [POLO]: POL(c(x_1)) = x_1 POL(f(x_1)) = x_1 POL(n(x_1)) = x_1 POL(o(x_1)) = 1 + x_1 POL(s(x_1)) = x_1 POL(t(x_1)) = x_1 With this ordering the following rules can be removed by the rule removal processor [LPAR04] because they are oriented strictly: s(o(x1)) -> s(f(x1)) ---------------------------------------- (4) Obligation: Q restricted rewrite system: The TRS R consists of the following rules: f(t(x1)) -> n(c(t(x1))) f(n(x1)) -> n(f(x1)) f(o(x1)) -> o(f(x1)) s(n(x1)) -> s(f(x1)) f(c(x1)) -> c(f(x1)) n(c(x1)) -> c(n(x1)) o(c(x1)) -> c(o(x1)) o(c(x1)) -> o(x1) Q is empty. ---------------------------------------- (5) DependencyPairsProof (EQUIVALENT) Using Dependency Pairs [AG00,LPAR04] we result in the following initial DP problem. ---------------------------------------- (6) Obligation: Q DP problem: The TRS P consists of the following rules: F(t(x1)) -> N(c(t(x1))) F(n(x1)) -> N(f(x1)) F(n(x1)) -> F(x1) F(o(x1)) -> O(f(x1)) F(o(x1)) -> F(x1) S(n(x1)) -> S(f(x1)) S(n(x1)) -> F(x1) F(c(x1)) -> F(x1) N(c(x1)) -> N(x1) O(c(x1)) -> O(x1) The TRS R consists of the following rules: f(t(x1)) -> n(c(t(x1))) f(n(x1)) -> n(f(x1)) f(o(x1)) -> o(f(x1)) s(n(x1)) -> s(f(x1)) f(c(x1)) -> c(f(x1)) n(c(x1)) -> c(n(x1)) o(c(x1)) -> c(o(x1)) o(c(x1)) -> o(x1) Q is empty. We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains. ---------------------------------------- (7) DependencyGraphProof (EQUIVALENT) The approximation of the Dependency Graph [LPAR04,FROCOS05,EDGSTAR] contains 4 SCCs with 4 less nodes. ---------------------------------------- (8) Complex Obligation (AND) ---------------------------------------- (9) Obligation: Q DP problem: The TRS P consists of the following rules: O(c(x1)) -> O(x1) The TRS R consists of the following rules: f(t(x1)) -> n(c(t(x1))) f(n(x1)) -> n(f(x1)) f(o(x1)) -> o(f(x1)) s(n(x1)) -> s(f(x1)) f(c(x1)) -> c(f(x1)) n(c(x1)) -> c(n(x1)) o(c(x1)) -> c(o(x1)) o(c(x1)) -> o(x1) Q is empty. We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains. ---------------------------------------- (10) 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. ---------------------------------------- (11) Obligation: Q DP problem: The TRS P consists of the following rules: O(c(x1)) -> O(x1) R is empty. Q is empty. We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains. ---------------------------------------- (12) 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: *O(c(x1)) -> O(x1) The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1 ---------------------------------------- (13) YES ---------------------------------------- (14) Obligation: Q DP problem: The TRS P consists of the following rules: N(c(x1)) -> N(x1) The TRS R consists of the following rules: f(t(x1)) -> n(c(t(x1))) f(n(x1)) -> n(f(x1)) f(o(x1)) -> o(f(x1)) s(n(x1)) -> s(f(x1)) f(c(x1)) -> c(f(x1)) n(c(x1)) -> c(n(x1)) o(c(x1)) -> c(o(x1)) o(c(x1)) -> o(x1) Q is empty. We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains. ---------------------------------------- (15) 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. ---------------------------------------- (16) Obligation: Q DP problem: The TRS P consists of the following rules: N(c(x1)) -> N(x1) R is empty. Q is empty. We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains. ---------------------------------------- (17) 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: *N(c(x1)) -> N(x1) The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1 ---------------------------------------- (18) YES ---------------------------------------- (19) Obligation: Q DP problem: The TRS P consists of the following rules: F(o(x1)) -> F(x1) F(n(x1)) -> F(x1) F(c(x1)) -> F(x1) The TRS R consists of the following rules: f(t(x1)) -> n(c(t(x1))) f(n(x1)) -> n(f(x1)) f(o(x1)) -> o(f(x1)) s(n(x1)) -> s(f(x1)) f(c(x1)) -> c(f(x1)) n(c(x1)) -> c(n(x1)) o(c(x1)) -> c(o(x1)) o(c(x1)) -> o(x1) Q is empty. We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains. ---------------------------------------- (20) 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. ---------------------------------------- (21) Obligation: Q DP problem: The TRS P consists of the following rules: F(o(x1)) -> F(x1) F(n(x1)) -> F(x1) F(c(x1)) -> F(x1) R is empty. Q is empty. We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains. ---------------------------------------- (22) 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: *F(o(x1)) -> F(x1) The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1 *F(n(x1)) -> F(x1) The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1 *F(c(x1)) -> F(x1) The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1 ---------------------------------------- (23) YES ---------------------------------------- (24) Obligation: Q DP problem: The TRS P consists of the following rules: S(n(x1)) -> S(f(x1)) The TRS R consists of the following rules: f(t(x1)) -> n(c(t(x1))) f(n(x1)) -> n(f(x1)) f(o(x1)) -> o(f(x1)) s(n(x1)) -> s(f(x1)) f(c(x1)) -> c(f(x1)) n(c(x1)) -> c(n(x1)) o(c(x1)) -> c(o(x1)) o(c(x1)) -> o(x1) Q is empty. We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains. ---------------------------------------- (25) 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. ---------------------------------------- (26) Obligation: Q DP problem: The TRS P consists of the following rules: S(n(x1)) -> S(f(x1)) The TRS R consists of the following rules: f(t(x1)) -> n(c(t(x1))) f(n(x1)) -> n(f(x1)) f(o(x1)) -> o(f(x1)) f(c(x1)) -> c(f(x1)) o(c(x1)) -> c(o(x1)) o(c(x1)) -> o(x1) n(c(x1)) -> c(n(x1)) Q is empty. We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains. ---------------------------------------- (27) QDPOrderProof (EQUIVALENT) We use the reduction pair processor [LPAR04,JAR06]. The following pairs can be oriented strictly and are deleted. S(n(x1)) -> S(f(x1)) The remaining pairs can at least be oriented weakly. Used ordering: Polynomial interpretation [POLO]: POL(S(x_1)) = x_1 POL(c(x_1)) = 0 POL(f(x_1)) = x_1 POL(n(x_1)) = 1 + x_1 POL(o(x_1)) = 1 POL(t(x_1)) = 1 + x_1 The following usable rules [FROCOS05] with respect to the argument filtering of the ordering [JAR06] were oriented: f(t(x1)) -> n(c(t(x1))) f(n(x1)) -> n(f(x1)) f(o(x1)) -> o(f(x1)) f(c(x1)) -> c(f(x1)) o(c(x1)) -> c(o(x1)) o(c(x1)) -> o(x1) n(c(x1)) -> c(n(x1)) ---------------------------------------- (28) Obligation: Q DP problem: P is empty. The TRS R consists of the following rules: f(t(x1)) -> n(c(t(x1))) f(n(x1)) -> n(f(x1)) f(o(x1)) -> o(f(x1)) f(c(x1)) -> c(f(x1)) o(c(x1)) -> c(o(x1)) o(c(x1)) -> o(x1) n(c(x1)) -> c(n(x1)) Q is empty. We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains. ---------------------------------------- (29) PisEmptyProof (EQUIVALENT) The TRS P is empty. Hence, there is no (P,Q,R) chain. ---------------------------------------- (30) YES