/export/starexec/sandbox2/solver/bin/starexec_run_standard /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.xml /export/starexec/sandbox2/output/output_files -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- YES proof of /export/starexec/sandbox2/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# AProVE Commit ID: c69e44bd14796315568835c1ffa2502984884775 mhark 20210624 unpublished Termination w.r.t. Q of the given QTRS could be proven: (0) QTRS (1) DependencyPairsProof [EQUIVALENT, 18 ms] (2) QDP (3) DependencyGraphProof [EQUIVALENT, 2 ms] (4) AND (5) QDP (6) QDPSizeChangeProof [EQUIVALENT, 0 ms] (7) YES (8) QDP (9) MRRProof [EQUIVALENT, 36 ms] (10) QDP (11) PisEmptyProof [EQUIVALENT, 0 ms] (12) YES ---------------------------------------- (0) Obligation: Q restricted rewrite system: The TRS R consists of the following rules: b(a(a(a(x1)))) -> b(b(a(a(x1)))) a(b(b(b(x1)))) -> b(b(b(a(x1)))) a(b(b(b(x1)))) -> b(b(a(a(x1)))) 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: B(a(a(a(x1)))) -> B(b(a(a(x1)))) B(a(a(a(x1)))) -> B(a(a(x1))) A(b(b(b(x1)))) -> B(b(b(a(x1)))) A(b(b(b(x1)))) -> B(b(a(x1))) A(b(b(b(x1)))) -> B(a(x1)) A(b(b(b(x1)))) -> A(x1) A(b(b(b(x1)))) -> B(b(a(a(x1)))) A(b(b(b(x1)))) -> B(a(a(x1))) A(b(b(b(x1)))) -> A(a(x1)) The TRS R consists of the following rules: b(a(a(a(x1)))) -> b(b(a(a(x1)))) a(b(b(b(x1)))) -> b(b(b(a(x1)))) a(b(b(b(x1)))) -> b(b(a(a(x1)))) 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 6 less nodes. ---------------------------------------- (4) Complex Obligation (AND) ---------------------------------------- (5) Obligation: Q DP problem: The TRS P consists of the following rules: B(a(a(a(x1)))) -> B(a(a(x1))) The TRS R consists of the following rules: b(a(a(a(x1)))) -> b(b(a(a(x1)))) a(b(b(b(x1)))) -> b(b(b(a(x1)))) a(b(b(b(x1)))) -> b(b(a(a(x1)))) Q is empty. We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains. ---------------------------------------- (6) 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: *B(a(a(a(x1)))) -> B(a(a(x1))) The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1 ---------------------------------------- (7) YES ---------------------------------------- (8) Obligation: Q DP problem: The TRS P consists of the following rules: A(b(b(b(x1)))) -> A(a(x1)) A(b(b(b(x1)))) -> A(x1) The TRS R consists of the following rules: b(a(a(a(x1)))) -> b(b(a(a(x1)))) a(b(b(b(x1)))) -> b(b(b(a(x1)))) a(b(b(b(x1)))) -> b(b(a(a(x1)))) Q is empty. We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains. ---------------------------------------- (9) MRRProof (EQUIVALENT) By using the rule removal processor [LPAR04] with the following ordering, at least one Dependency Pair or term rewrite system rule of this QDP problem can be strictly oriented. Strictly oriented dependency pairs: A(b(b(b(x1)))) -> A(a(x1)) A(b(b(b(x1)))) -> A(x1) Used ordering: Polynomial interpretation [POLO]: POL(A(x_1)) = 2*x_1 POL(a(x_1)) = 2 + x_1 POL(b(x_1)) = 2 + x_1 ---------------------------------------- (10) Obligation: Q DP problem: P is empty. The TRS R consists of the following rules: b(a(a(a(x1)))) -> b(b(a(a(x1)))) a(b(b(b(x1)))) -> b(b(b(a(x1)))) a(b(b(b(x1)))) -> b(b(a(a(x1)))) Q is empty. We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains. ---------------------------------------- (11) PisEmptyProof (EQUIVALENT) The TRS P is empty. Hence, there is no (P,Q,R) chain. ---------------------------------------- (12) YES