YES

The TRS could be proven terminating. The proof took 489 ms.

The following DP Processors were used


Problem 1 was processed with processor DependencyGraph (6ms).
 | – Problem 2 was processed with processor ForwardNarrowing (1ms).
 |    | – Problem 3 was processed with processor ForwardNarrowing (1ms).

Problem 1: DependencyGraph



Dependency Pair Problem

Dependency Pairs

f#(a, X, X)b#f#(a, X, X)f#(X, b, b)
T(b)b#

Rewrite Rules

f(a, X, X)f(X, b, b)ba

Original Signature

Termination of terms over the following signature is verified: f, b, a

Strategy

Context-sensitive strategy:
μ(T) = μ(b) = μ(a) = μ(b#) = ∅
μ(f) = μ(f#) = {2}


The following SCCs where found

f#(a, X, X) → f#(X, b, b)

Problem 2: ForwardNarrowing



Dependency Pair Problem

Dependency Pairs

f#(a, X, X)f#(X, b, b)

Rewrite Rules

f(a, X, X)f(X, b, b)ba

Original Signature

Termination of terms over the following signature is verified: f, b, a

Strategy

Context-sensitive strategy:
μ(T) = μ(b) = μ(a) = μ(b#) = ∅
μ(f) = μ(f#) = {2}


The right-hand side of the rule f#(a, X, X) → f#(X, b, b) is narrowed to the following relevant and irrelevant terms (a narrowing is irrelevant if by dropping it the correctness (and completeness) of the processor is not influenced).
Relevant TermsIrrelevant Terms
f#(X, a, b) 
Thus, the rule f#(a, X, X) → f#(X, b, b) is replaced by the following rules:
f#(a, X, X) → f#(X, a, b)

Problem 3: ForwardNarrowing



Dependency Pair Problem

Dependency Pairs

f#(a, X, X)f#(X, a, b)

Rewrite Rules

f(a, X, X)f(X, b, b)ba

Original Signature

Termination of terms over the following signature is verified: f, b, a

Strategy

Context-sensitive strategy:
μ(T) = μ(b) = μ(a) = μ(b#) = ∅
μ(f) = μ(f#) = {2}


The right-hand side of the rule f#(a, X, X) → f#(X, a, b) is narrowed to the following relevant and irrelevant terms (a narrowing is irrelevant if by dropping it the correctness (and completeness) of the processor is not influenced).
Relevant TermsIrrelevant Terms
Thus, the rule f#(a, X, X) → f#(X, a, b) is deleted.