YES
The TRS could be proven terminating. The proof took 693 ms.
The following DP Processors were used
Problem 1 was processed with processor DependencyGraph (51ms).
| – Problem 2 was processed with processor PolynomialLinearRange4iUR (367ms).
| | – Problem 6 was processed with processor PolynomialLinearRange4iUR (159ms).
| – Problem 3 was processed with processor SubtermCriterion (1ms).
| – Problem 4 was processed with processor SubtermCriterion (0ms).
| – Problem 5 was processed with processor SubtermCriterion (1ms).
Problem 1: DependencyGraph
Dependency Pair Problem
Dependency Pairs
| proper#(f(X)) | → | f#(proper(X)) | | active#(f(g(X))) | → | g#(X) |
| active#(c) | → | f#(g(c)) | | proper#(f(X)) | → | proper#(X) |
| top#(mark(X)) | → | top#(proper(X)) | | top#(ok(X)) | → | top#(active(X)) |
| g#(ok(X)) | → | g#(X) | | active#(c) | → | g#(c) |
| top#(ok(X)) | → | active#(X) | | proper#(g(X)) | → | g#(proper(X)) |
| proper#(g(X)) | → | proper#(X) | | top#(mark(X)) | → | proper#(X) |
| f#(ok(X)) | → | f#(X) |
Rewrite Rules
| active(c) | → | mark(f(g(c))) | | active(f(g(X))) | → | mark(g(X)) |
| proper(c) | → | ok(c) | | proper(f(X)) | → | f(proper(X)) |
| proper(g(X)) | → | g(proper(X)) | | f(ok(X)) | → | ok(f(X)) |
| g(ok(X)) | → | ok(g(X)) | | top(mark(X)) | → | top(proper(X)) |
| top(ok(X)) | → | top(active(X)) |
Original Signature
Termination of terms over the following signature is verified: f, g, c, active, mark, ok, proper, top
Strategy
The following SCCs where found
| top#(mark(X)) → top#(proper(X)) | top#(ok(X)) → top#(active(X)) |
| proper#(f(X)) → proper#(X) | proper#(g(X)) → proper#(X) |
Problem 2: PolynomialLinearRange4iUR
Dependency Pair Problem
Dependency Pairs
| top#(mark(X)) | → | top#(proper(X)) | | top#(ok(X)) | → | top#(active(X)) |
Rewrite Rules
| active(c) | → | mark(f(g(c))) | | active(f(g(X))) | → | mark(g(X)) |
| proper(c) | → | ok(c) | | proper(f(X)) | → | f(proper(X)) |
| proper(g(X)) | → | g(proper(X)) | | f(ok(X)) | → | ok(f(X)) |
| g(ok(X)) | → | ok(g(X)) | | top(mark(X)) | → | top(proper(X)) |
| top(ok(X)) | → | top(active(X)) |
Original Signature
Termination of terms over the following signature is verified: f, g, c, active, mark, ok, proper, top
Strategy
Polynomial Interpretation
- active(x): x
- c: 3
- f(x): 1
- g(x): 0
- mark(x): 2x + 1
- ok(x): x
- proper(x): x
- top(x): 0
- top#(x): x
Improved Usable rules
| proper(g(X)) | → | g(proper(X)) | | g(ok(X)) | → | ok(g(X)) |
| active(f(g(X))) | → | mark(g(X)) | | proper(c) | → | ok(c) |
| proper(f(X)) | → | f(proper(X)) | | f(ok(X)) | → | ok(f(X)) |
| active(c) | → | mark(f(g(c))) |
The following dependency pairs are strictly oriented by an ordering on the given polynomial interpretation, thus they are removed:
| top#(mark(X)) | → | top#(proper(X)) |
Problem 6: PolynomialLinearRange4iUR
Dependency Pair Problem
Dependency Pairs
| top#(ok(X)) | → | top#(active(X)) |
Rewrite Rules
| active(c) | → | mark(f(g(c))) | | active(f(g(X))) | → | mark(g(X)) |
| proper(c) | → | ok(c) | | proper(f(X)) | → | f(proper(X)) |
| proper(g(X)) | → | g(proper(X)) | | f(ok(X)) | → | ok(f(X)) |
| g(ok(X)) | → | ok(g(X)) | | top(mark(X)) | → | top(proper(X)) |
| top(ok(X)) | → | top(active(X)) |
Original Signature
Termination of terms over the following signature is verified: f, g, c, active, ok, mark, proper, top
Strategy
Polynomial Interpretation
- active(x): 1
- c: 2
- f(x): 1
- g(x): 1
- mark(x): 1
- ok(x): 2
- proper(x): 0
- top(x): 0
- top#(x): x + 1
Improved Usable rules
| active(f(g(X))) | → | mark(g(X)) | | active(c) | → | mark(f(g(c))) |
The following dependency pairs are strictly oriented by an ordering on the given polynomial interpretation, thus they are removed:
| top#(ok(X)) | → | top#(active(X)) |
Problem 3: SubtermCriterion
Dependency Pair Problem
Dependency Pairs
Rewrite Rules
| active(c) | → | mark(f(g(c))) | | active(f(g(X))) | → | mark(g(X)) |
| proper(c) | → | ok(c) | | proper(f(X)) | → | f(proper(X)) |
| proper(g(X)) | → | g(proper(X)) | | f(ok(X)) | → | ok(f(X)) |
| g(ok(X)) | → | ok(g(X)) | | top(mark(X)) | → | top(proper(X)) |
| top(ok(X)) | → | top(active(X)) |
Original Signature
Termination of terms over the following signature is verified: f, g, c, active, mark, ok, proper, top
Strategy
Projection
The following projection was used:
Thus, the following dependency pairs are removed:
Problem 4: SubtermCriterion
Dependency Pair Problem
Dependency Pairs
Rewrite Rules
| active(c) | → | mark(f(g(c))) | | active(f(g(X))) | → | mark(g(X)) |
| proper(c) | → | ok(c) | | proper(f(X)) | → | f(proper(X)) |
| proper(g(X)) | → | g(proper(X)) | | f(ok(X)) | → | ok(f(X)) |
| g(ok(X)) | → | ok(g(X)) | | top(mark(X)) | → | top(proper(X)) |
| top(ok(X)) | → | top(active(X)) |
Original Signature
Termination of terms over the following signature is verified: f, g, c, active, mark, ok, proper, top
Strategy
Projection
The following projection was used:
Thus, the following dependency pairs are removed:
Problem 5: SubtermCriterion
Dependency Pair Problem
Dependency Pairs
| proper#(f(X)) | → | proper#(X) | | proper#(g(X)) | → | proper#(X) |
Rewrite Rules
| active(c) | → | mark(f(g(c))) | | active(f(g(X))) | → | mark(g(X)) |
| proper(c) | → | ok(c) | | proper(f(X)) | → | f(proper(X)) |
| proper(g(X)) | → | g(proper(X)) | | f(ok(X)) | → | ok(f(X)) |
| g(ok(X)) | → | ok(g(X)) | | top(mark(X)) | → | top(proper(X)) |
| top(ok(X)) | → | top(active(X)) |
Original Signature
Termination of terms over the following signature is verified: f, g, c, active, mark, ok, proper, top
Strategy
Projection
The following projection was used:
Thus, the following dependency pairs are removed:
| proper#(f(X)) | → | proper#(X) | | proper#(g(X)) | → | proper#(X) |