MAYBE
The TRS could not be proven terminating. The proof attempt took 14518 ms.
The following DP Processors were used
Problem 1 was processed with processor DependencyGraph (0ms).
| Problem 2 was processed with processor PolynomialLinearRange4iUR (0ms).
| | Problem 3 was processed with processor DependencyGraph (0ms).
| | | Problem 4 remains open; application of the following processors failed [PolynomialLinearRange4iUR (834ms), DependencyGraph (2ms), PolynomialLinearRange8NegiUR (7124ms), DependencyGraph (1ms), ReductionPairSAT (5351ms), DependencyGraph (2ms), SizeChangePrinciple (53ms)].
The following open problems remain:
Open Dependency Pair Problem 4
Dependency Pairs
c#(b(y, c(x))) | → | c#(c(b(a(0, 0), y))) | | c#(b(y, c(x))) | → | c#(b(a(0, 0), y)) |
Rewrite Rules
a(x, y) | → | b(x, b(0, c(y))) | | c(b(y, c(x))) | → | c(c(b(a(0, 0), y))) |
b(y, 0) | → | y |
Original Signature
Termination of terms over the following signature is verified: 0, b, c, a
Problem 1: DependencyGraph
Dependency Pair Problem
Dependency Pairs
a#(x, y) | → | b#(x, b(0, c(y))) | | c#(b(y, c(x))) | → | c#(c(b(a(0, 0), y))) |
c#(b(y, c(x))) | → | c#(b(a(0, 0), y)) | | a#(x, y) | → | c#(y) |
a#(x, y) | → | b#(0, c(y)) | | c#(b(y, c(x))) | → | a#(0, 0) |
c#(b(y, c(x))) | → | b#(a(0, 0), y) |
Rewrite Rules
a(x, y) | → | b(x, b(0, c(y))) | | c(b(y, c(x))) | → | c(c(b(a(0, 0), y))) |
b(y, 0) | → | y |
Original Signature
Termination of terms over the following signature is verified: 0, b, c, a
Strategy
The following SCCs where found
c#(b(y, c(x))) → c#(c(b(a(0, 0), y))) | c#(b(y, c(x))) → c#(b(a(0, 0), y)) |
a#(x, y) → c#(y) | c#(b(y, c(x))) → a#(0, 0) |
Problem 2: PolynomialLinearRange4iUR
Dependency Pair Problem
Dependency Pairs
c#(b(y, c(x))) | → | c#(c(b(a(0, 0), y))) | | c#(b(y, c(x))) | → | c#(b(a(0, 0), y)) |
a#(x, y) | → | c#(y) | | c#(b(y, c(x))) | → | a#(0, 0) |
Rewrite Rules
a(x, y) | → | b(x, b(0, c(y))) | | c(b(y, c(x))) | → | c(c(b(a(0, 0), y))) |
b(y, 0) | → | y |
Original Signature
Termination of terms over the following signature is verified: 0, b, c, a
Strategy
Polynomial Interpretation
- 0: 0
- a(x,y): x + 2
- a#(x,y): y + 2x
- b(x,y): y + x
- c(x): 2
- c#(x): x
Improved Usable rules
a(x, y) | → | b(x, b(0, c(y))) | | b(y, 0) | → | y |
c(b(y, c(x))) | → | c(c(b(a(0, 0), y))) |
The following dependency pairs are strictly oriented by an ordering on the given polynomial interpretation, thus they are removed:
c#(b(y, c(x))) | → | a#(0, 0) |
Problem 3: DependencyGraph
Dependency Pair Problem
Dependency Pairs
c#(b(y, c(x))) | → | c#(b(a(0, 0), y)) | | c#(b(y, c(x))) | → | c#(c(b(a(0, 0), y))) |
a#(x, y) | → | c#(y) |
Rewrite Rules
a(x, y) | → | b(x, b(0, c(y))) | | c(b(y, c(x))) | → | c(c(b(a(0, 0), y))) |
b(y, 0) | → | y |
Original Signature
Termination of terms over the following signature is verified: 0, b, c, a
Strategy
The following SCCs where found
c#(b(y, c(x))) → c#(b(a(0, 0), y)) | c#(b(y, c(x))) → c#(c(b(a(0, 0), y))) |