Termination Proof using AProVE

Term Rewriting System R:
[x, y]
minus(x, 0) -> x
minus(s(x), s(y)) -> minus(x, y)
le(0, y) -> true
le(s(x), 0) -> false
le(s(x), s(y)) -> le(x, y)
quot(0, s(y)) -> 0
quot(s(x), s(y)) -> s(quot(minus(s(x), s(y)), s(y)))

Termination of R to be shown.

     ↳Overlay and local confluence Check

The TRS is overlay and locally confluent (all critical pairs are trivially joinable).Hence, we can switch to innermost.

     ↳OC

       →TRS2

         ↳Dependency Pair Analysis

R contains the following Dependency Pairs:

MINUS(s(x), s(y)) -> MINUS(x, y)
LE(s(x), s(y)) -> LE(x, y)
QUOT(s(x), s(y)) -> QUOT(minus(s(x), s(y)), s(y))
QUOT(s(x), s(y)) -> MINUS(s(x), s(y))

Furthermore, R contains three SCCs.

     ↳OC

       →TRS2

         ↳DPs

           →DP Problem 1

             ↳Usable Rules (Innermost)

           →DP Problem 2

             ↳UsableRules

           →DP Problem 3

             ↳UsableRules

Dependency Pair:

MINUS(s(x), s(y)) -> MINUS(x, y)

Rules:

minus(x, 0) -> x
minus(s(x), s(y)) -> minus(x, y)
le(0, y) -> true
le(s(x), 0) -> false
le(s(x), s(y)) -> le(x, y)
quot(0, s(y)) -> 0
quot(s(x), s(y)) -> s(quot(minus(s(x), s(y)), s(y)))

Strategy:

innermost

As we are in the innermost case, we can delete all 7 non-usable-rules.

     ↳OC

       →TRS2

         ↳DPs

           →DP Problem 1

             ↳UsableRules

...

               →DP Problem 4

                 ↳Size-Change Principle

           →DP Problem 2

             ↳UsableRules

           →DP Problem 3

             ↳UsableRules

Dependency Pair:

MINUS(s(x), s(y)) -> MINUS(x, y)

Rule:

none

Strategy:

innermost

We number the DPs as follows:

MINUS(s(x), s(y)) -> MINUS(x, y)

and get the following Size-Change Graph(s):

{1}	,	{1}
1	>	1
2	>	2

which lead(s) to this/these maximal multigraph(s):

{1}	,	{1}
1	>	1
2	>	2

D_P: empty set
Oriented Rules: none

We used the order Homeomorphic Embedding Order with Non-Strict Precedence.

trivial

with Argument Filtering System:

s(x₁) -> s(x₁)

We obtain no new DP problems.

     ↳OC

       →TRS2

         ↳DPs

           →DP Problem 1

             ↳UsableRules

           →DP Problem 2

             ↳Usable Rules (Innermost)

           →DP Problem 3

             ↳UsableRules

Dependency Pair:

LE(s(x), s(y)) -> LE(x, y)

Rules:

minus(x, 0) -> x
minus(s(x), s(y)) -> minus(x, y)
le(0, y) -> true
le(s(x), 0) -> false
le(s(x), s(y)) -> le(x, y)
quot(0, s(y)) -> 0
quot(s(x), s(y)) -> s(quot(minus(s(x), s(y)), s(y)))

Strategy:

innermost

As we are in the innermost case, we can delete all 7 non-usable-rules.

     ↳OC

       →TRS2

         ↳DPs

           →DP Problem 1

             ↳UsableRules

           →DP Problem 2

             ↳UsableRules

...

               →DP Problem 5

                 ↳Size-Change Principle

           →DP Problem 3

             ↳UsableRules

Dependency Pair:

LE(s(x), s(y)) -> LE(x, y)

Rule:

none

Strategy:

innermost

We number the DPs as follows:

LE(s(x), s(y)) -> LE(x, y)

and get the following Size-Change Graph(s):

{1}	,	{1}
1	>	1
2	>	2

which lead(s) to this/these maximal multigraph(s):

{1}	,	{1}
1	>	1
2	>	2

D_P: empty set
Oriented Rules: none

We used the order Homeomorphic Embedding Order with Non-Strict Precedence.

trivial

with Argument Filtering System:

s(x₁) -> s(x₁)

We obtain no new DP problems.

     ↳OC

       →TRS2

         ↳DPs

           →DP Problem 1

             ↳UsableRules

           →DP Problem 2

             ↳UsableRules

           →DP Problem 3

             ↳Usable Rules (Innermost)

Dependency Pair:

QUOT(s(x), s(y)) -> QUOT(minus(s(x), s(y)), s(y))

Rules:

minus(x, 0) -> x
minus(s(x), s(y)) -> minus(x, y)
le(0, y) -> true
le(s(x), 0) -> false
le(s(x), s(y)) -> le(x, y)
quot(0, s(y)) -> 0
quot(s(x), s(y)) -> s(quot(minus(s(x), s(y)), s(y)))

Strategy:

innermost

As we are in the innermost case, we can delete all 5 non-usable-rules.

     ↳OC

       →TRS2

         ↳DPs

           →DP Problem 1

             ↳UsableRules

           →DP Problem 2

             ↳UsableRules

           →DP Problem 3

             ↳UsableRules

...

               →DP Problem 6

                 ↳Rewriting Transformation

Dependency Pair:

QUOT(s(x), s(y)) -> QUOT(minus(s(x), s(y)), s(y))

Rules:

minus(s(x), s(y)) -> minus(x, y)
minus(x, 0) -> x

Strategy:

innermost

On this DP problem, a Rewriting SCC transformation can be performed.
As a result of transforming the rule

QUOT(s(x), s(y)) -> QUOT(minus(s(x), s(y)), s(y))

one new Dependency Pair is created:

QUOT(s(x), s(y)) -> QUOT(minus(x, y), s(y))

The transformation is resulting in one new DP problem:

     ↳OC

       →TRS2

         ↳DPs

           →DP Problem 1

             ↳UsableRules

           →DP Problem 2

             ↳UsableRules

           →DP Problem 3

             ↳UsableRules

...

               →DP Problem 7

                 ↳Negative Polynomial Order

Dependency Pair:

QUOT(s(x), s(y)) -> QUOT(minus(x, y), s(y))

Rules:

minus(s(x), s(y)) -> minus(x, y)
minus(x, 0) -> x

Strategy:

innermost

The following Dependency Pair can be strictly oriented using the given order.

QUOT(s(x), s(y)) -> QUOT(minus(x, y), s(y))

Moreover, the following usable rules (regarding the implicit AFS) are oriented.

minus(s(x), s(y)) -> minus(x, y)
minus(x, 0) -> x

Used ordering:
Polynomial Order with Interpretation:

POL( QUOT(x₁, x₂) ) = x₁

POL( s(x₁) ) = x₁ + 1

POL( minus(x₁, x₂) ) = x₁

This results in one new DP problem.

     ↳OC

       →TRS2

         ↳DPs

           →DP Problem 1

             ↳UsableRules

           →DP Problem 2

             ↳UsableRules

           →DP Problem 3

             ↳UsableRules

...

               →DP Problem 8

                 ↳Dependency Graph

Dependency Pair:

Rules:

minus(s(x), s(y)) -> minus(x, y)
minus(x, 0) -> x

Strategy:

innermost

Using the Dependency Graph resulted in no new DP problems.

Termination of R successfully shown.
Duration:
0:00 minutes