Termination Proof using AProVE

Term Rewriting System R:
[N, X, Y, XS]
fib(N) -> sel(N, fib1(s(0), s(0)))
fib1(X, Y) -> cons(X, fib1(Y, add(X, Y)))
add(0, X) -> X
add(s(X), Y) -> s(add(X, Y))
sel(0, cons(X, XS)) -> X
sel(s(N), cons(X, XS)) -> sel(N, XS)

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:

FIB(N) -> SEL(N, fib1(s(0), s(0)))
FIB(N) -> FIB1(s(0), s(0))
FIB1(X, Y) -> FIB1(Y, add(X, Y))
FIB1(X, Y) -> ADD(X, Y)
ADD(s(X), Y) -> ADD(X, Y)
SEL(s(N), cons(X, XS)) -> SEL(N, XS)

Furthermore, R contains three SCCs.

     ↳OC

       →TRS2

         ↳DPs

           →DP Problem 1

             ↳Usable Rules (Innermost)

           →DP Problem 2

             ↳UsableRules

           →DP Problem 3

             ↳UsableRules

Dependency Pair:

SEL(s(N), cons(X, XS)) -> SEL(N, XS)

Rules:

fib(N) -> sel(N, fib1(s(0), s(0)))
fib1(X, Y) -> cons(X, fib1(Y, add(X, Y)))
add(0, X) -> X
add(s(X), Y) -> s(add(X, Y))
sel(0, cons(X, XS)) -> X
sel(s(N), cons(X, XS)) -> sel(N, XS)

Strategy:

innermost

As we are in the innermost case, we can delete all 6 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:

SEL(s(N), cons(X, XS)) -> SEL(N, XS)

Rule:

none

Strategy:

innermost

We number the DPs as follows:

SEL(s(N), cons(X, XS)) -> SEL(N, XS)

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:

cons(x₁, x₂) -> cons(x₁, x₂)
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:

ADD(s(X), Y) -> ADD(X, Y)

Rules:

fib(N) -> sel(N, fib1(s(0), s(0)))
fib1(X, Y) -> cons(X, fib1(Y, add(X, Y)))
add(0, X) -> X
add(s(X), Y) -> s(add(X, Y))
sel(0, cons(X, XS)) -> X
sel(s(N), cons(X, XS)) -> sel(N, XS)

Strategy:

innermost

As we are in the innermost case, we can delete all 6 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:

ADD(s(X), Y) -> ADD(X, Y)

Rule:

none

Strategy:

innermost

We number the DPs as follows:

ADD(s(X), Y) -> ADD(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:

FIB1(X, Y) -> FIB1(Y, add(X, Y))

Rules:

fib(N) -> sel(N, fib1(s(0), s(0)))
fib1(X, Y) -> cons(X, fib1(Y, add(X, Y)))
add(0, X) -> X
add(s(X), Y) -> s(add(X, Y))
sel(0, cons(X, XS)) -> X
sel(s(N), cons(X, XS)) -> sel(N, XS)

Strategy:

innermost

As we are in the innermost case, we can delete all 4 non-usable-rules.

     ↳OC

       →TRS2

         ↳DPs

           →DP Problem 1

             ↳UsableRules

           →DP Problem 2

             ↳UsableRules

           →DP Problem 3

             ↳UsableRules

...

               →DP Problem 6

                 ↳Non Termination

Dependency Pair:

FIB1(X, Y) -> FIB1(Y, add(X, Y))

Rules:

add(0, X) -> X
add(s(X), Y) -> s(add(X, Y))

Strategy:

innermost

Found an infinite P-chain over R:
P =

FIB1(X, Y) -> FIB1(Y, add(X, Y))

R =

add(0, X) -> X
add(s(X), Y) -> s(add(X, Y))

s = FIB1(X, Y)
evaluates to t =FIB1(Y, add(X, Y))

Thus, s starts an infinite chain as s matches t.

Non-Termination of R could be shown.
Duration:
0:00 minutes