Termination proof of /tmp/tmpjX-T

Termination of the given ITRSProblem could successfully be proven:

↳ ITRS

  ↳ ITRStoIDPProof

ITRS problem:
The following domains are used:

z

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

Cond_eval(TRUE, x) → eval(-@z(x, 3@z))
eval(x) → Cond_eval(&&(>@z(%@z(x, 2@z), 0@z), >@z(x, 0@z)), x)

The set Q consists of the following terms:

Cond_eval(TRUE, x0)
eval(x0)

Added dependency pairs

↳ ITRS

  ↳ ITRStoIDPProof

    ↳ IDP

      ↳ UsableRulesProof

I DP problem:
The following domains are used:

z

The ITRS R consists of the following rules:

Cond_eval(TRUE, x) → eval(-@z(x, 3@z))
eval(x) → Cond_eval(&&(>@z(%@z(x, 2@z), 0@z), >@z(x, 0@z)), x)

The integer pair graph contains the following rules and edges:

(0): EVAL(x[0]) → COND_EVAL(&&(>@z(%@z(x[0], 2@z), 0@z), >@z(x[0], 0@z)), x[0])
(1): COND_EVAL(TRUE, x[1]) → EVAL(-@z(x[1], 3@z))

(0) -> (1), if ((x[0] →^* x[1])∧(&&(>@z(%@z(x[0], 2@z), 0@z), >@z(x[0], 0@z)) →^* TRUE))

(1) -> (0), if ((-@z(x[1], 3@z) →^* x[0]))

The set Q consists of the following terms:

Cond_eval(TRUE, x0)
eval(x0)

As all Q-normal forms are R-normal forms we are in the innermost case. Hence, by the usable rules processor [LPAR04] we can delete all non-usable rules [FROCOS05] from R.

↳ ITRS

  ↳ ITRStoIDPProof

    ↳ IDP

      ↳ UsableRulesProof

        ↳ IDP

          ↳ IDPNonInfProof

I DP problem:
The following domains are used:

z

R is empty.
The integer pair graph contains the following rules and edges:

(0): EVAL(x[0]) → COND_EVAL(&&(>@z(%@z(x[0], 2@z), 0@z), >@z(x[0], 0@z)), x[0])
(1): COND_EVAL(TRUE, x[1]) → EVAL(-@z(x[1], 3@z))

(0) -> (1), if ((x[0] →^* x[1])∧(&&(>@z(%@z(x[0], 2@z), 0@z), >@z(x[0], 0@z)) →^* TRUE))

(1) -> (0), if ((-@z(x[1], 3@z) →^* x[0]))

The set Q consists of the following terms:

Cond_eval(TRUE, x0)
eval(x0)

The constraints were generated the following way:
The DP Problem is simplified using the Induction Calculus [NONINF] with the following steps:
Note that final constraints are written in bold face.

For Pair EVAL(x) → COND_EVAL(&&(>@z(%@z(x, 2@z), 0@z), >@z(x, 0@z)), x) the following chains were created:

We consider the chain EVAL(x[0]) → COND_EVAL(&&(>@z(%@z(x[0], 2@z), 0@z), >@z(x[0], 0@z)), x[0]) which results in the following constraint:
(1)    (EVAL(x[0])≥NonInfC∧EVAL(x[0])≥COND_EVAL(&&(>@z(%@z(x[0], 2@z), 0@z), >@z(x[0], 0@z)), x[0])∧(U^Increasing(COND_EVAL(&&(>@z(%@z(x[0], 2@z), 0@z), >@z(x[0], 0@z)), x[0])), ≥))

We simplified constraint (1) using rule (POLY_CONSTRAINTS) which results in the following new constraint:
(2)    ((U^Increasing(COND_EVAL(&&(>@z(%@z(x[0], 2@z), 0@z), >@z(x[0], 0@z)), x[0])), ≥)∧0 ≥ 0∧0 ≥ 0)

We simplified constraint (2) using rule (IDP_POLY_SIMPLIFY) which results in the following new constraint:
(3)    ((U^Increasing(COND_EVAL(&&(>@z(%@z(x[0], 2@z), 0@z), >@z(x[0], 0@z)), x[0])), ≥)∧0 ≥ 0∧0 ≥ 0)

We simplified constraint (3) using rule (POLY_REMOVE_MIN_MAX) which results in the following new constraint:
(4)    ((U^Increasing(COND_EVAL(&&(>@z(%@z(x[0], 2@z), 0@z), >@z(x[0], 0@z)), x[0])), ≥)∧0 ≥ 0∧0 ≥ 0)

We simplified constraint (4) using rule (IDP_UNRESTRICTED_VARS) which results in the following new constraint:
(5)    (0 = 0∧(U^Increasing(COND_EVAL(&&(>@z(%@z(x[0], 2@z), 0@z), >@z(x[0], 0@z)), x[0])), ≥)∧0 ≥ 0∧0 ≥ 0∧0 = 0)

For Pair COND_EVAL(TRUE, x) → EVAL(-@z(x, 3@z)) the following chains were created:

We consider the chain EVAL(x[0]) → COND_EVAL(&&(>@z(%@z(x[0], 2@z), 0@z), >@z(x[0], 0@z)), x[0]), COND_EVAL(TRUE, x[1]) → EVAL(-@z(x[1], 3@z)), EVAL(x[0]) → COND_EVAL(&&(>@z(%@z(x[0], 2@z), 0@z), >@z(x[0], 0@z)), x[0]) which results in the following constraint:
(6)    (-@z(x[1], 3@z)=x[0]1∧&&(>@z(%@z(x[0], 2@z), 0@z), >@z(x[0], 0@z))=TRUE∧x[0]=x[1] ⇒ COND_EVAL(TRUE, x[1])≥NonInfC∧COND_EVAL(TRUE, x[1])≥EVAL(-@z(x[1], 3@z))∧(U^Increasing(EVAL(-@z(x[1], 3@z))), ≥))

We simplified constraint (6) using rules (III), (IV), (IDP_BOOLEAN) which results in the following new constraint:
(7)    (>@z(%@z(x[0], 2@z), 0@z)=TRUE∧>@z(x[0], 0@z)=TRUE ⇒ COND_EVAL(TRUE, x[0])≥NonInfC∧COND_EVAL(TRUE, x[0])≥EVAL(-@z(x[0], 3@z))∧(U^Increasing(EVAL(-@z(x[1], 3@z))), ≥))

We simplified constraint (7) using rule (POLY_CONSTRAINTS) which results in the following new constraint:
(8)    (-1 + max{2, -2} ≥ 0∧x[0] + -1 ≥ 0 ⇒ (U^Increasing(EVAL(-@z(x[1], 3@z))), ≥)∧-1 + (-1)Bound + x[0] ≥ 0∧2 ≥ 0)

We simplified constraint (8) using rule (IDP_POLY_SIMPLIFY) which results in the following new constraint:
(9)    (-1 + max{2, -2} ≥ 0∧x[0] + -1 ≥ 0 ⇒ (U^Increasing(EVAL(-@z(x[1], 3@z))), ≥)∧-1 + (-1)Bound + x[0] ≥ 0∧2 ≥ 0)

We simplified constraint (9) using rule (POLY_REMOVE_MIN_MAX) which results in the following new constraint:
(10)    (x[0] + -1 ≥ 0∧4 ≥ 0∧1 ≥ 0 ⇒ 2 ≥ 0∧-1 + (-1)Bound + x[0] ≥ 0∧(U^Increasing(EVAL(-@z(x[1], 3@z))), ≥))

We simplified constraint (10) using rule (IDP_SMT_SPLIT) which results in the following new constraint:
(11)    (x[0] ≥ 0∧4 ≥ 0∧1 ≥ 0 ⇒ 2 ≥ 0∧(-1)Bound + x[0] ≥ 0∧(U^Increasing(EVAL(-@z(x[1], 3@z))), ≥))

To summarize, we get the following constraints P_≥ for the following pairs.

EVAL(x) → COND_EVAL(&&(>@z(%@z(x, 2@z), 0@z), >@z(x, 0@z)), x)
- (0 = 0∧(U^Increasing(COND_EVAL(&&(>@z(%@z(x[0], 2@z), 0@z), >@z(x[0], 0@z)), x[0])), ≥)∧0 ≥ 0∧0 ≥ 0∧0 = 0)
COND_EVAL(TRUE, x) → EVAL(-@z(x, 3@z))
- (x[0] ≥ 0∧4 ≥ 0∧1 ≥ 0 ⇒ 2 ≥ 0∧(-1)Bound + x[0] ≥ 0∧(U^Increasing(EVAL(-@z(x[1], 3@z))), ≥))

The constraints for P_> respective P_bound are constructed from P_≥ where we just replace every occurence of "t ≥ s" in P_≥ by "t > s" respective "t ≥ c". Here c stands for the fresh constant used for P_bound.
Using the following integer polynomial ordering the resulting constraints can be solved
Polynomial interpretation over integers[POLO]:

POL(-@z(x₁, x₂)) = x₁ + (-1)x₂
POL(3@z) = 3
POL(0@z) = 0
POL(TRUE) = 1
POL(&&(x₁, x₂)) = 1
POL(2@z) = 2
POL(COND_EVAL(x₁, x₂)) = x₂ + (-1)x₁
POL(EVAL(x₁)) = -1 + x₁
POL(FALSE) = 1
POL(undefined) = -1
POL(>@z(x₁, x₂)) = -1

Polynomial Interpretations with Context Sensitive Arithemetic Replacement
POL(Term^CSAR-Mode @ Context)

POL(%@z(x₁, 2@z)¹ @ {}) = max{x₂, (-1)x₂}

The following pairs are in P_>:

COND_EVAL(TRUE, x[1]) → EVAL(-@z(x[1], 3@z))

The following pairs are in P_bound:

COND_EVAL(TRUE, x[1]) → EVAL(-@z(x[1], 3@z))

The following pairs are in P_≥:

EVAL(x[0]) → COND_EVAL(&&(>@z(%@z(x[0], 2@z), 0@z), >@z(x[0], 0@z)), x[0])

At least the following rules have been oriented under context sensitive arithmetic replacement:

&&(FALSE, FALSE)¹ ↔ FALSE¹
-@z¹ ↔
&&(TRUE, TRUE)¹ ↔ TRUE¹
&&(TRUE, FALSE)¹ ↔ FALSE¹
&&(FALSE, TRUE)¹ ↔ FALSE¹

↳ ITRS

  ↳ ITRStoIDPProof

    ↳ IDP

      ↳ UsableRulesProof

        ↳ IDP

          ↳ IDPNonInfProof

            ↳ IDP

              ↳ IDependencyGraphProof

I DP problem:
The following domains are used:

z

R is empty.
The integer pair graph contains the following rules and edges:

(0): EVAL(x[0]) → COND_EVAL(&&(>@z(%@z(x[0], 2@z), 0@z), >@z(x[0], 0@z)), x[0])

The set Q consists of the following terms:

Cond_eval(TRUE, x0)
eval(x0)

The approximation of the Dependency Graph [LPAR04,FROCOS05,EDGSTAR] contains 0 SCCs with 1 less node.