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:

eval(x) → Cond_eval1(&&(&&(>@z(x, 0@z), !(=@z(x, 0@z))), =@z(%@z(x, 2@z), 0@z)), x)
Cond_eval1(TRUE, x) → eval(/@z(x, 2@z))
eval(x) → Cond_eval(&&(&&(>@z(x, 0@z), !(=@z(x, 0@z))), >@z(%@z(x, 2@z), 0@z)), x)
Cond_eval(TRUE, x) → eval(-@z(x, 1@z))

The set Q consists of the following terms:

eval(x0)
Cond_eval1(TRUE, x0)
Cond_eval(TRUE, 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:

eval(x) → Cond_eval1(&&(&&(>@z(x, 0@z), !(=@z(x, 0@z))), =@z(%@z(x, 2@z), 0@z)), x)
Cond_eval1(TRUE, x) → eval(/@z(x, 2@z))
eval(x) → Cond_eval(&&(&&(>@z(x, 0@z), !(=@z(x, 0@z))), >@z(%@z(x, 2@z), 0@z)), x)
Cond_eval(TRUE, x) → eval(-@z(x, 1@z))

The integer pair graph contains the following rules and edges:

(0): COND_EVAL1(TRUE, x[0]) → EVAL(/@z(x[0], 2@z))
(1): EVAL(x[1]) → COND_EVAL1(&&(&&(>@z(x[1], 0@z), !(=@z(x[1], 0@z))), =@z(%@z(x[1], 2@z), 0@z)), x[1])
(2): EVAL(x[2]) → COND_EVAL(&&(&&(>@z(x[2], 0@z), !(=@z(x[2], 0@z))), >@z(%@z(x[2], 2@z), 0@z)), x[2])
(3): COND_EVAL(TRUE, x[3]) → EVAL(-@z(x[3], 1@z))

(0) -> (1), if ((/@z(x[0], 2@z) →* x[1]))


(0) -> (2), if ((/@z(x[0], 2@z) →* x[2]))


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


(2) -> (3), if ((x[2] →* x[3])∧(&&(&&(>@z(x[2], 0@z), !(=@z(x[2], 0@z))), >@z(%@z(x[2], 2@z), 0@z)) →* TRUE))


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


(3) -> (2), if ((-@z(x[3], 1@z) →* x[2]))



The set Q consists of the following terms:

eval(x0)
Cond_eval1(TRUE, x0)
Cond_eval(TRUE, 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): COND_EVAL1(TRUE, x[0]) → EVAL(/@z(x[0], 2@z))
(1): EVAL(x[1]) → COND_EVAL1(&&(&&(>@z(x[1], 0@z), !(=@z(x[1], 0@z))), =@z(%@z(x[1], 2@z), 0@z)), x[1])
(2): EVAL(x[2]) → COND_EVAL(&&(&&(>@z(x[2], 0@z), !(=@z(x[2], 0@z))), >@z(%@z(x[2], 2@z), 0@z)), x[2])
(3): COND_EVAL(TRUE, x[3]) → EVAL(-@z(x[3], 1@z))

(0) -> (1), if ((/@z(x[0], 2@z) →* x[1]))


(0) -> (2), if ((/@z(x[0], 2@z) →* x[2]))


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


(2) -> (3), if ((x[2] →* x[3])∧(&&(&&(>@z(x[2], 0@z), !(=@z(x[2], 0@z))), >@z(%@z(x[2], 2@z), 0@z)) →* TRUE))


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


(3) -> (2), if ((-@z(x[3], 1@z) →* x[2]))



The set Q consists of the following terms:

eval(x0)
Cond_eval1(TRUE, x0)
Cond_eval(TRUE, 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 COND_EVAL1(TRUE, x) → EVAL(/@z(x, 2@z)) the following chains were created:




For Pair EVAL(x) → COND_EVAL1(&&(&&(>@z(x, 0@z), !(=@z(x, 0@z))), =@z(%@z(x, 2@z), 0@z)), x) the following chains were created:




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




For Pair COND_EVAL(TRUE, x) → EVAL(-@z(x, 1@z)) the following chains were created:




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



The constraints for P> respective Pbound 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 Pbound.
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(0@z) = 0   
POL(TRUE) = 1   
POL(&&(x1, x2)) = 0   
POL(2@z) = 2   
POL(EVAL(x1)) = -1 + x1   
POL(!(x1)) = -1   
POL(FALSE) = 0   
POL(>@z(x1, x2)) = -1   
POL(=@z(x1, x2)) = -1   
POL(COND_EVAL1(x1, x2)) = -1 + x2   
POL(COND_EVAL(x1, x2)) = -1 + x2 + (-1)x1   
POL(1@z) = 1   
POL(undefined) = -1   

Polynomial Interpretations with Context Sensitive Arithemetic Replacement
POL(TermCSAR-Mode @ Context)

POL(%@z(x1, 2@z)1 @ {}) = max{x2, (-1)x2}   
POL(%@z(x1, 2@z)-1 @ {}) = min{x2, (-1)x2}   
POL(/@z(x1, 2@z)1 @ {EVAL_1/0}) = -1 + max{x1, (-1)x1}   

The following pairs are in P>:

COND_EVAL1(TRUE, x[0]) → EVAL(/@z(x[0], 2@z))

The following pairs are in Pbound:

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

The following pairs are in P≥:

EVAL(x[1]) → COND_EVAL1(&&(&&(>@z(x[1], 0@z), !(=@z(x[1], 0@z))), =@z(%@z(x[1], 2@z), 0@z)), x[1])
EVAL(x[2]) → COND_EVAL(&&(&&(>@z(x[2], 0@z), !(=@z(x[2], 0@z))), >@z(%@z(x[2], 2@z), 0@z)), x[2])
COND_EVAL(TRUE, x[3]) → EVAL(-@z(x[3], 1@z))

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

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


↳ ITRS
  ↳ ITRStoIDPProof
    ↳ IDP
      ↳ UsableRulesProof
        ↳ IDP
          ↳ IDPNonInfProof
            ↳ AND
              ↳ IDP
                ↳ IDependencyGraphProof
              ↳ IDP

I DP problem:
The following domains are used:

z

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

(1): EVAL(x[1]) → COND_EVAL1(&&(&&(>@z(x[1], 0@z), !(=@z(x[1], 0@z))), =@z(%@z(x[1], 2@z), 0@z)), x[1])
(2): EVAL(x[2]) → COND_EVAL(&&(&&(>@z(x[2], 0@z), !(=@z(x[2], 0@z))), >@z(%@z(x[2], 2@z), 0@z)), x[2])
(3): COND_EVAL(TRUE, x[3]) → EVAL(-@z(x[3], 1@z))

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


(2) -> (3), if ((x[2] →* x[3])∧(&&(&&(>@z(x[2], 0@z), !(=@z(x[2], 0@z))), >@z(%@z(x[2], 2@z), 0@z)) →* TRUE))


(3) -> (2), if ((-@z(x[3], 1@z) →* x[2]))



The set Q consists of the following terms:

eval(x0)
Cond_eval1(TRUE, x0)
Cond_eval(TRUE, x0)


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

↳ ITRS
  ↳ ITRStoIDPProof
    ↳ IDP
      ↳ UsableRulesProof
        ↳ IDP
          ↳ IDPNonInfProof
            ↳ AND
              ↳ IDP
                ↳ IDependencyGraphProof
                  ↳ IDP
                    ↳ IDPNonInfProof
              ↳ IDP

I DP problem:
The following domains are used:

z

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

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

(2) -> (3), if ((x[2] →* x[3])∧(&&(&&(>@z(x[2], 0@z), !(=@z(x[2], 0@z))), >@z(%@z(x[2], 2@z), 0@z)) →* TRUE))


(3) -> (2), if ((-@z(x[3], 1@z) →* x[2]))



The set Q consists of the following terms:

eval(x0)
Cond_eval1(TRUE, x0)
Cond_eval(TRUE, 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[2]) → COND_EVAL(&&(&&(>@z(x[2], 0@z), !(=@z(x[2], 0@z))), >@z(%@z(x[2], 2@z), 0@z)), x[2]) the following chains were created:




For Pair COND_EVAL(TRUE, x[3]) → EVAL(-@z(x[3], 1@z)) the following chains were created:




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



The constraints for P> respective Pbound 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 Pbound.
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(0@z) = 0   
POL(TRUE) = -1   
POL(&&(x1, x2)) = 1   
POL(2@z) = 2   
POL(EVAL(x1)) = (2)x1   
POL(!(x1)) = -1   
POL(FALSE) = 1   
POL(>@z(x1, x2)) = -1   
POL(=@z(x1, x2)) = -1   
POL(COND_EVAL(x1, x2)) = -1 + (2)x2   
POL(1@z) = 1   
POL(undefined) = -1   

Polynomial Interpretations with Context Sensitive Arithemetic Replacement
POL(TermCSAR-Mode @ Context)

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

The following pairs are in P>:

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

The following pairs are in Pbound:

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

The following pairs are in P≥:
none

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
            ↳ AND
              ↳ IDP
                ↳ IDependencyGraphProof
                  ↳ IDP
                    ↳ IDPNonInfProof
                      ↳ AND
                        ↳ IDP
                          ↳ IDependencyGraphProof
                        ↳ IDP
              ↳ IDP

I DP problem:
The following domains are used:none

R is empty.
The integer pair graph is empty.
The set Q consists of the following terms:

eval(x0)
Cond_eval1(TRUE, x0)
Cond_eval(TRUE, x0)


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

↳ ITRS
  ↳ ITRStoIDPProof
    ↳ IDP
      ↳ UsableRulesProof
        ↳ IDP
          ↳ IDPNonInfProof
            ↳ AND
              ↳ IDP
                ↳ IDependencyGraphProof
                  ↳ IDP
                    ↳ IDPNonInfProof
                      ↳ AND
                        ↳ IDP
                        ↳ IDP
                          ↳ IDependencyGraphProof
              ↳ IDP

I DP problem:
The following domains are used:

z

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

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


The set Q consists of the following terms:

eval(x0)
Cond_eval1(TRUE, x0)
Cond_eval(TRUE, x0)


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

↳ ITRS
  ↳ ITRStoIDPProof
    ↳ IDP
      ↳ UsableRulesProof
        ↳ IDP
          ↳ IDPNonInfProof
            ↳ AND
              ↳ IDP
              ↳ 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): COND_EVAL1(TRUE, x[0]) → EVAL(/@z(x[0], 2@z))
(1): EVAL(x[1]) → COND_EVAL1(&&(&&(>@z(x[1], 0@z), !(=@z(x[1], 0@z))), =@z(%@z(x[1], 2@z), 0@z)), x[1])
(2): EVAL(x[2]) → COND_EVAL(&&(&&(>@z(x[2], 0@z), !(=@z(x[2], 0@z))), >@z(%@z(x[2], 2@z), 0@z)), x[2])

(0) -> (1), if ((/@z(x[0], 2@z) →* x[1]))


(0) -> (2), if ((/@z(x[0], 2@z) →* x[2]))


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



The set Q consists of the following terms:

eval(x0)
Cond_eval1(TRUE, x0)
Cond_eval(TRUE, x0)


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

↳ ITRS
  ↳ ITRStoIDPProof
    ↳ IDP
      ↳ UsableRulesProof
        ↳ IDP
          ↳ IDPNonInfProof
            ↳ AND
              ↳ IDP
              ↳ IDP
                ↳ IDependencyGraphProof
                  ↳ IDP
                    ↳ IDPNonInfProof

I DP problem:
The following domains are used:

z

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

(1): EVAL(x[1]) → COND_EVAL1(&&(&&(>@z(x[1], 0@z), !(=@z(x[1], 0@z))), =@z(%@z(x[1], 2@z), 0@z)), x[1])
(0): COND_EVAL1(TRUE, x[0]) → EVAL(/@z(x[0], 2@z))

(0) -> (1), if ((/@z(x[0], 2@z) →* x[1]))


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



The set Q consists of the following terms:

eval(x0)
Cond_eval1(TRUE, x0)
Cond_eval(TRUE, 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[1]) → COND_EVAL1(&&(&&(>@z(x[1], 0@z), !(=@z(x[1], 0@z))), =@z(%@z(x[1], 2@z), 0@z)), x[1]) the following chains were created:




For Pair COND_EVAL1(TRUE, x[0]) → EVAL(/@z(x[0], 2@z)) the following chains were created:




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



The constraints for P> respective Pbound 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 Pbound.
Using the following integer polynomial ordering the resulting constraints can be solved
Polynomial interpretation over integers[POLO]:

POL(=@z(x1, x2)) = -1   
POL(0@z) = 0   
POL(TRUE) = -1   
POL(&&(x1, x2)) = 1   
POL(COND_EVAL1(x1, x2)) = -1 + x2   
POL(2@z) = 2   
POL(EVAL(x1)) = -1 + x1   
POL(!(x1)) = -1   
POL(FALSE) = 2   
POL(undefined) = -1   
POL(>@z(x1, x2)) = -1   

Polynomial Interpretations with Context Sensitive Arithemetic Replacement
POL(TermCSAR-Mode @ Context)

POL(%@z(x1, 2@z)1 @ {}) = max{x2, (-1)x2}   
POL(%@z(x1, 2@z)-1 @ {}) = min{x2, (-1)x2}   
POL(/@z(x1, 2@z)1 @ {EVAL_1/0}) = -1 + max{x1, (-1)x1}   

The following pairs are in P>:

COND_EVAL1(TRUE, x[0]) → EVAL(/@z(x[0], 2@z))

The following pairs are in Pbound:

COND_EVAL1(TRUE, x[0]) → EVAL(/@z(x[0], 2@z))

The following pairs are in P≥:

EVAL(x[1]) → COND_EVAL1(&&(&&(>@z(x[1], 0@z), !(=@z(x[1], 0@z))), =@z(%@z(x[1], 2@z), 0@z)), x[1])

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

FALSE1 → &&(FALSE, TRUE)1
/@z1 →


↳ ITRS
  ↳ ITRStoIDPProof
    ↳ IDP
      ↳ UsableRulesProof
        ↳ IDP
          ↳ IDPNonInfProof
            ↳ AND
              ↳ IDP
              ↳ IDP
                ↳ IDependencyGraphProof
                  ↳ 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:

(1): EVAL(x[1]) → COND_EVAL1(&&(&&(>@z(x[1], 0@z), !(=@z(x[1], 0@z))), =@z(%@z(x[1], 2@z), 0@z)), x[1])


The set Q consists of the following terms:

eval(x0)
Cond_eval1(TRUE, x0)
Cond_eval(TRUE, x0)


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