Termination Proof using AProVE

Term Rewriting System R:
[X, Y]
minus(X, s(Y)) -> pred(minus(X, Y))
minus(X, 0) -> X
pred(s(X)) -> X
le(s(X), s(Y)) -> le(X, Y)
le(s(X), 0) -> false
le(0, Y) -> true
gcd(0, Y) -> 0
gcd(s(X), 0) -> s(X)
gcd(s(X), s(Y)) -> if(le(Y, X), s(X), s(Y))
if(true, s(X), s(Y)) -> gcd(minus(X, Y), s(Y))
if(false, s(X), s(Y)) -> gcd(minus(Y, X), s(X))

Innermost Termination of R to be shown.

     ↳Dependency Pair Analysis

R contains the following Dependency Pairs:

MINUS(X, s(Y)) -> PRED(minus(X, Y))
MINUS(X, s(Y)) -> MINUS(X, Y)
LE(s(X), s(Y)) -> LE(X, Y)
GCD(s(X), s(Y)) -> IF(le(Y, X), s(X), s(Y))
GCD(s(X), s(Y)) -> LE(Y, X)
IF(true, s(X), s(Y)) -> GCD(minus(X, Y), s(Y))
IF(true, s(X), s(Y)) -> MINUS(X, Y)
IF(false, s(X), s(Y)) -> GCD(minus(Y, X), s(X))
IF(false, s(X), s(Y)) -> MINUS(Y, X)

Furthermore, R contains three SCCs.

     ↳DPs

       →DP Problem 1

         ↳Usable Rules (Innermost)

       →DP Problem 2

         ↳UsableRules

       →DP Problem 3

         ↳UsableRules

Dependency Pair:

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

Rules:

minus(X, s(Y)) -> pred(minus(X, Y))
minus(X, 0) -> X
pred(s(X)) -> X
le(s(X), s(Y)) -> le(X, Y)
le(s(X), 0) -> false
le(0, Y) -> true
gcd(0, Y) -> 0
gcd(s(X), 0) -> s(X)
gcd(s(X), s(Y)) -> if(le(Y, X), s(X), s(Y))
if(true, s(X), s(Y)) -> gcd(minus(X, Y), s(Y))
if(false, s(X), s(Y)) -> gcd(minus(Y, X), s(X))

Strategy:

innermost

As we are in the innermost case, we can delete all 11 non-usable-rules.

     ↳DPs

       →DP Problem 1

         ↳UsableRules

           →DP Problem 4

             ↳Size-Change Principle

       →DP Problem 2

         ↳UsableRules

       →DP Problem 3

         ↳UsableRules

Dependency Pair:

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

Rule:

none

Strategy:

innermost

We number the DPs as follows:

MINUS(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.

     ↳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, s(Y)) -> pred(minus(X, Y))
minus(X, 0) -> X
pred(s(X)) -> X
le(s(X), s(Y)) -> le(X, Y)
le(s(X), 0) -> false
le(0, Y) -> true
gcd(0, Y) -> 0
gcd(s(X), 0) -> s(X)
gcd(s(X), s(Y)) -> if(le(Y, X), s(X), s(Y))
if(true, s(X), s(Y)) -> gcd(minus(X, Y), s(Y))
if(false, s(X), s(Y)) -> gcd(minus(Y, X), s(X))

Strategy:

innermost

As we are in the innermost case, we can delete all 11 non-usable-rules.

     ↳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.

     ↳DPs

       →DP Problem 1

         ↳UsableRules

       →DP Problem 2

         ↳UsableRules

       →DP Problem 3

         ↳Usable Rules (Innermost)

Dependency Pairs:

IF(false, s(X), s(Y)) -> GCD(minus(Y, X), s(X))
IF(true, s(X), s(Y)) -> GCD(minus(X, Y), s(Y))
GCD(s(X), s(Y)) -> IF(le(Y, X), s(X), s(Y))

Rules:

minus(X, s(Y)) -> pred(minus(X, Y))
minus(X, 0) -> X
pred(s(X)) -> X
le(s(X), s(Y)) -> le(X, Y)
le(s(X), 0) -> false
le(0, Y) -> true
gcd(0, Y) -> 0
gcd(s(X), 0) -> s(X)
gcd(s(X), s(Y)) -> if(le(Y, X), s(X), s(Y))
if(true, s(X), s(Y)) -> gcd(minus(X, Y), s(Y))
if(false, s(X), s(Y)) -> gcd(minus(Y, X), s(X))

Strategy:

innermost

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

     ↳DPs

       →DP Problem 1

         ↳UsableRules

       →DP Problem 2

         ↳UsableRules

       →DP Problem 3

         ↳UsableRules

           →DP Problem 6

             ↳Negative Polynomial Order

Dependency Pairs:

IF(false, s(X), s(Y)) -> GCD(minus(Y, X), s(X))
IF(true, s(X), s(Y)) -> GCD(minus(X, Y), s(Y))
GCD(s(X), s(Y)) -> IF(le(Y, X), s(X), s(Y))

Rules:

minus(X, 0) -> X
minus(X, s(Y)) -> pred(minus(X, Y))
pred(s(X)) -> X
le(s(X), 0) -> false
le(0, Y) -> true
le(s(X), s(Y)) -> le(X, Y)

Strategy:

innermost

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

IF(false, s(X), s(Y)) -> GCD(minus(Y, X), s(X))
IF(true, s(X), s(Y)) -> GCD(minus(X, Y), s(Y))

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

minus(X, 0) -> X
minus(X, s(Y)) -> pred(minus(X, Y))
pred(s(X)) -> X
le(s(X), 0) -> false
le(0, Y) -> true
le(s(X), s(Y)) -> le(X, Y)

Used ordering:
Polynomial Order with Interpretation:

POL( IF(x₁, ..., x₃) ) = x₂ + x₃

POL( s(x₁) ) = x₁ + 1

POL( GCD(x₁, x₂) ) = x₁ + x₂

POL( minus(x₁, x₂) ) = x₁

POL( pred(x₁) ) = x₁

POL( le(x₁, x₂) ) = 0

POL( false ) = 0

POL( true ) = 0

This results in one new DP problem.

     ↳DPs

       →DP Problem 1

         ↳UsableRules

       →DP Problem 2

         ↳UsableRules

       →DP Problem 3

         ↳UsableRules

           →DP Problem 6

             ↳Neg POLO

...

               →DP Problem 7

                 ↳Dependency Graph

Dependency Pair:

GCD(s(X), s(Y)) -> IF(le(Y, X), s(X), s(Y))

Rules:

minus(X, 0) -> X
minus(X, s(Y)) -> pred(minus(X, Y))
pred(s(X)) -> X
le(s(X), 0) -> false
le(0, Y) -> true
le(s(X), s(Y)) -> le(X, Y)

Strategy:

innermost

Using the Dependency Graph resulted in no new DP problems.

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