Termination Proof using AProVE

Term Rewriting System R:
[Y, X]
plus(0, Y) -> Y
plus(s(X), Y) -> s(plus(X, Y))
min(X, 0) -> X
min(s(X), s(Y)) -> min(X, Y)
min(min(X, Y), Z) -> min(X, plus(Y, Z))
quot(0, s(Y)) -> 0
quot(s(X), s(Y)) -> s(quot(min(X, Y), s(Y)))

Innermost Termination of R to be shown.

     ↳Dependency Pair Analysis

R contains the following Dependency Pairs:

PLUS(s(X), Y) -> PLUS(X, Y)
MIN(s(X), s(Y)) -> MIN(X, Y)
MIN(min(X, Y), Z) -> MIN(X, plus(Y, Z))
MIN(min(X, Y), Z) -> PLUS(Y, Z)
QUOT(s(X), s(Y)) -> QUOT(min(X, Y), s(Y))
QUOT(s(X), s(Y)) -> MIN(X, Y)

Furthermore, R contains three SCCs.

     ↳DPs

       →DP Problem 1

         ↳Usable Rules (Innermost)

       →DP Problem 2

         ↳UsableRules

       →DP Problem 3

         ↳UsableRules

Dependency Pair:

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

Rules:

plus(0, Y) -> Y
plus(s(X), Y) -> s(plus(X, Y))
min(X, 0) -> X
min(s(X), s(Y)) -> min(X, Y)
min(min(X, Y), Z) -> min(X, plus(Y, Z))
quot(0, s(Y)) -> 0
quot(s(X), s(Y)) -> s(quot(min(X, Y), s(Y)))

Strategy:

innermost

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

     ↳DPs

       →DP Problem 1

         ↳UsableRules

           →DP Problem 4

             ↳Size-Change Principle

       →DP Problem 2

         ↳UsableRules

       →DP Problem 3

         ↳UsableRules

Dependency Pair:

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

Rule:

none

Strategy:

innermost

We number the DPs as follows:

PLUS(s(X), Y) -> PLUS(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 Pairs:

MIN(min(X, Y), Z) -> MIN(X, plus(Y, Z))
MIN(s(X), s(Y)) -> MIN(X, Y)

Rules:

plus(0, Y) -> Y
plus(s(X), Y) -> s(plus(X, Y))
min(X, 0) -> X
min(s(X), s(Y)) -> min(X, Y)
min(min(X, Y), Z) -> min(X, plus(Y, Z))
quot(0, s(Y)) -> 0
quot(s(X), s(Y)) -> s(quot(min(X, Y), s(Y)))

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 5

             ↳Size-Change Principle

       →DP Problem 3

         ↳UsableRules

Dependency Pairs:

MIN(min(X, Y), Z) -> MIN(X, plus(Y, Z))
MIN(s(X), s(Y)) -> MIN(X, Y)

Rules:

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

Strategy:

innermost

We number the DPs as follows:

MIN(min(X, Y), Z) -> MIN(X, plus(Y, Z))
MIN(s(X), s(Y)) -> MIN(X, Y)

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

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

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

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

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

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

D_P: empty set
Oriented Rules: none

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

trivial

with Argument Filtering System:

min(x₁, x₂) -> min(x₁, x₂)
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 Pair:

QUOT(s(X), s(Y)) -> QUOT(min(X, Y), s(Y))

Rules:

plus(0, Y) -> Y
plus(s(X), Y) -> s(plus(X, Y))
min(X, 0) -> X
min(s(X), s(Y)) -> min(X, Y)
min(min(X, Y), Z) -> min(X, plus(Y, Z))
quot(0, s(Y)) -> 0
quot(s(X), s(Y)) -> s(quot(min(X, Y), s(Y)))

Strategy:

innermost

As we are in the innermost case, we can delete all 2 non-usable-rules.

     ↳DPs

       →DP Problem 1

         ↳UsableRules

       →DP Problem 2

         ↳UsableRules

       →DP Problem 3

         ↳UsableRules

           →DP Problem 6

             ↳Negative Polynomial Order

Dependency Pair:

QUOT(s(X), s(Y)) -> QUOT(min(X, Y), s(Y))

Rules:

plus(s(X), Y) -> s(plus(X, Y))
plus(0, Y) -> Y
min(min(X, Y), Z) -> min(X, plus(Y, Z))
min(s(X), s(Y)) -> min(X, Y)
min(X, 0) -> X

Strategy:

innermost

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

QUOT(s(X), s(Y)) -> QUOT(min(X, Y), s(Y))

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

plus(s(X), Y) -> s(plus(X, Y))
plus(0, Y) -> Y
min(min(X, Y), Z) -> min(X, plus(Y, Z))
min(s(X), s(Y)) -> min(X, Y)
min(X, 0) -> X

Used ordering:
Polynomial Order with Interpretation:

POL( QUOT(x₁, x₂) ) = x₁

POL( s(x₁) ) = x₁ + 1

POL( min(x₁, x₂) ) = x₁

POL( plus(x₁, x₂) ) = x₁ + x₂

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:

Rules:

plus(s(X), Y) -> s(plus(X, Y))
plus(0, Y) -> Y
min(min(X, Y), Z) -> min(X, plus(Y, Z))
min(s(X), s(Y)) -> min(X, Y)
min(X, 0) -> X

Strategy:

innermost

Using the Dependency Graph resulted in no new DP problems.

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