Termination Proof using AProVE

Term Rewriting System R:
[x, y]
p(0) -> 0
p(s(x)) -> x
le(0, y) -> true
le(s(x), 0) -> false
le(s(x), s(y)) -> le(x, y)
minus(x, y) -> if(le(x, y), x, y)
if(true, x, y) -> 0
if(false, x, y) -> s(minus(p(x), y))

Innermost Termination of R to be shown.

     ↳Dependency Pair Analysis

R contains the following Dependency Pairs:

LE(s(x), s(y)) -> LE(x, y)
MINUS(x, y) -> IF(le(x, y), x, y)
MINUS(x, y) -> LE(x, y)
IF(false, x, y) -> MINUS(p(x), y)
IF(false, x, y) -> P(x)

Furthermore, R contains two SCCs.

     ↳DPs

       →DP Problem 1

         ↳Forward Instantiation Transformation

       →DP Problem 2

         ↳Nar

Dependency Pair:

LE(s(x), s(y)) -> LE(x, y)

Rules:

p(0) -> 0
p(s(x)) -> x
le(0, y) -> true
le(s(x), 0) -> false
le(s(x), s(y)) -> le(x, y)
minus(x, y) -> if(le(x, y), x, y)
if(true, x, y) -> 0
if(false, x, y) -> s(minus(p(x), y))

Strategy:

innermost

On this DP problem, a Forward Instantiation SCC transformation can be performed.
As a result of transforming the rule

LE(s(x), s(y)) -> LE(x, y)

one new Dependency Pair is created:

LE(s(s(x'')), s(s(y''))) -> LE(s(x''), s(y''))

The transformation is resulting in one new DP problem:

     ↳DPs

       →DP Problem 1

         ↳FwdInst

           →DP Problem 3

             ↳Forward Instantiation Transformation

       →DP Problem 2

         ↳Nar

Dependency Pair:

LE(s(s(x'')), s(s(y''))) -> LE(s(x''), s(y''))

Rules:

p(0) -> 0
p(s(x)) -> x
le(0, y) -> true
le(s(x), 0) -> false
le(s(x), s(y)) -> le(x, y)
minus(x, y) -> if(le(x, y), x, y)
if(true, x, y) -> 0
if(false, x, y) -> s(minus(p(x), y))

Strategy:

innermost

On this DP problem, a Forward Instantiation SCC transformation can be performed.
As a result of transforming the rule

LE(s(s(x'')), s(s(y''))) -> LE(s(x''), s(y''))

one new Dependency Pair is created:

LE(s(s(s(x''''))), s(s(s(y'''')))) -> LE(s(s(x'''')), s(s(y'''')))

The transformation is resulting in one new DP problem:

     ↳DPs

       →DP Problem 1

         ↳FwdInst

           →DP Problem 3

             ↳FwdInst

...

               →DP Problem 4

                 ↳Polynomial Ordering

       →DP Problem 2

         ↳Nar

Dependency Pair:

LE(s(s(s(x''''))), s(s(s(y'''')))) -> LE(s(s(x'''')), s(s(y'''')))

Rules:

p(0) -> 0
p(s(x)) -> x
le(0, y) -> true
le(s(x), 0) -> false
le(s(x), s(y)) -> le(x, y)
minus(x, y) -> if(le(x, y), x, y)
if(true, x, y) -> 0
if(false, x, y) -> s(minus(p(x), y))

Strategy:

innermost

The following dependency pair can be strictly oriented:

LE(s(s(s(x''''))), s(s(s(y'''')))) -> LE(s(s(x'''')), s(s(y'''')))

There are no usable rules for innermost w.r.t. to the implicit AFS that need to be oriented.

Used ordering: Polynomial ordering with Polynomial interpretation:

POL(LE(x₁, x₂)) = 1 + x₁

POL(s(x₁)) = 1 + x₁

resulting in one new DP problem.

     ↳DPs

       →DP Problem 1

         ↳FwdInst

           →DP Problem 3

             ↳FwdInst

...

               →DP Problem 5

                 ↳Dependency Graph

       →DP Problem 2

         ↳Nar

Dependency Pair:

Rules:

p(0) -> 0
p(s(x)) -> x
le(0, y) -> true
le(s(x), 0) -> false
le(s(x), s(y)) -> le(x, y)
minus(x, y) -> if(le(x, y), x, y)
if(true, x, y) -> 0
if(false, x, y) -> s(minus(p(x), y))

Strategy:

innermost

Using the Dependency Graph resulted in no new DP problems.

     ↳DPs

       →DP Problem 1

         ↳FwdInst

       →DP Problem 2

         ↳Narrowing Transformation

Dependency Pairs:

IF(false, x, y) -> MINUS(p(x), y)
MINUS(x, y) -> IF(le(x, y), x, y)

Rules:

p(0) -> 0
p(s(x)) -> x
le(0, y) -> true
le(s(x), 0) -> false
le(s(x), s(y)) -> le(x, y)
minus(x, y) -> if(le(x, y), x, y)
if(true, x, y) -> 0
if(false, x, y) -> s(minus(p(x), y))

Strategy:

innermost

On this DP problem, a Narrowing SCC transformation can be performed.
As a result of transforming the rule

MINUS(x, y) -> IF(le(x, y), x, y)

three new Dependency Pairs are created:

MINUS(0, y'') -> IF(true, 0, y'')
MINUS(s(x''), 0) -> IF(false, s(x''), 0)
MINUS(s(x''), s(y'')) -> IF(le(x'', y''), s(x''), s(y''))

The transformation is resulting in one new DP problem:

     ↳DPs

       →DP Problem 1

         ↳FwdInst

       →DP Problem 2

         ↳Nar

           →DP Problem 6

             ↳Narrowing Transformation

Dependency Pairs:

MINUS(s(x''), s(y'')) -> IF(le(x'', y''), s(x''), s(y''))
MINUS(s(x''), 0) -> IF(false, s(x''), 0)
IF(false, x, y) -> MINUS(p(x), y)

Rules:

p(0) -> 0
p(s(x)) -> x
le(0, y) -> true
le(s(x), 0) -> false
le(s(x), s(y)) -> le(x, y)
minus(x, y) -> if(le(x, y), x, y)
if(true, x, y) -> 0
if(false, x, y) -> s(minus(p(x), y))

Strategy:

innermost

On this DP problem, a Narrowing SCC transformation can be performed.
As a result of transforming the rule

IF(false, x, y) -> MINUS(p(x), y)

two new Dependency Pairs are created:

IF(false, 0, y) -> MINUS(0, y)
IF(false, s(x''), y) -> MINUS(x'', y)

The transformation is resulting in one new DP problem:

     ↳DPs

       →DP Problem 1

         ↳FwdInst

       →DP Problem 2

         ↳Nar

           →DP Problem 6

             ↳Nar

...

               →DP Problem 7

                 ↳Narrowing Transformation

Dependency Pairs:

MINUS(s(x''), 0) -> IF(false, s(x''), 0)
IF(false, s(x''), y) -> MINUS(x'', y)
MINUS(s(x''), s(y'')) -> IF(le(x'', y''), s(x''), s(y''))

Rules:

p(0) -> 0
p(s(x)) -> x
le(0, y) -> true
le(s(x), 0) -> false
le(s(x), s(y)) -> le(x, y)
minus(x, y) -> if(le(x, y), x, y)
if(true, x, y) -> 0
if(false, x, y) -> s(minus(p(x), y))

Strategy:

innermost

On this DP problem, a Narrowing SCC transformation can be performed.
As a result of transforming the rule

MINUS(s(x''), s(y'')) -> IF(le(x'', y''), s(x''), s(y''))

three new Dependency Pairs are created:

MINUS(s(0), s(y''')) -> IF(true, s(0), s(y'''))
MINUS(s(s(x')), s(0)) -> IF(false, s(s(x')), s(0))
MINUS(s(s(x')), s(s(y'))) -> IF(le(x', y'), s(s(x')), s(s(y')))

The transformation is resulting in one new DP problem:

     ↳DPs

       →DP Problem 1

         ↳FwdInst

       →DP Problem 2

         ↳Nar

           →DP Problem 6

             ↳Nar

...

               →DP Problem 8

                 ↳Instantiation Transformation

Dependency Pairs:

MINUS(s(s(x')), s(s(y'))) -> IF(le(x', y'), s(s(x')), s(s(y')))
MINUS(s(s(x')), s(0)) -> IF(false, s(s(x')), s(0))
IF(false, s(x''), y) -> MINUS(x'', y)
MINUS(s(x''), 0) -> IF(false, s(x''), 0)

Rules:

p(0) -> 0
p(s(x)) -> x
le(0, y) -> true
le(s(x), 0) -> false
le(s(x), s(y)) -> le(x, y)
minus(x, y) -> if(le(x, y), x, y)
if(true, x, y) -> 0
if(false, x, y) -> s(minus(p(x), y))

Strategy:

innermost

On this DP problem, an Instantiation SCC transformation can be performed.
As a result of transforming the rule

IF(false, s(x''), y) -> MINUS(x'', y)

three new Dependency Pairs are created:

IF(false, s(x''''), 0) -> MINUS(x'''', 0)
IF(false, s(s(x'''')), s(0)) -> MINUS(s(x''''), s(0))
IF(false, s(s(x'''')), s(s(y'''))) -> MINUS(s(x''''), s(s(y''')))

The transformation is resulting in three new DP problems:

     ↳DPs

       →DP Problem 1

         ↳FwdInst

       →DP Problem 2

         ↳Nar

           →DP Problem 6

             ↳Nar

...

               →DP Problem 9

                 ↳Polynomial Ordering

Dependency Pairs:

IF(false, s(s(x'''')), s(s(y'''))) -> MINUS(s(x''''), s(s(y''')))
MINUS(s(s(x')), s(s(y'))) -> IF(le(x', y'), s(s(x')), s(s(y')))

Rules:

p(0) -> 0
p(s(x)) -> x
le(0, y) -> true
le(s(x), 0) -> false
le(s(x), s(y)) -> le(x, y)
minus(x, y) -> if(le(x, y), x, y)
if(true, x, y) -> 0
if(false, x, y) -> s(minus(p(x), y))

Strategy:

innermost

The following dependency pair can be strictly oriented:

IF(false, s(s(x'''')), s(s(y'''))) -> MINUS(s(x''''), s(s(y''')))

There are no usable rules for innermost w.r.t. to the implicit AFS that need to be oriented.

Used ordering: Polynomial ordering with Polynomial interpretation:

POL(0) = 0

POL(false) = 0

POL(MINUS(x₁, x₂)) = x₁

POL(true) = 0

POL(s(x₁)) = 1 + x₁

POL(le(x₁, x₂)) = 0

POL(IF(x₁, x₂, x₃)) = x₂

resulting in one new DP problem.

     ↳DPs

       →DP Problem 1

         ↳FwdInst

       →DP Problem 2

         ↳Nar

           →DP Problem 6

             ↳Nar

...

               →DP Problem 12

                 ↳Dependency Graph

Dependency Pair:

MINUS(s(s(x')), s(s(y'))) -> IF(le(x', y'), s(s(x')), s(s(y')))

Rules:

p(0) -> 0
p(s(x)) -> x
le(0, y) -> true
le(s(x), 0) -> false
le(s(x), s(y)) -> le(x, y)
minus(x, y) -> if(le(x, y), x, y)
if(true, x, y) -> 0
if(false, x, y) -> s(minus(p(x), y))

Strategy:

innermost

Using the Dependency Graph resulted in no new DP problems.

     ↳DPs

       →DP Problem 1

         ↳FwdInst

       →DP Problem 2

         ↳Nar

           →DP Problem 6

             ↳Nar

...

               →DP Problem 10

                 ↳Polynomial Ordering

Dependency Pairs:

IF(false, s(s(x'''')), s(0)) -> MINUS(s(x''''), s(0))
MINUS(s(s(x')), s(0)) -> IF(false, s(s(x')), s(0))

Rules:

p(0) -> 0
p(s(x)) -> x
le(0, y) -> true
le(s(x), 0) -> false
le(s(x), s(y)) -> le(x, y)
minus(x, y) -> if(le(x, y), x, y)
if(true, x, y) -> 0
if(false, x, y) -> s(minus(p(x), y))

Strategy:

innermost

The following dependency pair can be strictly oriented:

IF(false, s(s(x'''')), s(0)) -> MINUS(s(x''''), s(0))

There are no usable rules for innermost w.r.t. to the implicit AFS that need to be oriented.

Used ordering: Polynomial ordering with Polynomial interpretation:

POL(0) = 0

POL(false) = 0

POL(MINUS(x₁, x₂)) = x₁

POL(s(x₁)) = 1 + x₁

POL(IF(x₁, x₂, x₃)) = x₂

resulting in one new DP problem.

     ↳DPs

       →DP Problem 1

         ↳FwdInst

       →DP Problem 2

         ↳Nar

           →DP Problem 6

             ↳Nar

...

               →DP Problem 13

                 ↳Dependency Graph

Dependency Pair:

MINUS(s(s(x')), s(0)) -> IF(false, s(s(x')), s(0))

Rules:

p(0) -> 0
p(s(x)) -> x
le(0, y) -> true
le(s(x), 0) -> false
le(s(x), s(y)) -> le(x, y)
minus(x, y) -> if(le(x, y), x, y)
if(true, x, y) -> 0
if(false, x, y) -> s(minus(p(x), y))

Strategy:

innermost

Using the Dependency Graph resulted in no new DP problems.

     ↳DPs

       →DP Problem 1

         ↳FwdInst

       →DP Problem 2

         ↳Nar

           →DP Problem 6

             ↳Nar

...

               →DP Problem 11

                 ↳Polynomial Ordering

Dependency Pairs:

IF(false, s(x''''), 0) -> MINUS(x'''', 0)
MINUS(s(x''), 0) -> IF(false, s(x''), 0)

Rules:

p(0) -> 0
p(s(x)) -> x
le(0, y) -> true
le(s(x), 0) -> false
le(s(x), s(y)) -> le(x, y)
minus(x, y) -> if(le(x, y), x, y)
if(true, x, y) -> 0
if(false, x, y) -> s(minus(p(x), y))

Strategy:

innermost

The following dependency pair can be strictly oriented:

IF(false, s(x''''), 0) -> MINUS(x'''', 0)

There are no usable rules for innermost w.r.t. to the implicit AFS that need to be oriented.

Used ordering: Polynomial ordering with Polynomial interpretation:

POL(0) = 0

POL(false) = 0

POL(MINUS(x₁, x₂)) = x₁

POL(s(x₁)) = 1 + x₁

POL(IF(x₁, x₂, x₃)) = x₂

resulting in one new DP problem.

     ↳DPs

       →DP Problem 1

         ↳FwdInst

       →DP Problem 2

         ↳Nar

           →DP Problem 6

             ↳Nar

...

               →DP Problem 14

                 ↳Dependency Graph

Dependency Pair:

MINUS(s(x''), 0) -> IF(false, s(x''), 0)

Rules:

p(0) -> 0
p(s(x)) -> x
le(0, y) -> true
le(s(x), 0) -> false
le(s(x), s(y)) -> le(x, y)
minus(x, y) -> if(le(x, y), x, y)
if(true, x, y) -> 0
if(false, x, y) -> s(minus(p(x), y))

Strategy:

innermost

Using the Dependency Graph resulted in no new DP problems.

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

POL(0)	= 0
POL(false)	= 0
POL(MINUS(x₁, x₂))	= x₁
POL(true)	= 0
POL(s(x₁))	= 1 + x₁
POL(le(x₁, x₂))	= 0
POL(IF(x₁, x₂, x₃))	= x₂