Term Rewriting System R:
[x, y, z]
0(#) -> #
+(#, x) -> x
+(x, #) -> x
+(0(x), 0(y)) -> 0(+(x, y))
+(0(x), 1(y)) -> 1(+(x, y))
+(1(x), 0(y)) -> 1(+(x, y))
+(1(x), 1(y)) -> 0(+(+(x, y), 1(#)))
+(+(x, y), z) -> +(x, +(y, z))
-(#, x) -> #
-(x, #) -> x
-(0(x), 0(y)) -> 0(-(x, y))
-(0(x), 1(y)) -> 1(-(-(x, y), 1(#)))
-(1(x), 0(y)) -> 1(-(x, y))
-(1(x), 1(y)) -> 0(-(x, y))
not(true) -> false
not(false) -> true
if(true, x, y) -> x
if(false, x, y) -> y
ge(0(x), 0(y)) -> ge(x, y)
ge(0(x), 1(y)) -> not(ge(y, x))
ge(1(x), 0(y)) -> ge(x, y)
ge(1(x), 1(y)) -> ge(x, y)
ge(x, #) -> true
ge(#, 0(x)) -> ge(#, x)
ge(#, 1(x)) -> false
log(x) -> -(log'(x), 1(#))
log'(#) -> #
log'(1(x)) -> +(log'(x), 1(#))
log'(0(x)) -> if(ge(x, 1(#)), +(log'(x), 1(#)), #)
Termination of R to be shown.
R
↳Removing Redundant Rules
Removing the following rules from R which fullfill a polynomial ordering:
log(x) -> -(log'(x), 1(#))
where the Polynomial interpretation:
POL(#) | = 0 |
POL(if(x1, x2, x3)) | = x1 + x2 + x3 |
POL(0(x1)) | = 2·x1 |
POL(false) | = 0 |
POL(log'(x1)) | = x1 |
POL(1(x1)) | = 2·x1 |
POL(log(x1)) | = 1 + x1 |
POL(true) | = 0 |
POL(ge(x1, x2)) | = x1 + x2 |
POL(-(x1, x2)) | = x1 + x2 |
POL(not(x1)) | = x1 |
POL(+(x1, x2)) | = x1 + x2 |
was used.
Not all Rules of R can be deleted, so we still have to regard a part of R.
R
↳RRRPolo
→TRS2
↳Dependency Pair Analysis
R contains the following Dependency Pairs:
GE(0(x), 0(y)) -> GE(x, y)
GE(0(x), 1(y)) -> NOT(ge(y, x))
GE(0(x), 1(y)) -> GE(y, x)
GE(1(x), 1(y)) -> GE(x, y)
GE(#, 0(x)) -> GE(#, x)
GE(1(x), 0(y)) -> GE(x, y)
-'(0(x), 1(y)) -> -'(-(x, y), 1(#))
-'(0(x), 1(y)) -> -'(x, y)
-'(0(x), 0(y)) -> 0'(-(x, y))
-'(0(x), 0(y)) -> -'(x, y)
-'(1(x), 1(y)) -> 0'(-(x, y))
-'(1(x), 1(y)) -> -'(x, y)
-'(1(x), 0(y)) -> -'(x, y)
+'(0(x), 1(y)) -> +'(x, y)
+'(1(x), 0(y)) -> +'(x, y)
+'(0(x), 0(y)) -> 0'(+(x, y))
+'(0(x), 0(y)) -> +'(x, y)
+'(1(x), 1(y)) -> 0'(+(+(x, y), 1(#)))
+'(1(x), 1(y)) -> +'(+(x, y), 1(#))
+'(1(x), 1(y)) -> +'(x, y)
+'(+(x, y), z) -> +'(x, +(y, z))
+'(+(x, y), z) -> +'(y, z)
LOG'(0(x)) -> IF(ge(x, 1(#)), +(log'(x), 1(#)), #)
LOG'(0(x)) -> GE(x, 1(#))
LOG'(0(x)) -> +'(log'(x), 1(#))
LOG'(0(x)) -> LOG'(x)
LOG'(1(x)) -> +'(log'(x), 1(#))
LOG'(1(x)) -> LOG'(x)
Furthermore, R contains five SCCs.
R
↳RRRPolo
→TRS2
↳DPs
→DP Problem 1
↳Size-Change Principle
→DP Problem 2
↳MRR
→DP Problem 3
↳MRR
→DP Problem 4
↳SCP
→DP Problem 5
↳SCP
Dependency Pair:
GE(#, 0(x)) -> GE(#, x)
Rules:
ge(0(x), 0(y)) -> ge(x, y)
ge(0(x), 1(y)) -> not(ge(y, x))
ge(1(x), 1(y)) -> ge(x, y)
ge(x, #) -> true
ge(#, 0(x)) -> ge(#, x)
ge(1(x), 0(y)) -> ge(x, y)
ge(#, 1(x)) -> false
0(#) -> #
-(0(x), 1(y)) -> 1(-(-(x, y), 1(#)))
-(0(x), 0(y)) -> 0(-(x, y))
-(1(x), 1(y)) -> 0(-(x, y))
-(1(x), 0(y)) -> 1(-(x, y))
-(x, #) -> x
-(#, x) -> #
not(true) -> false
not(false) -> true
+(0(x), 1(y)) -> 1(+(x, y))
+(1(x), 0(y)) -> 1(+(x, y))
+(0(x), 0(y)) -> 0(+(x, y))
+(1(x), 1(y)) -> 0(+(+(x, y), 1(#)))
+(+(x, y), z) -> +(x, +(y, z))
+(x, #) -> x
+(#, x) -> x
log'(0(x)) -> if(ge(x, 1(#)), +(log'(x), 1(#)), #)
log'(1(x)) -> +(log'(x), 1(#))
log'(#) -> #
if(false, x, y) -> y
if(true, x, y) -> x
We number the DPs as follows:
- GE(#, 0(x)) -> GE(#, x)
and get the following Size-Change Graph(s):
which lead(s) to this/these maximal multigraph(s):
DP: empty set
Oriented Rules: none
We used the order Homeomorphic Embedding Order with Non-Strict Precedence.
trivial
with Argument Filtering System:
0(x1) -> 0(x1)
We obtain no new DP problems.
R
↳RRRPolo
→TRS2
↳DPs
→DP Problem 1
↳SCP
→DP Problem 2
↳Modular Removal of Rules
→DP Problem 3
↳MRR
→DP Problem 4
↳SCP
→DP Problem 5
↳SCP
Dependency Pairs:
-'(1(x), 0(y)) -> -'(x, y)
-'(1(x), 1(y)) -> -'(x, y)
-'(0(x), 0(y)) -> -'(x, y)
-'(0(x), 1(y)) -> -'(x, y)
-'(0(x), 1(y)) -> -'(-(x, y), 1(#))
Rules:
ge(0(x), 0(y)) -> ge(x, y)
ge(0(x), 1(y)) -> not(ge(y, x))
ge(1(x), 1(y)) -> ge(x, y)
ge(x, #) -> true
ge(#, 0(x)) -> ge(#, x)
ge(1(x), 0(y)) -> ge(x, y)
ge(#, 1(x)) -> false
0(#) -> #
-(0(x), 1(y)) -> 1(-(-(x, y), 1(#)))
-(0(x), 0(y)) -> 0(-(x, y))
-(1(x), 1(y)) -> 0(-(x, y))
-(1(x), 0(y)) -> 1(-(x, y))
-(x, #) -> x
-(#, x) -> #
not(true) -> false
not(false) -> true
+(0(x), 1(y)) -> 1(+(x, y))
+(1(x), 0(y)) -> 1(+(x, y))
+(0(x), 0(y)) -> 0(+(x, y))
+(1(x), 1(y)) -> 0(+(+(x, y), 1(#)))
+(+(x, y), z) -> +(x, +(y, z))
+(x, #) -> x
+(#, x) -> x
log'(0(x)) -> if(ge(x, 1(#)), +(log'(x), 1(#)), #)
log'(1(x)) -> +(log'(x), 1(#))
log'(#) -> #
if(false, x, y) -> y
if(true, x, y) -> x
We have the following set of usable rules:
-(0(x), 1(y)) -> 1(-(-(x, y), 1(#)))
-(0(x), 0(y)) -> 0(-(x, y))
-(1(x), 1(y)) -> 0(-(x, y))
-(1(x), 0(y)) -> 1(-(x, y))
-(x, #) -> x
-(#, x) -> #
0(#) -> #
To remove rules and DPs from this DP problem we used the following monotonic and CE-compatible order: Polynomial ordering.
Polynomial interpretation:
POL(#) | = 0 |
POL(-'(x1, x2)) | = 1 + x1 + x2 |
POL(0(x1)) | = x1 |
POL(1(x1)) | = x1 |
POL(-(x1, x2)) | = x1 + x2 |
We have the following set D of usable symbols: {#, -', 0, 1, -}
No Dependency Pairs can be deleted.
21 non usable rules have been deleted.
The result of this processor delivers one new DP problem.
R
↳RRRPolo
→TRS2
↳DPs
→DP Problem 1
↳SCP
→DP Problem 2
↳MRR
...
→DP Problem 6
↳Modular Removal of Rules
→DP Problem 3
↳MRR
→DP Problem 4
↳SCP
→DP Problem 5
↳SCP
Dependency Pairs:
-'(1(x), 0(y)) -> -'(x, y)
-'(1(x), 1(y)) -> -'(x, y)
-'(0(x), 0(y)) -> -'(x, y)
-'(0(x), 1(y)) -> -'(x, y)
-'(0(x), 1(y)) -> -'(-(x, y), 1(#))
Rules:
-(0(x), 1(y)) -> 1(-(-(x, y), 1(#)))
-(0(x), 0(y)) -> 0(-(x, y))
-(1(x), 1(y)) -> 0(-(x, y))
-(1(x), 0(y)) -> 1(-(x, y))
-(x, #) -> x
-(#, x) -> #
0(#) -> #
We have the following set of usable rules:
-(0(x), 1(y)) -> 1(-(-(x, y), 1(#)))
-(0(x), 0(y)) -> 0(-(x, y))
-(1(x), 1(y)) -> 0(-(x, y))
-(1(x), 0(y)) -> 1(-(x, y))
-(x, #) -> x
-(#, x) -> #
0(#) -> #
To remove rules and DPs from this DP problem we used the following monotonic and CE-compatible order: Polynomial ordering.
Polynomial interpretation:
POL(#) | = 0 |
POL(-'(x1, x2)) | = 1 + x1 + x2 |
POL(0(x1)) | = 1 + x1 |
POL(1(x1)) | = 1 + x1 |
POL(-(x1, x2)) | = x1 + x2 |
We have the following set D of usable symbols: {#, -', 0, 1, -}
The following Dependency Pairs can be deleted as the lhs is strictly greater than the corresponding rhs:
-'(1(x), 0(y)) -> -'(x, y)
-'(1(x), 1(y)) -> -'(x, y)
-'(0(x), 0(y)) -> -'(x, y)
-'(0(x), 1(y)) -> -'(x, y)
-'(0(x), 1(y)) -> -'(-(x, y), 1(#))
No Rules can be deleted.
After the removal, there are no SCCs in the dependency graph which results in no DP problems which have to be solved.
R
↳RRRPolo
→TRS2
↳DPs
→DP Problem 1
↳SCP
→DP Problem 2
↳MRR
→DP Problem 3
↳Modular Removal of Rules
→DP Problem 4
↳SCP
→DP Problem 5
↳SCP
Dependency Pairs:
+'(+(x, y), z) -> +'(y, z)
+'(+(x, y), z) -> +'(x, +(y, z))
+'(1(x), 1(y)) -> +'(x, y)
+'(1(x), 1(y)) -> +'(+(x, y), 1(#))
+'(0(x), 0(y)) -> +'(x, y)
+'(1(x), 0(y)) -> +'(x, y)
+'(0(x), 1(y)) -> +'(x, y)
Rules:
ge(0(x), 0(y)) -> ge(x, y)
ge(0(x), 1(y)) -> not(ge(y, x))
ge(1(x), 1(y)) -> ge(x, y)
ge(x, #) -> true
ge(#, 0(x)) -> ge(#, x)
ge(1(x), 0(y)) -> ge(x, y)
ge(#, 1(x)) -> false
0(#) -> #
-(0(x), 1(y)) -> 1(-(-(x, y), 1(#)))
-(0(x), 0(y)) -> 0(-(x, y))
-(1(x), 1(y)) -> 0(-(x, y))
-(1(x), 0(y)) -> 1(-(x, y))
-(x, #) -> x
-(#, x) -> #
not(true) -> false
not(false) -> true
+(0(x), 1(y)) -> 1(+(x, y))
+(1(x), 0(y)) -> 1(+(x, y))
+(0(x), 0(y)) -> 0(+(x, y))
+(1(x), 1(y)) -> 0(+(+(x, y), 1(#)))
+(+(x, y), z) -> +(x, +(y, z))
+(x, #) -> x
+(#, x) -> x
log'(0(x)) -> if(ge(x, 1(#)), +(log'(x), 1(#)), #)
log'(1(x)) -> +(log'(x), 1(#))
log'(#) -> #
if(false, x, y) -> y
if(true, x, y) -> x
We have the following set of usable rules:
+(0(x), 1(y)) -> 1(+(x, y))
+(1(x), 0(y)) -> 1(+(x, y))
+(0(x), 0(y)) -> 0(+(x, y))
+(1(x), 1(y)) -> 0(+(+(x, y), 1(#)))
+(+(x, y), z) -> +(x, +(y, z))
+(x, #) -> x
+(#, x) -> x
0(#) -> #
To remove rules and DPs from this DP problem we used the following monotonic and CE-compatible order: Polynomial ordering.
Polynomial interpretation:
POL(#) | = 0 |
POL(0(x1)) | = x1 |
POL(1(x1)) | = x1 |
POL(+(x1, x2)) | = x1 + x2 |
POL(+'(x1, x2)) | = 1 + x1 + x2 |
We have the following set D of usable symbols: {#, 0, 1, +, +'}
No Dependency Pairs can be deleted.
20 non usable rules have been deleted.
The result of this processor delivers one new DP problem.
R
↳RRRPolo
→TRS2
↳DPs
→DP Problem 1
↳SCP
→DP Problem 2
↳MRR
→DP Problem 3
↳MRR
...
→DP Problem 7
↳Modular Removal of Rules
→DP Problem 4
↳SCP
→DP Problem 5
↳SCP
Dependency Pairs:
+'(+(x, y), z) -> +'(y, z)
+'(+(x, y), z) -> +'(x, +(y, z))
+'(1(x), 1(y)) -> +'(x, y)
+'(1(x), 1(y)) -> +'(+(x, y), 1(#))
+'(0(x), 0(y)) -> +'(x, y)
+'(1(x), 0(y)) -> +'(x, y)
+'(0(x), 1(y)) -> +'(x, y)
Rules:
+(0(x), 1(y)) -> 1(+(x, y))
+(1(x), 0(y)) -> 1(+(x, y))
+(0(x), 0(y)) -> 0(+(x, y))
+(1(x), 1(y)) -> 0(+(+(x, y), 1(#)))
+(+(x, y), z) -> +(x, +(y, z))
+(x, #) -> x
+(#, x) -> x
0(#) -> #
We have the following set of usable rules:
+(0(x), 1(y)) -> 1(+(x, y))
+(1(x), 0(y)) -> 1(+(x, y))
+(0(x), 0(y)) -> 0(+(x, y))
+(1(x), 1(y)) -> 0(+(+(x, y), 1(#)))
+(+(x, y), z) -> +(x, +(y, z))
+(x, #) -> x
+(#, x) -> x
0(#) -> #
To remove rules and DPs from this DP problem we used the following monotonic and CE-compatible order: Polynomial ordering.
Polynomial interpretation:
POL(#) | = 0 |
POL(0(x1)) | = x1 |
POL(1(x1)) | = 1 + x1 |
POL(+(x1, x2)) | = x1 + x2 |
POL(+'(x1, x2)) | = 1 + x1 + x2 |
We have the following set D of usable symbols: {#, 0, 1, +, +'}
The following Dependency Pairs can be deleted as the lhs is strictly greater than the corresponding rhs:
+'(1(x), 1(y)) -> +'(x, y)
+'(1(x), 1(y)) -> +'(+(x, y), 1(#))
+'(1(x), 0(y)) -> +'(x, y)
+'(0(x), 1(y)) -> +'(x, y)
The following rules can be deleted as the lhs is strictly greater than the corresponding rhs:
+(1(x), 1(y)) -> 0(+(+(x, y), 1(#)))
The result of this processor delivers one new DP problem.
R
↳RRRPolo
→TRS2
↳DPs
→DP Problem 1
↳SCP
→DP Problem 2
↳MRR
→DP Problem 3
↳MRR
...
→DP Problem 8
↳Modular Removal of Rules
→DP Problem 4
↳SCP
→DP Problem 5
↳SCP
Dependency Pairs:
+'(+(x, y), z) -> +'(y, z)
+'(+(x, y), z) -> +'(x, +(y, z))
+'(0(x), 0(y)) -> +'(x, y)
Rules:
+(0(x), 1(y)) -> 1(+(x, y))
+(1(x), 0(y)) -> 1(+(x, y))
+(0(x), 0(y)) -> 0(+(x, y))
+(+(x, y), z) -> +(x, +(y, z))
+(x, #) -> x
+(#, x) -> x
0(#) -> #
We have the following set of usable rules:
+(0(x), 1(y)) -> 1(+(x, y))
+(1(x), 0(y)) -> 1(+(x, y))
+(0(x), 0(y)) -> 0(+(x, y))
+(+(x, y), z) -> +(x, +(y, z))
+(x, #) -> x
+(#, x) -> x
0(#) -> #
To remove rules and DPs from this DP problem we used the following monotonic and CE-compatible order: Polynomial ordering.
Polynomial interpretation:
POL(#) | = 0 |
POL(0(x1)) | = 1 + x1 |
POL(1(x1)) | = x1 |
POL(+(x1, x2)) | = x1 + x2 |
POL(+'(x1, x2)) | = x1 + x2 |
We have the following set D of usable symbols: {#, 0, 1, +, +'}
The following Dependency Pairs can be deleted as the lhs is strictly greater than the corresponding rhs:
+'(0(x), 0(y)) -> +'(x, y)
The following rules can be deleted as the lhs is strictly greater than the corresponding rhs:
+(0(x), 1(y)) -> 1(+(x, y))
+(1(x), 0(y)) -> 1(+(x, y))
+(0(x), 0(y)) -> 0(+(x, y))
0(#) -> #
The result of this processor delivers one new DP problem.
R
↳RRRPolo
→TRS2
↳DPs
→DP Problem 1
↳SCP
→DP Problem 2
↳MRR
→DP Problem 3
↳MRR
...
→DP Problem 9
↳Modular Removal of Rules
→DP Problem 4
↳SCP
→DP Problem 5
↳SCP
Dependency Pairs:
+'(+(x, y), z) -> +'(y, z)
+'(+(x, y), z) -> +'(x, +(y, z))
Rules:
+(+(x, y), z) -> +(x, +(y, z))
+(x, #) -> x
+(#, x) -> x
We have the following set of usable rules:
+(+(x, y), z) -> +(x, +(y, z))
+(x, #) -> x
+(#, x) -> x
To remove rules and DPs from this DP problem we used the following monotonic and CE-compatible order: Polynomial ordering.
Polynomial interpretation:
POL(#) | = 0 |
POL(+(x1, x2)) | = x1 + x2 |
POL(+'(x1, x2)) | = 1 + x1 + x2 |
We have the following set D of usable symbols: {+, +'}
No Dependency Pairs can be deleted.
The following rules can be deleted as they contain symbols in their lhs which do not occur in D:
+(x, #) -> x
+(#, x) -> x
The result of this processor delivers one new DP problem.
R
↳RRRPolo
→TRS2
↳DPs
→DP Problem 1
↳SCP
→DP Problem 2
↳MRR
→DP Problem 3
↳MRR
...
→DP Problem 10
↳Modular Removal of Rules
→DP Problem 4
↳SCP
→DP Problem 5
↳SCP
Dependency Pairs:
+'(+(x, y), z) -> +'(y, z)
+'(+(x, y), z) -> +'(x, +(y, z))
Rule:
+(+(x, y), z) -> +(x, +(y, z))
We have the following set of usable rules:
+(+(x, y), z) -> +(x, +(y, z))
To remove rules and DPs from this DP problem we used the following monotonic and CE-compatible order: Polynomial ordering.
Polynomial interpretation:
POL(+(x1, x2)) | = 1 + x1 + x2 |
POL(+'(x1, x2)) | = 1 + x1 + x2 |
We have the following set D of usable symbols: {+, +'}
The following Dependency Pairs can be deleted as the lhs is strictly greater than the corresponding rhs:
+'(+(x, y), z) -> +'(y, z)
No Rules can be deleted.
The result of this processor delivers one new DP problem.
R
↳RRRPolo
→TRS2
↳DPs
→DP Problem 1
↳SCP
→DP Problem 2
↳MRR
→DP Problem 3
↳MRR
...
→DP Problem 11
↳Size-Change Principle
→DP Problem 4
↳SCP
→DP Problem 5
↳SCP
Dependency Pair:
+'(+(x, y), z) -> +'(x, +(y, z))
Rule:
+(+(x, y), z) -> +(x, +(y, z))
We number the DPs as follows:
- +'(+(x, y), z) -> +'(x, +(y, z))
and get the following Size-Change Graph(s):
which lead(s) to this/these maximal multigraph(s):
DP: empty set
Oriented Rules: none
We used the order Homeomorphic Embedding Order with Non-Strict Precedence.
trivial
We obtain no new DP problems.
R
↳RRRPolo
→TRS2
↳DPs
→DP Problem 1
↳SCP
→DP Problem 2
↳MRR
→DP Problem 3
↳MRR
→DP Problem 4
↳Size-Change Principle
→DP Problem 5
↳SCP
Dependency Pairs:
GE(1(x), 0(y)) -> GE(x, y)
GE(1(x), 1(y)) -> GE(x, y)
GE(0(x), 1(y)) -> GE(y, x)
GE(0(x), 0(y)) -> GE(x, y)
Rules:
ge(0(x), 0(y)) -> ge(x, y)
ge(0(x), 1(y)) -> not(ge(y, x))
ge(1(x), 1(y)) -> ge(x, y)
ge(x, #) -> true
ge(#, 0(x)) -> ge(#, x)
ge(1(x), 0(y)) -> ge(x, y)
ge(#, 1(x)) -> false
0(#) -> #
-(0(x), 1(y)) -> 1(-(-(x, y), 1(#)))
-(0(x), 0(y)) -> 0(-(x, y))
-(1(x), 1(y)) -> 0(-(x, y))
-(1(x), 0(y)) -> 1(-(x, y))
-(x, #) -> x
-(#, x) -> #
not(true) -> false
not(false) -> true
+(0(x), 1(y)) -> 1(+(x, y))
+(1(x), 0(y)) -> 1(+(x, y))
+(0(x), 0(y)) -> 0(+(x, y))
+(1(x), 1(y)) -> 0(+(+(x, y), 1(#)))
+(+(x, y), z) -> +(x, +(y, z))
+(x, #) -> x
+(#, x) -> x
log'(0(x)) -> if(ge(x, 1(#)), +(log'(x), 1(#)), #)
log'(1(x)) -> +(log'(x), 1(#))
log'(#) -> #
if(false, x, y) -> y
if(true, x, y) -> x
We number the DPs as follows:
- GE(1(x), 0(y)) -> GE(x, y)
- GE(1(x), 1(y)) -> GE(x, y)
- GE(0(x), 1(y)) -> GE(y, x)
- GE(0(x), 0(y)) -> GE(x, y)
and get the following Size-Change Graph(s): {4, 3, 2, 1} | , | {4, 3, 2, 1} |
---|
1 | > | 1 |
2 | > | 2 |
|
{4, 3, 2, 1} | , | {4, 3, 2, 1} |
---|
1 | > | 2 |
2 | > | 1 |
|
which lead(s) to this/these maximal multigraph(s): {4, 3, 2, 1} | , | {4, 3, 2, 1} |
---|
1 | > | 1 |
2 | > | 2 |
|
DP: empty set
Oriented Rules: none
We used the order Homeomorphic Embedding Order with Non-Strict Precedence.
trivial
with Argument Filtering System:
0(x1) -> 0(x1)
1(x1) -> 1(x1)
We obtain no new DP problems.
R
↳RRRPolo
→TRS2
↳DPs
→DP Problem 1
↳SCP
→DP Problem 2
↳MRR
→DP Problem 3
↳MRR
→DP Problem 4
↳SCP
→DP Problem 5
↳Size-Change Principle
Dependency Pairs:
LOG'(1(x)) -> LOG'(x)
LOG'(0(x)) -> LOG'(x)
Rules:
ge(0(x), 0(y)) -> ge(x, y)
ge(0(x), 1(y)) -> not(ge(y, x))
ge(1(x), 1(y)) -> ge(x, y)
ge(x, #) -> true
ge(#, 0(x)) -> ge(#, x)
ge(1(x), 0(y)) -> ge(x, y)
ge(#, 1(x)) -> false
0(#) -> #
-(0(x), 1(y)) -> 1(-(-(x, y), 1(#)))
-(0(x), 0(y)) -> 0(-(x, y))
-(1(x), 1(y)) -> 0(-(x, y))
-(1(x), 0(y)) -> 1(-(x, y))
-(x, #) -> x
-(#, x) -> #
not(true) -> false
not(false) -> true
+(0(x), 1(y)) -> 1(+(x, y))
+(1(x), 0(y)) -> 1(+(x, y))
+(0(x), 0(y)) -> 0(+(x, y))
+(1(x), 1(y)) -> 0(+(+(x, y), 1(#)))
+(+(x, y), z) -> +(x, +(y, z))
+(x, #) -> x
+(#, x) -> x
log'(0(x)) -> if(ge(x, 1(#)), +(log'(x), 1(#)), #)
log'(1(x)) -> +(log'(x), 1(#))
log'(#) -> #
if(false, x, y) -> y
if(true, x, y) -> x
We number the DPs as follows:
- LOG'(1(x)) -> LOG'(x)
- LOG'(0(x)) -> LOG'(x)
and get the following Size-Change Graph(s):
which lead(s) to this/these maximal multigraph(s):
DP: empty set
Oriented Rules: none
We used the order Homeomorphic Embedding Order with Non-Strict Precedence.
trivial
with Argument Filtering System:
0(x1) -> 0(x1)
1(x1) -> 1(x1)
We obtain no new DP problems.
Termination of R successfully shown.
Duration:
0:07 minutes