Term Rewriting System R:
[x, y]
-(x, 0) -> x
-(s(x), s(y)) -> -(x, y)
min(x, 0) -> 0
min(0, y) -> 0
min(s(x), s(y)) -> s(min(x, y))
twice(0) -> 0
twice(s(x)) -> s(s(twice(x)))
f(s(x), s(y)) -> f(-(y, min(x, y)), s(twice(min(x, y))))
f(s(x), s(y)) -> f(-(x, min(x, y)), s(twice(min(x, y))))
Termination of R to be shown.
R
↳Dependency Pair Analysis
R contains the following Dependency Pairs:
-'(s(x), s(y)) -> -'(x, y)
MIN(s(x), s(y)) -> MIN(x, y)
TWICE(s(x)) -> TWICE(x)
F(s(x), s(y)) -> F(-(y, min(x, y)), s(twice(min(x, y))))
F(s(x), s(y)) -> -'(y, min(x, y))
F(s(x), s(y)) -> MIN(x, y)
F(s(x), s(y)) -> TWICE(min(x, y))
F(s(x), s(y)) -> F(-(x, min(x, y)), s(twice(min(x, y))))
F(s(x), s(y)) -> -'(x, min(x, y))
Furthermore, R contains four SCCs.
R
↳DPs
→DP Problem 1
↳Size-Change Principle
→DP Problem 2
↳SCP
→DP Problem 3
↳SCP
→DP Problem 4
↳Remaining
Dependency Pair:
-'(s(x), s(y)) -> -'(x, y)
Rules:
-(x, 0) -> x
-(s(x), s(y)) -> -(x, y)
min(x, 0) -> 0
min(0, y) -> 0
min(s(x), s(y)) -> s(min(x, y))
twice(0) -> 0
twice(s(x)) -> s(s(twice(x)))
f(s(x), s(y)) -> f(-(y, min(x, y)), s(twice(min(x, y))))
f(s(x), s(y)) -> f(-(x, min(x, y)), s(twice(min(x, y))))
We number the DPs as follows:
- -'(s(x), s(y)) -> -'(x, y)
and get the following Size-Change Graph(s):
which lead(s) to this/these maximal multigraph(s):
D_{P}: empty set
Oriented Rules: none
We used the order Homeomorphic Embedding Order with Non-Strict Precedence.
trivial
with Argument Filtering System:
s(x_{1}) -> s(x_{1})
We obtain no new DP problems.
R
↳DPs
→DP Problem 1
↳SCP
→DP Problem 2
↳Size-Change Principle
→DP Problem 3
↳SCP
→DP Problem 4
↳Remaining
Dependency Pair:
MIN(s(x), s(y)) -> MIN(x, y)
Rules:
-(x, 0) -> x
-(s(x), s(y)) -> -(x, y)
min(x, 0) -> 0
min(0, y) -> 0
min(s(x), s(y)) -> s(min(x, y))
twice(0) -> 0
twice(s(x)) -> s(s(twice(x)))
f(s(x), s(y)) -> f(-(y, min(x, y)), s(twice(min(x, y))))
f(s(x), s(y)) -> f(-(x, min(x, y)), s(twice(min(x, y))))
We number the DPs as follows:
- MIN(s(x), s(y)) -> MIN(x, y)
and get the following Size-Change Graph(s):
which lead(s) to this/these maximal multigraph(s):
D_{P}: empty set
Oriented Rules: none
We used the order Homeomorphic Embedding Order with Non-Strict Precedence.
trivial
with Argument Filtering System:
s(x_{1}) -> s(x_{1})
We obtain no new DP problems.
R
↳DPs
→DP Problem 1
↳SCP
→DP Problem 2
↳SCP
→DP Problem 3
↳Size-Change Principle
→DP Problem 4
↳Remaining
Dependency Pair:
TWICE(s(x)) -> TWICE(x)
Rules:
-(x, 0) -> x
-(s(x), s(y)) -> -(x, y)
min(x, 0) -> 0
min(0, y) -> 0
min(s(x), s(y)) -> s(min(x, y))
twice(0) -> 0
twice(s(x)) -> s(s(twice(x)))
f(s(x), s(y)) -> f(-(y, min(x, y)), s(twice(min(x, y))))
f(s(x), s(y)) -> f(-(x, min(x, y)), s(twice(min(x, y))))
We number the DPs as follows:
- TWICE(s(x)) -> TWICE(x)
and get the following Size-Change Graph(s):
which lead(s) to this/these maximal multigraph(s):
D_{P}: empty set
Oriented Rules: none
We used the order Homeomorphic Embedding Order with Non-Strict Precedence.
trivial
with Argument Filtering System:
s(x_{1}) -> s(x_{1})
We obtain no new DP problems.
R
↳DPs
→DP Problem 1
↳SCP
→DP Problem 2
↳SCP
→DP Problem 3
↳SCP
→DP Problem 4
↳Remaining Obligation(s)
The following remains to be proven:
Dependency Pairs:
F(s(x), s(y)) -> F(-(x, min(x, y)), s(twice(min(x, y))))
F(s(x), s(y)) -> F(-(y, min(x, y)), s(twice(min(x, y))))
Rules:
-(x, 0) -> x
-(s(x), s(y)) -> -(x, y)
min(x, 0) -> 0
min(0, y) -> 0
min(s(x), s(y)) -> s(min(x, y))
twice(0) -> 0
twice(s(x)) -> s(s(twice(x)))
f(s(x), s(y)) -> f(-(y, min(x, y)), s(twice(min(x, y))))
f(s(x), s(y)) -> f(-(x, min(x, y)), s(twice(min(x, y))))
The Proof could not be continued due to a Timeout.
Termination of R could not be shown.
Duration:
1:00 minutes