Termination of the given JBC could be proven:

(0) Obligation:

JBC Problem based on JBC Program:

/**
 * Example taken from "A Term Rewriting Approach to the Automated Termination
 * Analysis of Imperative Programs" (http://www.cs.unm.edu/~spf/papers/2009-02.pdf)
 * and converted to Java.
 */

public class PastaB1 {
    public static void main(String[] args) {
        Random.args = args;
        int x = Random.random();
        int y = Random.random();

        while (x > y) {
            x--;
        }
    }
}


public class Random {
  static String[] args;
  static int index = 0;

  public static int random() {
    String string = args[index];
    index++;
    return string.length();
  }
}

(1) JBCToGraph (SOUND transformation)

Constructed TerminationGraph.

(2) Obligation:

Termination Graph based on JBC Program:
PastaB1.main([Ljava/lang/String;)V: Graph of 178 nodes with 1 SCC.

(3) TerminationGraphToSCCProof (SOUND transformation)

Splitted TerminationGraph to 1 SCCs.

(4) Obligation:

SCC of termination graph based on JBC Program.
SCC contains nodes from the following methods: PastaB1.main([Ljava/lang/String;)V
SCC calls the following helper methods:
Performed SCC analyses:

• Used field analysis yielded the following read fields:
  
• Marker field analysis yielded the following relations that could be markers:
  

(5) SCCToIntTRSProof (SOUND transformation)

Transformed FIGraph SCCs to intTRSs. Log:

Generated rules. Obtained 7 IRules

P rules:
f659_0_main_Load(EOS, i86, i51, i86) → f662_0_main_LE(EOS, i86, i51, i86, i51)
f662_0_main_LE(EOS, i86, i51, i86, i51) → f666_0_main_LE(EOS, i86, i51, i86, i51)
f666_0_main_LE(EOS, i86, i51, i86, i51) → f670_0_main_Inc(EOS, i86, i51) | >(i86, i51)
f670_0_main_Inc(EOS, i86, i51) → f674_0_main_JMP(EOS, +(i86, -1), i51)
f674_0_main_JMP(EOS, i91, i51) → f700_0_main_Load(EOS, i91, i51)
f700_0_main_Load(EOS, i91, i51) → f656_0_main_Load(EOS, i91, i51)
f656_0_main_Load(EOS, i86, i51) → f659_0_main_Load(EOS, i86, i51, i86)

Combined rules. Obtained 1 IRules

P rules:
f659_0_main_Load(EOS, x0, x1, x0) → f659_0_main_Load(EOS, -(x0, 1), x1, -(x0, 1)) | <(x1, x0)

Filtered ground terms:

f659_0_main_Load(x1, x2, x3, x4) → f659_0_main_Load(x2, x3, x4)
Cond_f659_0_main_Load(x1, x2, x3, x4, x5) → Cond_f659_0_main_Load(x1, x3, x4, x5)

Filtered duplicate terms:

f659_0_main_Load(x1, x2, x3) → f659_0_main_Load(x2, x3)
Cond_f659_0_main_Load(x1, x2, x3, x4) → Cond_f659_0_main_Load(x1, x3, x4)

Prepared 1 rules for path length conversion:

P rules:
f659_0_main_Load(x1, x0) → f659_0_main_Load(x1, -(x0, 1)) | <(x1, x0)

Finished conversion. Obtained 1 rules.

P rules:
f659_0_main_Load(x0, x1) → f659_0_main_Load(x0, -(x1, 1)) | >(x1, x0)

(6) Obligation:

Rules:
f659_0_main_Load(x0, x1) → f659_0_main_Load(x0, -(x1, 1)) | >(x1, x0)

(7) PolynomialOrderProcessor (EQUIVALENT transformation)

Found the following polynomial interpretation:

[f659_0_main_Load(x3, x5)] = -x3 + x5

Therefore the following rule(s) have been dropped:

f659_0_main_Load(x0, x1) → f659_0_main_Load(x0, -(x1, 1)) | >(x1, x0)

(8) YES