Termination proof of /tmp/tmpEIQjdf/PastaB12.jar

Termination of the given JBC could be proven:

0 JBC

↳1 JBCToGraph (⇒, 320 ms)

↳2 JBCTerminationGraph

↳3 TerminationGraphToSCCProof (⇒, 0 ms)

↳4 JBCTerminationSCC

↳5 SCCToIDPv1Proof (⇒, 80 ms)

↳6 IDP

↳7 IDPNonInfProof (⇒, 140 ms)

↳8 AND

    ↳9 IDP

        ↳10 IDependencyGraphProof (⇔, 0 ms)

        ↳11 IDP

        ↳12 IDPNonInfProof (⇒, 0 ms)

        ↳13 AND

            ↳14 IDP

                ↳15 IDependencyGraphProof (⇔, 0 ms)

                ↳16 TRUE

            ↳17 IDP

                ↳18 IDependencyGraphProof (⇔, 0 ms)

                ↳19 TRUE

    ↳20 IDP

        ↳21 IDependencyGraphProof (⇔, 0 ms)

        ↳22 TRUE

(0) Obligation:

JBC Problem based on JBC Program:
Manifest-Version: 1.0 Created-By: 1.6.0_16 (Sun Microsystems Inc.) Main-Class: PastaB12

/**
 * 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 PastaB12 {
    public static void main(String[] args) {
        Random.args = args;
        int x = Random.random();
        int y = Random.random();

        while (x > 0 || y > 0) {
            if (x > 0) {
                x--;
            } else if (y > 0) {
                y--;
            } else {
                continue;
            }
        }
    }
}


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:
PastaB12.main([Ljava/lang/String;)V: Graph of 186 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: PastaB12.main([Ljava/lang/String;)V
SCC calls the following helper methods:
Performed SCC analyses: UsedFieldsAnalysis

(5) SCCToIDPv1Proof (SOUND transformation)

Transformed FIGraph SCCs to IDPs. Log:

Generated 20 rules for P and 0 rules for R.

P rules:
297_0_main_GT(EOS(STATIC_297), matching1, i47, matching2) → 303_0_main_GT(EOS(STATIC_303), 0, i47, 0) | &&(=(matching1, 0), =(matching2, 0))
297_0_main_GT(EOS(STATIC_297), i52, i47, i52) → 304_0_main_GT(EOS(STATIC_304), i52, i47, i52)
303_0_main_GT(EOS(STATIC_303), matching1, i47, matching2) → 316_0_main_Load(EOS(STATIC_316), 0, i47) | &&(&&(<=(0, 0), =(matching1, 0)), =(matching2, 0))
316_0_main_Load(EOS(STATIC_316), matching1, i47) → 323_0_main_LE(EOS(STATIC_323), 0, i47, i47) | =(matching1, 0)
323_0_main_LE(EOS(STATIC_323), matching1, i56, i56) → 333_0_main_LE(EOS(STATIC_333), 0, i56, i56) | =(matching1, 0)
333_0_main_LE(EOS(STATIC_333), matching1, i56, i56) → 346_0_main_Load(EOS(STATIC_346), 0, i56) | &&(>(i56, 0), =(matching1, 0))
346_0_main_Load(EOS(STATIC_346), matching1, i56) → 360_0_main_LE(EOS(STATIC_360), 0, i56, 0) | =(matching1, 0)
360_0_main_LE(EOS(STATIC_360), matching1, i56, matching2) → 388_0_main_Load(EOS(STATIC_388), 0, i56) | &&(&&(<=(0, 0), =(matching1, 0)), =(matching2, 0))
388_0_main_Load(EOS(STATIC_388), matching1, i56) → 789_0_main_LE(EOS(STATIC_789), 0, i56, i56) | =(matching1, 0)
789_0_main_LE(EOS(STATIC_789), matching1, i56, i56) → 796_0_main_Inc(EOS(STATIC_796), 0, i56) | &&(>(i56, 0), =(matching1, 0))
796_0_main_Inc(EOS(STATIC_796), matching1, i56) → 802_0_main_JMP(EOS(STATIC_802), 0, +(i56, -1)) | &&(>(i56, 0), =(matching1, 0))
802_0_main_JMP(EOS(STATIC_802), matching1, i150) → 809_0_main_Load(EOS(STATIC_809), 0, i150) | =(matching1, 0)
809_0_main_Load(EOS(STATIC_809), matching1, i150) → 292_0_main_Load(EOS(STATIC_292), 0, i150) | =(matching1, 0)
292_0_main_Load(EOS(STATIC_292), i18, i47) → 297_0_main_GT(EOS(STATIC_297), i18, i47, i18)
304_0_main_GT(EOS(STATIC_304), i52, i47, i52) → 317_0_main_Load(EOS(STATIC_317), i52, i47) | >(i52, 0)
317_0_main_Load(EOS(STATIC_317), i52, i47) → 326_0_main_LE(EOS(STATIC_326), i52, i47, i52)
326_0_main_LE(EOS(STATIC_326), i52, i47, i52) → 335_0_main_Inc(EOS(STATIC_335), i52, i47) | >(i52, 0)
335_0_main_Inc(EOS(STATIC_335), i52, i47) → 348_0_main_JMP(EOS(STATIC_348), +(i52, -1), i47) | >(i52, 0)
348_0_main_JMP(EOS(STATIC_348), i58, i47) → 380_0_main_Load(EOS(STATIC_380), i58, i47)
380_0_main_Load(EOS(STATIC_380), i58, i47) → 292_0_main_Load(EOS(STATIC_292), i58, i47)
R rules:

Combined rules. Obtained 2 conditional rules for P and 0 conditional rules for R.

P rules:
297_0_main_GT(EOS(STATIC_297), 0, x1, 0) → 297_0_main_GT(EOS(STATIC_297), 0, +(x1, -1), 0) | >(x1, 0)
297_0_main_GT(EOS(STATIC_297), x0, x1, x0) → 297_0_main_GT(EOS(STATIC_297), +(x0, -1), x1, +(x0, -1)) | >(x0, 0)
R rules:

Filtered ground terms:

297_0_main_GT(x1, x2, x3, x4) → 297_0_main_GT(x2, x3, x4)
EOS(x1) → EOS
Cond_297_0_main_GT1(x1, x2, x3, x4, x5) → Cond_297_0_main_GT1(x1, x3, x4, x5)
Cond_297_0_main_GT(x1, x2, x3, x4, x5) → Cond_297_0_main_GT(x1, x4)

Filtered duplicate args:

297_0_main_GT(x1, x2, x3) → 297_0_main_GT(x2, x3)
Cond_297_0_main_GT1(x1, x2, x3, x4) → Cond_297_0_main_GT1(x1, x3, x4)

Combined rules. Obtained 2 conditional rules for P and 0 conditional rules for R.

P rules:
297_0_main_GT(x1, 0) → 297_0_main_GT(+(x1, -1), 0) | >(x1, 0)
297_0_main_GT(x1, x0) → 297_0_main_GT(x1, +(x0, -1)) | >(x0, 0)
R rules:

Finished conversion. Obtained 4 rules for P and 0 rules for R. System has predefined symbols.

P rules:
297_0_MAIN_GT(x1, 0) → COND_297_0_MAIN_GT(>(x1, 0), x1, 0)
COND_297_0_MAIN_GT(TRUE, x1, 0) → 297_0_MAIN_GT(+(x1, -1), 0)
297_0_MAIN_GT(x1, x0) → COND_297_0_MAIN_GT1(>(x0, 0), x1, x0)
COND_297_0_MAIN_GT1(TRUE, x1, x0) → 297_0_MAIN_GT(x1, +(x0, -1))
R rules:

(6) Obligation:

IDP problem:
The following function symbols are pre-defined:

!=	~	Neq: (Integer, Integer) -> Boolean
*	~	Mul: (Integer, Integer) -> Integer
>=	~	Ge: (Integer, Integer) -> Boolean
-1	~	UnaryMinus: (Integer) -> Integer
\|	~	Bwor: (Integer, Integer) -> Integer
/	~	Div: (Integer, Integer) -> Integer
=	~	Eq: (Integer, Integer) -> Boolean
	~	Bwxor: (Integer, Integer) -> Integer
\|\|	~	Lor: (Boolean, Boolean) -> Boolean
!	~	Lnot: (Boolean) -> Boolean
<	~	Lt: (Integer, Integer) -> Boolean
-	~	Sub: (Integer, Integer) -> Integer
<=	~	Le: (Integer, Integer) -> Boolean
>	~	Gt: (Integer, Integer) -> Boolean
~	~	Bwnot: (Integer) -> Integer
%	~	Mod: (Integer, Integer) -> Integer
&	~	Bwand: (Integer, Integer) -> Integer
+	~	Add: (Integer, Integer) -> Integer
&&	~	Land: (Boolean, Boolean) -> Boolean

The following domains are used:

Integer

R is empty.

The integer pair graph contains the following rules and edges:
(0): 297_0_MAIN_GT(x1[0], 0) → COND_297_0_MAIN_GT(x1[0] > 0, x1[0], 0)
(1): COND_297_0_MAIN_GT(TRUE, x1[1], 0) → 297_0_MAIN_GT(x1[1] + -1, 0)
(2): 297_0_MAIN_GT(x1[2], x0[2]) → COND_297_0_MAIN_GT1(x0[2] > 0, x1[2], x0[2])
(3): COND_297_0_MAIN_GT1(TRUE, x1[3], x0[3]) → 297_0_MAIN_GT(x1[3], x0[3] + -1)

(0) -> (1), if (x1[0] > 0 ∧x1[0] →^* x1[1])

(1) -> (0), if x1[1] + -1 →^* x1[0]

(1) -> (2), if (x1[1] + -1 →^* x1[2]∧0 →^* x0[2])

(2) -> (3), if (x0[2] > 0 ∧x1[2] →^* x1[3]∧x0[2] →^* x0[3])

(3) -> (0), if (x1[3] →^* x1[0]∧x0[3] + -1 →^* 0)

(3) -> (2), if (x1[3] →^* x1[2]∧x0[3] + -1 →^* x0[2])

The set Q is empty.

(7) IDPNonInfProof (SOUND transformation)

Used the following options for this NonInfProof:
IDPGPoloSolver: Range: [(-1,2)] IsNat: false Interpretation Shape Heuristic: aprove.DPFramework.IDPProblem.Processors.nonInf.poly.IdpCand1ShapeHeuristic@2784bc9b Constraint Generator: NonInfConstraintGenerator: PathGenerator: MetricPathGenerator: Max Left Steps: 0 Max Right Steps: 0

The constraints were generated the following way:
The DP Problem is simplified using the Induction Calculus [NONINF] with the following steps:
Note that final constraints are written in bold face.

For Pair 297_0_MAIN_GT(x1, 0) → COND_297_0_MAIN_GT(>(x1, 0), x1, 0) the following chains were created:

We consider the chain 297_0_MAIN_GT(x1[0], 0) → COND_297_0_MAIN_GT(>(x1[0], 0), x1[0], 0), COND_297_0_MAIN_GT(TRUE, x1[1], 0) → 297_0_MAIN_GT(+(x1[1], -1), 0) which results in the following constraint:
(1)    (>(x1[0], 0)=TRUE∧x1[0]=x1[1] ⇒ 297_0_MAIN_GT(x1[0], 0)≥NonInfC∧297_0_MAIN_GT(x1[0], 0)≥COND_297_0_MAIN_GT(>(x1[0], 0), x1[0], 0)∧(U^Increasing(COND_297_0_MAIN_GT(>(x1[0], 0), x1[0], 0)), ≥))

We simplified constraint (1) using rule (IV) which results in the following new constraint:
(2)    (>(x1[0], 0)=TRUE ⇒ 297_0_MAIN_GT(x1[0], 0)≥NonInfC∧297_0_MAIN_GT(x1[0], 0)≥COND_297_0_MAIN_GT(>(x1[0], 0), x1[0], 0)∧(U^Increasing(COND_297_0_MAIN_GT(>(x1[0], 0), x1[0], 0)), ≥))

We simplified constraint (2) using rule (POLY_CONSTRAINTS) which results in the following new constraint:
(3)    (x1[0] + [-1] ≥ 0 ⇒ (U^Increasing(COND_297_0_MAIN_GT(>(x1[0], 0), x1[0], 0)), ≥)∧[(-1)bni_10 + (-1)Bound*bni_10] ≥ 0∧[(-1)bso_11] ≥ 0)

We simplified constraint (3) using rule (IDP_POLY_SIMPLIFY) which results in the following new constraint:
(4)    (x1[0] + [-1] ≥ 0 ⇒ (U^Increasing(COND_297_0_MAIN_GT(>(x1[0], 0), x1[0], 0)), ≥)∧[(-1)bni_10 + (-1)Bound*bni_10] ≥ 0∧[(-1)bso_11] ≥ 0)

We simplified constraint (4) using rule (POLY_REMOVE_MIN_MAX) which results in the following new constraint:
(5)    (x1[0] + [-1] ≥ 0 ⇒ (U^Increasing(COND_297_0_MAIN_GT(>(x1[0], 0), x1[0], 0)), ≥)∧[(-1)bni_10 + (-1)Bound*bni_10] ≥ 0∧[(-1)bso_11] ≥ 0)

We simplified constraint (5) using rule (IDP_SMT_SPLIT) which results in the following new constraint:
(6)    (x1[0] ≥ 0 ⇒ (U^Increasing(COND_297_0_MAIN_GT(>(x1[0], 0), x1[0], 0)), ≥)∧[(-1)bni_10 + (-1)Bound*bni_10] ≥ 0∧[(-1)bso_11] ≥ 0)

For Pair COND_297_0_MAIN_GT(TRUE, x1, 0) → 297_0_MAIN_GT(+(x1, -1), 0) the following chains were created:

We consider the chain COND_297_0_MAIN_GT(TRUE, x1[1], 0) → 297_0_MAIN_GT(+(x1[1], -1), 0) which results in the following constraint:
(7)    (COND_297_0_MAIN_GT(TRUE, x1[1], 0)≥NonInfC∧COND_297_0_MAIN_GT(TRUE, x1[1], 0)≥297_0_MAIN_GT(+(x1[1], -1), 0)∧(U^Increasing(297_0_MAIN_GT(+(x1[1], -1), 0)), ≥))

We simplified constraint (7) using rule (POLY_CONSTRAINTS) which results in the following new constraint:
(8)    ((U^Increasing(297_0_MAIN_GT(+(x1[1], -1), 0)), ≥)∧[bni_12] = 0∧[(-1)bso_13] ≥ 0)

We simplified constraint (8) using rule (IDP_POLY_SIMPLIFY) which results in the following new constraint:
(9)    ((U^Increasing(297_0_MAIN_GT(+(x1[1], -1), 0)), ≥)∧[bni_12] = 0∧[(-1)bso_13] ≥ 0)

We simplified constraint (9) using rule (POLY_REMOVE_MIN_MAX) which results in the following new constraint:
(10)    ((U^Increasing(297_0_MAIN_GT(+(x1[1], -1), 0)), ≥)∧[bni_12] = 0∧[(-1)bso_13] ≥ 0)

We simplified constraint (10) using rule (IDP_UNRESTRICTED_VARS) which results in the following new constraint:
(11)    ((U^Increasing(297_0_MAIN_GT(+(x1[1], -1), 0)), ≥)∧[bni_12] = 0∧0 = 0∧[(-1)bso_13] ≥ 0)

For Pair 297_0_MAIN_GT(x1, x0) → COND_297_0_MAIN_GT1(>(x0, 0), x1, x0) the following chains were created:

We consider the chain 297_0_MAIN_GT(x1[2], x0[2]) → COND_297_0_MAIN_GT1(>(x0[2], 0), x1[2], x0[2]), COND_297_0_MAIN_GT1(TRUE, x1[3], x0[3]) → 297_0_MAIN_GT(x1[3], +(x0[3], -1)) which results in the following constraint:
(12)    (>(x0[2], 0)=TRUE∧x1[2]=x1[3]∧x0[2]=x0[3] ⇒ 297_0_MAIN_GT(x1[2], x0[2])≥NonInfC∧297_0_MAIN_GT(x1[2], x0[2])≥COND_297_0_MAIN_GT1(>(x0[2], 0), x1[2], x0[2])∧(U^Increasing(COND_297_0_MAIN_GT1(>(x0[2], 0), x1[2], x0[2])), ≥))

We simplified constraint (12) using rule (IV) which results in the following new constraint:
(13)    (>(x0[2], 0)=TRUE ⇒ 297_0_MAIN_GT(x1[2], x0[2])≥NonInfC∧297_0_MAIN_GT(x1[2], x0[2])≥COND_297_0_MAIN_GT1(>(x0[2], 0), x1[2], x0[2])∧(U^Increasing(COND_297_0_MAIN_GT1(>(x0[2], 0), x1[2], x0[2])), ≥))

We simplified constraint (13) using rule (POLY_CONSTRAINTS) which results in the following new constraint:
(14)    (x0[2] + [-1] ≥ 0 ⇒ (U^Increasing(COND_297_0_MAIN_GT1(>(x0[2], 0), x1[2], x0[2])), ≥)∧[(-1)bni_14 + (-1)Bound*bni_14] + [bni_14]x0[2] ≥ 0∧[(-1)bso_15] ≥ 0)

We simplified constraint (14) using rule (IDP_POLY_SIMPLIFY) which results in the following new constraint:
(15)    (x0[2] + [-1] ≥ 0 ⇒ (U^Increasing(COND_297_0_MAIN_GT1(>(x0[2], 0), x1[2], x0[2])), ≥)∧[(-1)bni_14 + (-1)Bound*bni_14] + [bni_14]x0[2] ≥ 0∧[(-1)bso_15] ≥ 0)

We simplified constraint (15) using rule (POLY_REMOVE_MIN_MAX) which results in the following new constraint:
(16)    (x0[2] + [-1] ≥ 0 ⇒ (U^Increasing(COND_297_0_MAIN_GT1(>(x0[2], 0), x1[2], x0[2])), ≥)∧[(-1)bni_14 + (-1)Bound*bni_14] + [bni_14]x0[2] ≥ 0∧[(-1)bso_15] ≥ 0)

We simplified constraint (16) using rule (IDP_UNRESTRICTED_VARS) which results in the following new constraint:
(17)    (x0[2] + [-1] ≥ 0 ⇒ (U^Increasing(COND_297_0_MAIN_GT1(>(x0[2], 0), x1[2], x0[2])), ≥)∧0 = 0∧[(-1)bni_14 + (-1)Bound*bni_14] + [bni_14]x0[2] ≥ 0∧0 = 0∧[(-1)bso_15] ≥ 0)

We simplified constraint (17) using rule (IDP_SMT_SPLIT) which results in the following new constraint:
(18)    (x0[2] ≥ 0 ⇒ (U^Increasing(COND_297_0_MAIN_GT1(>(x0[2], 0), x1[2], x0[2])), ≥)∧0 = 0∧[(-1)Bound*bni_14] + [bni_14]x0[2] ≥ 0∧0 = 0∧[(-1)bso_15] ≥ 0)

For Pair COND_297_0_MAIN_GT1(TRUE, x1, x0) → 297_0_MAIN_GT(x1, +(x0, -1)) the following chains were created:

We consider the chain COND_297_0_MAIN_GT1(TRUE, x1[3], x0[3]) → 297_0_MAIN_GT(x1[3], +(x0[3], -1)) which results in the following constraint:
(19)    (COND_297_0_MAIN_GT1(TRUE, x1[3], x0[3])≥NonInfC∧COND_297_0_MAIN_GT1(TRUE, x1[3], x0[3])≥297_0_MAIN_GT(x1[3], +(x0[3], -1))∧(U^Increasing(297_0_MAIN_GT(x1[3], +(x0[3], -1))), ≥))

We simplified constraint (19) using rule (POLY_CONSTRAINTS) which results in the following new constraint:
(20)    ((U^Increasing(297_0_MAIN_GT(x1[3], +(x0[3], -1))), ≥)∧[bni_16] = 0∧[1 + (-1)bso_17] ≥ 0)

We simplified constraint (20) using rule (IDP_POLY_SIMPLIFY) which results in the following new constraint:
(21)    ((U^Increasing(297_0_MAIN_GT(x1[3], +(x0[3], -1))), ≥)∧[bni_16] = 0∧[1 + (-1)bso_17] ≥ 0)

We simplified constraint (21) using rule (POLY_REMOVE_MIN_MAX) which results in the following new constraint:
(22)    ((U^Increasing(297_0_MAIN_GT(x1[3], +(x0[3], -1))), ≥)∧[bni_16] = 0∧[1 + (-1)bso_17] ≥ 0)

We simplified constraint (22) using rule (IDP_UNRESTRICTED_VARS) which results in the following new constraint:
(23)    ((U^Increasing(297_0_MAIN_GT(x1[3], +(x0[3], -1))), ≥)∧[bni_16] = 0∧0 = 0∧0 = 0∧[1 + (-1)bso_17] ≥ 0)

To summarize, we get the following constraints P_≥ for the following pairs.

297_0_MAIN_GT(x1, 0) → COND_297_0_MAIN_GT(>(x1, 0), x1, 0)
- (x1[0] ≥ 0 ⇒ (U^Increasing(COND_297_0_MAIN_GT(>(x1[0], 0), x1[0], 0)), ≥)∧[(-1)bni_10 + (-1)Bound*bni_10] ≥ 0∧[(-1)bso_11] ≥ 0)
COND_297_0_MAIN_GT(TRUE, x1, 0) → 297_0_MAIN_GT(+(x1, -1), 0)
- ((U^Increasing(297_0_MAIN_GT(+(x1[1], -1), 0)), ≥)∧[bni_12] = 0∧0 = 0∧[(-1)bso_13] ≥ 0)
297_0_MAIN_GT(x1, x0) → COND_297_0_MAIN_GT1(>(x0, 0), x1, x0)
- (x0[2] ≥ 0 ⇒ (U^Increasing(COND_297_0_MAIN_GT1(>(x0[2], 0), x1[2], x0[2])), ≥)∧0 = 0∧[(-1)Bound*bni_14] + [bni_14]x0[2] ≥ 0∧0 = 0∧[(-1)bso_15] ≥ 0)
COND_297_0_MAIN_GT1(TRUE, x1, x0) → 297_0_MAIN_GT(x1, +(x0, -1))
- ((U^Increasing(297_0_MAIN_GT(x1[3], +(x0[3], -1))), ≥)∧[bni_16] = 0∧0 = 0∧0 = 0∧[1 + (-1)bso_17] ≥ 0)

The constraints for P_> respective P_bound are constructed from P_≥ where we just replace every occurence of "t ≥ s" in P_≥ by "t > s" respective "t ≥ c". Here c stands for the fresh constant used for P_bound.
Using the following integer polynomial ordering the resulting constraints can be solved
Polynomial interpretation over integers[POLO]:

POL(TRUE) = 0
POL(FALSE) = 0
POL(297_0_MAIN_GT(x₁, x₂)) = [-1] + x₂
POL(0) = 0
POL(COND_297_0_MAIN_GT(x₁, x₂, x₃)) = [-1]
POL(>(x₁, x₂)) = [-1]
POL(+(x₁, x₂)) = x₁ + x₂
POL(-1) = [-1]
POL(COND_297_0_MAIN_GT1(x₁, x₂, x₃)) = [-1] + x₃

The following pairs are in P_>:

COND_297_0_MAIN_GT1(TRUE, x1[3], x0[3]) → 297_0_MAIN_GT(x1[3], +(x0[3], -1))

The following pairs are in P_bound:

297_0_MAIN_GT(x1[0], 0) → COND_297_0_MAIN_GT(>(x1[0], 0), x1[0], 0)
297_0_MAIN_GT(x1[2], x0[2]) → COND_297_0_MAIN_GT1(>(x0[2], 0), x1[2], x0[2])

The following pairs are in P_≥:

297_0_MAIN_GT(x1[0], 0) → COND_297_0_MAIN_GT(>(x1[0], 0), x1[0], 0)
COND_297_0_MAIN_GT(TRUE, x1[1], 0) → 297_0_MAIN_GT(+(x1[1], -1), 0)
297_0_MAIN_GT(x1[2], x0[2]) → COND_297_0_MAIN_GT1(>(x0[2], 0), x1[2], x0[2])

There are no usable rules.

(8) Complex Obligation (AND)

(9) Obligation:

IDP problem:
The following function symbols are pre-defined:

!=	~	Neq: (Integer, Integer) -> Boolean
*	~	Mul: (Integer, Integer) -> Integer
>=	~	Ge: (Integer, Integer) -> Boolean
-1	~	UnaryMinus: (Integer) -> Integer
\|	~	Bwor: (Integer, Integer) -> Integer
/	~	Div: (Integer, Integer) -> Integer
=	~	Eq: (Integer, Integer) -> Boolean
	~	Bwxor: (Integer, Integer) -> Integer
\|\|	~	Lor: (Boolean, Boolean) -> Boolean
!	~	Lnot: (Boolean) -> Boolean
<	~	Lt: (Integer, Integer) -> Boolean
-	~	Sub: (Integer, Integer) -> Integer
<=	~	Le: (Integer, Integer) -> Boolean
>	~	Gt: (Integer, Integer) -> Boolean
~	~	Bwnot: (Integer) -> Integer
%	~	Mod: (Integer, Integer) -> Integer
&	~	Bwand: (Integer, Integer) -> Integer
+	~	Add: (Integer, Integer) -> Integer
&&	~	Land: (Boolean, Boolean) -> Boolean

The following domains are used:

Integer

(1) -> (0), if x1[1] + -1 →^* x1[0]

(0) -> (1), if (x1[0] > 0 ∧x1[0] →^* x1[1])

(1) -> (2), if (x1[1] + -1 →^* x1[2]∧0 →^* x0[2])

The set Q is empty.

(10) IDependencyGraphProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

The approximation of the Dependency Graph [LPAR04,FROCOS05,EDGSTAR] contains 1 SCC with 1 less node.

(11) Obligation:

IDP problem:
The following function symbols are pre-defined:

!=	~	Neq: (Integer, Integer) -> Boolean
*	~	Mul: (Integer, Integer) -> Integer
>=	~	Ge: (Integer, Integer) -> Boolean
-1	~	UnaryMinus: (Integer) -> Integer
\|	~	Bwor: (Integer, Integer) -> Integer
/	~	Div: (Integer, Integer) -> Integer
=	~	Eq: (Integer, Integer) -> Boolean
	~	Bwxor: (Integer, Integer) -> Integer
\|\|	~	Lor: (Boolean, Boolean) -> Boolean
!	~	Lnot: (Boolean) -> Boolean
<	~	Lt: (Integer, Integer) -> Boolean
-	~	Sub: (Integer, Integer) -> Integer
<=	~	Le: (Integer, Integer) -> Boolean
>	~	Gt: (Integer, Integer) -> Boolean
~	~	Bwnot: (Integer) -> Integer
%	~	Mod: (Integer, Integer) -> Integer
&	~	Bwand: (Integer, Integer) -> Integer
+	~	Add: (Integer, Integer) -> Integer
&&	~	Land: (Boolean, Boolean) -> Boolean

The following domains are used:

Integer

R is empty.

The integer pair graph contains the following rules and edges:
(1): COND_297_0_MAIN_GT(TRUE, x1[1], 0) → 297_0_MAIN_GT(x1[1] + -1, 0)
(0): 297_0_MAIN_GT(x1[0], 0) → COND_297_0_MAIN_GT(x1[0] > 0, x1[0], 0)

(1) -> (0), if x1[1] + -1 →^* x1[0]

(0) -> (1), if (x1[0] > 0 ∧x1[0] →^* x1[1])

The set Q is empty.

(12) IDPNonInfProof (SOUND transformation)

Used the following options for this NonInfProof:
IDPGPoloSolver: Range: [(-1,2)] IsNat: false Interpretation Shape Heuristic: aprove.DPFramework.IDPProblem.Processors.nonInf.poly.IdpCand1ShapeHeuristic@2784bc9b Constraint Generator: NonInfConstraintGenerator: PathGenerator: MetricPathGenerator: Max Left Steps: 0 Max Right Steps: 0

The constraints were generated the following way:
The DP Problem is simplified using the Induction Calculus [NONINF] with the following steps:
Note that final constraints are written in bold face.

For Pair COND_297_0_MAIN_GT(TRUE, x1[1], 0) → 297_0_MAIN_GT(+(x1[1], -1), 0) the following chains were created:

We consider the chain COND_297_0_MAIN_GT(TRUE, x1[1], 0) → 297_0_MAIN_GT(+(x1[1], -1), 0) which results in the following constraint:
(1)    (COND_297_0_MAIN_GT(TRUE, x1[1], 0)≥NonInfC∧COND_297_0_MAIN_GT(TRUE, x1[1], 0)≥297_0_MAIN_GT(+(x1[1], -1), 0)∧(U^Increasing(297_0_MAIN_GT(+(x1[1], -1), 0)), ≥))

We simplified constraint (1) using rule (POLY_CONSTRAINTS) which results in the following new constraint:
(2)    ((U^Increasing(297_0_MAIN_GT(+(x1[1], -1), 0)), ≥)∧[bni_6] = 0∧[2 + (-1)bso_7] ≥ 0)

We simplified constraint (2) using rule (IDP_POLY_SIMPLIFY) which results in the following new constraint:
(3)    ((U^Increasing(297_0_MAIN_GT(+(x1[1], -1), 0)), ≥)∧[bni_6] = 0∧[2 + (-1)bso_7] ≥ 0)

We simplified constraint (3) using rule (POLY_REMOVE_MIN_MAX) which results in the following new constraint:
(4)    ((U^Increasing(297_0_MAIN_GT(+(x1[1], -1), 0)), ≥)∧[bni_6] = 0∧[2 + (-1)bso_7] ≥ 0)

We simplified constraint (4) using rule (IDP_UNRESTRICTED_VARS) which results in the following new constraint:
(5)    ((U^Increasing(297_0_MAIN_GT(+(x1[1], -1), 0)), ≥)∧[bni_6] = 0∧0 = 0∧[2 + (-1)bso_7] ≥ 0)

For Pair 297_0_MAIN_GT(x1[0], 0) → COND_297_0_MAIN_GT(>(x1[0], 0), x1[0], 0) the following chains were created:

We consider the chain 297_0_MAIN_GT(x1[0], 0) → COND_297_0_MAIN_GT(>(x1[0], 0), x1[0], 0), COND_297_0_MAIN_GT(TRUE, x1[1], 0) → 297_0_MAIN_GT(+(x1[1], -1), 0) which results in the following constraint:
(6)    (>(x1[0], 0)=TRUE∧x1[0]=x1[1] ⇒ 297_0_MAIN_GT(x1[0], 0)≥NonInfC∧297_0_MAIN_GT(x1[0], 0)≥COND_297_0_MAIN_GT(>(x1[0], 0), x1[0], 0)∧(U^Increasing(COND_297_0_MAIN_GT(>(x1[0], 0), x1[0], 0)), ≥))

We simplified constraint (6) using rule (IV) which results in the following new constraint:
(7)    (>(x1[0], 0)=TRUE ⇒ 297_0_MAIN_GT(x1[0], 0)≥NonInfC∧297_0_MAIN_GT(x1[0], 0)≥COND_297_0_MAIN_GT(>(x1[0], 0), x1[0], 0)∧(U^Increasing(COND_297_0_MAIN_GT(>(x1[0], 0), x1[0], 0)), ≥))

We simplified constraint (7) using rule (POLY_CONSTRAINTS) which results in the following new constraint:
(8)    (x1[0] + [-1] ≥ 0 ⇒ (U^Increasing(COND_297_0_MAIN_GT(>(x1[0], 0), x1[0], 0)), ≥)∧[(-1)bni_8 + (-1)Bound*bni_8] + [(2)bni_8]x1[0] ≥ 0∧[(-1)bso_9] ≥ 0)

We simplified constraint (8) using rule (IDP_POLY_SIMPLIFY) which results in the following new constraint:
(9)    (x1[0] + [-1] ≥ 0 ⇒ (U^Increasing(COND_297_0_MAIN_GT(>(x1[0], 0), x1[0], 0)), ≥)∧[(-1)bni_8 + (-1)Bound*bni_8] + [(2)bni_8]x1[0] ≥ 0∧[(-1)bso_9] ≥ 0)

We simplified constraint (9) using rule (POLY_REMOVE_MIN_MAX) which results in the following new constraint:
(10)    (x1[0] + [-1] ≥ 0 ⇒ (U^Increasing(COND_297_0_MAIN_GT(>(x1[0], 0), x1[0], 0)), ≥)∧[(-1)bni_8 + (-1)Bound*bni_8] + [(2)bni_8]x1[0] ≥ 0∧[(-1)bso_9] ≥ 0)

We simplified constraint (10) using rule (IDP_SMT_SPLIT) which results in the following new constraint:
(11)    (x1[0] ≥ 0 ⇒ (U^Increasing(COND_297_0_MAIN_GT(>(x1[0], 0), x1[0], 0)), ≥)∧[bni_8 + (-1)Bound*bni_8] + [(2)bni_8]x1[0] ≥ 0∧[(-1)bso_9] ≥ 0)

To summarize, we get the following constraints P_≥ for the following pairs.

COND_297_0_MAIN_GT(TRUE, x1[1], 0) → 297_0_MAIN_GT(+(x1[1], -1), 0)
- ((U^Increasing(297_0_MAIN_GT(+(x1[1], -1), 0)), ≥)∧[bni_6] = 0∧0 = 0∧[2 + (-1)bso_7] ≥ 0)
297_0_MAIN_GT(x1[0], 0) → COND_297_0_MAIN_GT(>(x1[0], 0), x1[0], 0)
- (x1[0] ≥ 0 ⇒ (U^Increasing(COND_297_0_MAIN_GT(>(x1[0], 0), x1[0], 0)), ≥)∧[bni_8 + (-1)Bound*bni_8] + [(2)bni_8]x1[0] ≥ 0∧[(-1)bso_9] ≥ 0)

POL(TRUE) = 0
POL(FALSE) = 0
POL(COND_297_0_MAIN_GT(x₁, x₂, x₃)) = [-1] + [2]x₂
POL(0) = 0
POL(297_0_MAIN_GT(x₁, x₂)) = [-1] + [2]x₁
POL(+(x₁, x₂)) = x₁ + x₂
POL(-1) = [-1]
POL(>(x₁, x₂)) = [2]

The following pairs are in P_>:

COND_297_0_MAIN_GT(TRUE, x1[1], 0) → 297_0_MAIN_GT(+(x1[1], -1), 0)

The following pairs are in P_bound:

297_0_MAIN_GT(x1[0], 0) → COND_297_0_MAIN_GT(>(x1[0], 0), x1[0], 0)

The following pairs are in P_≥:

297_0_MAIN_GT(x1[0], 0) → COND_297_0_MAIN_GT(>(x1[0], 0), x1[0], 0)

There are no usable rules.

(13) Complex Obligation (AND)

(14) Obligation:

IDP problem:
The following function symbols are pre-defined:

!=	~	Neq: (Integer, Integer) -> Boolean
*	~	Mul: (Integer, Integer) -> Integer
>=	~	Ge: (Integer, Integer) -> Boolean
-1	~	UnaryMinus: (Integer) -> Integer
\|	~	Bwor: (Integer, Integer) -> Integer
/	~	Div: (Integer, Integer) -> Integer
=	~	Eq: (Integer, Integer) -> Boolean
	~	Bwxor: (Integer, Integer) -> Integer
\|\|	~	Lor: (Boolean, Boolean) -> Boolean
!	~	Lnot: (Boolean) -> Boolean
<	~	Lt: (Integer, Integer) -> Boolean
-	~	Sub: (Integer, Integer) -> Integer
<=	~	Le: (Integer, Integer) -> Boolean
>	~	Gt: (Integer, Integer) -> Boolean
~	~	Bwnot: (Integer) -> Integer
%	~	Mod: (Integer, Integer) -> Integer
&	~	Bwand: (Integer, Integer) -> Integer
+	~	Add: (Integer, Integer) -> Integer
&&	~	Land: (Boolean, Boolean) -> Boolean

The following domains are used:

Integer

R is empty.

The integer pair graph contains the following rules and edges:
(0): 297_0_MAIN_GT(x1[0], 0) → COND_297_0_MAIN_GT(x1[0] > 0, x1[0], 0)

The set Q is empty.

(15) IDependencyGraphProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

The approximation of the Dependency Graph [LPAR04,FROCOS05,EDGSTAR] contains 0 SCCs with 1 less node.

(16) TRUE

(17) Obligation:

IDP problem:
The following function symbols are pre-defined:

!=	~	Neq: (Integer, Integer) -> Boolean
*	~	Mul: (Integer, Integer) -> Integer
>=	~	Ge: (Integer, Integer) -> Boolean
-1	~	UnaryMinus: (Integer) -> Integer
\|	~	Bwor: (Integer, Integer) -> Integer
/	~	Div: (Integer, Integer) -> Integer
=	~	Eq: (Integer, Integer) -> Boolean
	~	Bwxor: (Integer, Integer) -> Integer
\|\|	~	Lor: (Boolean, Boolean) -> Boolean
!	~	Lnot: (Boolean) -> Boolean
<	~	Lt: (Integer, Integer) -> Boolean
-	~	Sub: (Integer, Integer) -> Integer
<=	~	Le: (Integer, Integer) -> Boolean
>	~	Gt: (Integer, Integer) -> Boolean
~	~	Bwnot: (Integer) -> Integer
%	~	Mod: (Integer, Integer) -> Integer
&	~	Bwand: (Integer, Integer) -> Integer
+	~	Add: (Integer, Integer) -> Integer
&&	~	Land: (Boolean, Boolean) -> Boolean

The following domains are used:

Integer

R is empty.

The integer pair graph contains the following rules and edges:
(1): COND_297_0_MAIN_GT(TRUE, x1[1], 0) → 297_0_MAIN_GT(x1[1] + -1, 0)

The set Q is empty.

(18) IDependencyGraphProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

The approximation of the Dependency Graph [LPAR04,FROCOS05,EDGSTAR] contains 0 SCCs with 1 less node.

(19) TRUE

(20) Obligation:

IDP problem:
The following function symbols are pre-defined:

!=	~	Neq: (Integer, Integer) -> Boolean
*	~	Mul: (Integer, Integer) -> Integer
>=	~	Ge: (Integer, Integer) -> Boolean
-1	~	UnaryMinus: (Integer) -> Integer
\|	~	Bwor: (Integer, Integer) -> Integer
/	~	Div: (Integer, Integer) -> Integer
=	~	Eq: (Integer, Integer) -> Boolean
	~	Bwxor: (Integer, Integer) -> Integer
\|\|	~	Lor: (Boolean, Boolean) -> Boolean
!	~	Lnot: (Boolean) -> Boolean
<	~	Lt: (Integer, Integer) -> Boolean
-	~	Sub: (Integer, Integer) -> Integer
<=	~	Le: (Integer, Integer) -> Boolean
>	~	Gt: (Integer, Integer) -> Boolean
~	~	Bwnot: (Integer) -> Integer
%	~	Mod: (Integer, Integer) -> Integer
&	~	Bwand: (Integer, Integer) -> Integer
+	~	Add: (Integer, Integer) -> Integer
&&	~	Land: (Boolean, Boolean) -> Boolean

The following domains are used:

Integer

R is empty.

The integer pair graph contains the following rules and edges:
(1): COND_297_0_MAIN_GT(TRUE, x1[1], 0) → 297_0_MAIN_GT(x1[1] + -1, 0)
(3): COND_297_0_MAIN_GT1(TRUE, x1[3], x0[3]) → 297_0_MAIN_GT(x1[3], x0[3] + -1)

The set Q is empty.

(21) IDependencyGraphProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

The approximation of the Dependency Graph [LPAR04,FROCOS05,EDGSTAR] contains 0 SCCs with 2 less nodes.

(0) Obligation:

(1) JBCToGraph (SOUND transformation)

(2) Obligation:

(3) TerminationGraphToSCCProof (SOUND transformation)

(4) Obligation:

(5) SCCToIDPv1Proof (SOUND transformation)

(6) Obligation:

(7) IDPNonInfProof (SOUND transformation)

(8) Complex Obligation (AND)

(9) Obligation:

(10) IDependencyGraphProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

(11) Obligation:

(12) IDPNonInfProof (SOUND transformation)

(13) Complex Obligation (AND)

(14) Obligation:

(15) IDependencyGraphProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

(16) TRUE

(17) Obligation:

(18) IDependencyGraphProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

(19) TRUE

(20) Obligation:

(21) IDependencyGraphProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

(22) TRUE