Termination of the given JBC could be proven:

(0) Obligation:

JBC Problem based on JBC Program:
Manifest-Version: 1.0 Created-By: 1.6.0_16 (Sun Microsystems Inc.) Main-Class: PastaB16

/**
 * 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 PastaB16 {
    public static void main(String[] args) {
        Random.args = args;
        int x = Random.random();
        int y = Random.random();

        while (x > 0) {
            while (y > 0) {
                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:
PastaB16.main([Ljava/lang/String;)V: Graph of 180 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: PastaB16.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 14 rules for P and 0 rules for R.

P rules:
296_0_main_LE(EOS(STATIC_296), i53, i47, i53) → 303_0_main_LE(EOS(STATIC_303), i53, i47, i53)
303_0_main_LE(EOS(STATIC_303), i53, i47, i53) → 315_0_main_Load(EOS(STATIC_315), i53, i47) | >(i53, 0)
315_0_main_Load(EOS(STATIC_315), i53, i47) → 326_0_main_LE(EOS(STATIC_326), i53, i47, i47)
326_0_main_LE(EOS(STATIC_326), i53, matching1, matching2) → 331_0_main_LE(EOS(STATIC_331), i53, 0, 0) | &&(=(matching1, 0), =(matching2, 0))
326_0_main_LE(EOS(STATIC_326), i53, i57, i57) → 332_0_main_LE(EOS(STATIC_332), i53, i57, i57)
331_0_main_LE(EOS(STATIC_331), i53, matching1, matching2) → 341_0_main_Inc(EOS(STATIC_341), i53, 0) | &&(&&(<=(0, 0), =(matching1, 0)), =(matching2, 0))
341_0_main_Inc(EOS(STATIC_341), i53, matching1) → 352_0_main_JMP(EOS(STATIC_352), +(i53, -1), 0) | &&(>(i53, 0), =(matching1, 0))
352_0_main_JMP(EOS(STATIC_352), i61, matching1) → 382_0_main_Load(EOS(STATIC_382), i61, 0) | =(matching1, 0)
382_0_main_Load(EOS(STATIC_382), i61, matching1) → 293_0_main_Load(EOS(STATIC_293), i61, 0) | =(matching1, 0)
293_0_main_Load(EOS(STATIC_293), i18, i47) → 296_0_main_LE(EOS(STATIC_296), i18, i47, i18)
332_0_main_LE(EOS(STATIC_332), i53, i57, i57) → 343_0_main_Inc(EOS(STATIC_343), i53, i57) | >(i57, 0)
343_0_main_Inc(EOS(STATIC_343), i53, i57) → 354_0_main_JMP(EOS(STATIC_354), i53, +(i57, -1)) | >(i57, 0)
354_0_main_JMP(EOS(STATIC_354), i53, i62) → 387_0_main_Load(EOS(STATIC_387), i53, i62)
387_0_main_Load(EOS(STATIC_387), i53, i62) → 315_0_main_Load(EOS(STATIC_315), i53, i62)
R rules:

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

P rules:
326_0_main_LE(EOS(STATIC_326), x0, 0, 0) → 326_0_main_LE(EOS(STATIC_326), +(x0, -1), 0, 0) | >(x0, 1)
326_0_main_LE(EOS(STATIC_326), x0, x1, x1) → 326_0_main_LE(EOS(STATIC_326), x0, +(x1, -1), +(x1, -1)) | >(x1, 0)
R rules:

Filtered ground terms:

326_0_main_LE(x1, x2, x3, x4) → 326_0_main_LE(x2, x3, x4)
EOS(x1) → EOS
Cond_326_0_main_LE1(x1, x2, x3, x4, x5) → Cond_326_0_main_LE1(x1, x3, x4, x5)
Cond_326_0_main_LE(x1, x2, x3, x4, x5) → Cond_326_0_main_LE(x1, x3)

Filtered duplicate args:

326_0_main_LE(x1, x2, x3) → 326_0_main_LE(x1, x3)
Cond_326_0_main_LE1(x1, x2, x3, x4) → Cond_326_0_main_LE1(x1, x2, x4)

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

P rules:
326_0_main_LE(x0, 0) → 326_0_main_LE(+(x0, -1), 0) | >(x0, 1)
326_0_main_LE(x0, x1) → 326_0_main_LE(x0, +(x1, -1)) | >(x1, 0)
R rules:

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

P rules:
326_0_MAIN_LE(x0, 0) → COND_326_0_MAIN_LE(>(x0, 1), x0, 0)
COND_326_0_MAIN_LE(TRUE, x0, 0) → 326_0_MAIN_LE(+(x0, -1), 0)
326_0_MAIN_LE(x0, x1) → COND_326_0_MAIN_LE1(>(x1, 0), x0, x1)
COND_326_0_MAIN_LE1(TRUE, x0, x1) → 326_0_MAIN_LE(x0, +(x1, -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): 326_0_MAIN_LE(x0[0], 0) → COND_326_0_MAIN_LE(x0[0] > 1, x0[0], 0)
(1): COND_326_0_MAIN_LE(TRUE, x0[1], 0) → 326_0_MAIN_LE(x0[1] + -1, 0)
(2): 326_0_MAIN_LE(x0[2], x1[2]) → COND_326_0_MAIN_LE1(x1[2] > 0, x0[2], x1[2])
(3): COND_326_0_MAIN_LE1(TRUE, x0[3], x1[3]) → 326_0_MAIN_LE(x0[3], x1[3] + -1)

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

(1) -> (0), if x0[1] + -1 →^* x0[0]

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

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

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

(3) -> (2), if (x0[3] →^* x0[2]∧x1[3] + -1 →^* x1[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@6302d3de 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 326_0_MAIN_LE(x0, 0) → COND_326_0_MAIN_LE(>(x0, 1), x0, 0) the following chains were created:

• We consider the chain 326_0_MAIN_LE(x0[0], 0) → COND_326_0_MAIN_LE(>(x0[0], 1), x0[0], 0), COND_326_0_MAIN_LE(TRUE, x0[1], 0) → 326_0_MAIN_LE(+(x0[1], -1), 0) which results in the following constraint:
  

  (1)    (>(x0[0], 1)=TRUE∧x0[0]=x0[1] ⇒ 326_0_MAIN_LE(x0[0], 0)≥NonInfC∧326_0_MAIN_LE(x0[0], 0)≥COND_326_0_MAIN_LE(>(x0[0], 1), x0[0], 0)∧(U^Increasing(COND_326_0_MAIN_LE(>(x0[0], 1), x0[0], 0)), ≥))

  
  
  We simplified constraint (1) using rule (IV) which results in the following new constraint:
  

  (2)    (>(x0[0], 1)=TRUE ⇒ 326_0_MAIN_LE(x0[0], 0)≥NonInfC∧326_0_MAIN_LE(x0[0], 0)≥COND_326_0_MAIN_LE(>(x0[0], 1), x0[0], 0)∧(U^Increasing(COND_326_0_MAIN_LE(>(x0[0], 1), x0[0], 0)), ≥))

  
  
  We simplified constraint (2) using rule (POLY_CONSTRAINTS) which results in the following new constraint:
  

  (3)    (x0[0] + [-2] ≥ 0 ⇒ (U^Increasing(COND_326_0_MAIN_LE(>(x0[0], 1), x0[0], 0)), ≥)∧[bni_10 + (-1)Bound*bni_10] + [bni_10]x0[0] ≥ 0∧[(-1)bso_11] ≥ 0)

  
  
  We simplified constraint (3) using rule (IDP_POLY_SIMPLIFY) which results in the following new constraint:
  

  (4)    (x0[0] + [-2] ≥ 0 ⇒ (U^Increasing(COND_326_0_MAIN_LE(>(x0[0], 1), x0[0], 0)), ≥)∧[bni_10 + (-1)Bound*bni_10] + [bni_10]x0[0] ≥ 0∧[(-1)bso_11] ≥ 0)

  
  
  We simplified constraint (4) using rule (POLY_REMOVE_MIN_MAX) which results in the following new constraint:
  

  (5)    (x0[0] + [-2] ≥ 0 ⇒ (U^Increasing(COND_326_0_MAIN_LE(>(x0[0], 1), x0[0], 0)), ≥)∧[bni_10 + (-1)Bound*bni_10] + [bni_10]x0[0] ≥ 0∧[(-1)bso_11] ≥ 0)

  
  
  We simplified constraint (5) using rule (IDP_SMT_SPLIT) which results in the following new constraint:
  

  (6)    (x0[0] ≥ 0 ⇒ (U^Increasing(COND_326_0_MAIN_LE(>(x0[0], 1), x0[0], 0)), ≥)∧[(3)bni_10 + (-1)Bound*bni_10] + [bni_10]x0[0] ≥ 0∧[(-1)bso_11] ≥ 0)

  
  
  

For Pair COND_326_0_MAIN_LE(TRUE, x0, 0) → 326_0_MAIN_LE(+(x0, -1), 0) the following chains were created:

• We consider the chain COND_326_0_MAIN_LE(TRUE, x0[1], 0) → 326_0_MAIN_LE(+(x0[1], -1), 0) which results in the following constraint:
  

  (7)    (COND_326_0_MAIN_LE(TRUE, x0[1], 0)≥NonInfC∧COND_326_0_MAIN_LE(TRUE, x0[1], 0)≥326_0_MAIN_LE(+(x0[1], -1), 0)∧(U^Increasing(326_0_MAIN_LE(+(x0[1], -1), 0)), ≥))

  
  
  We simplified constraint (7) using rule (POLY_CONSTRAINTS) which results in the following new constraint:
  

  (8)    ((U^Increasing(326_0_MAIN_LE(+(x0[1], -1), 0)), ≥)∧[bni_12] = 0∧[1 + (-1)bso_13] ≥ 0)

  
  
  We simplified constraint (8) using rule (IDP_POLY_SIMPLIFY) which results in the following new constraint:
  

  (9)    ((U^Increasing(326_0_MAIN_LE(+(x0[1], -1), 0)), ≥)∧[bni_12] = 0∧[1 + (-1)bso_13] ≥ 0)

  
  
  We simplified constraint (9) using rule (POLY_REMOVE_MIN_MAX) which results in the following new constraint:
  

  (10)    ((U^Increasing(326_0_MAIN_LE(+(x0[1], -1), 0)), ≥)∧[bni_12] = 0∧[1 + (-1)bso_13] ≥ 0)

  
  
  We simplified constraint (10) using rule (IDP_UNRESTRICTED_VARS) which results in the following new constraint:
  

  (11)    ((U^Increasing(326_0_MAIN_LE(+(x0[1], -1), 0)), ≥)∧[bni_12] = 0∧0 = 0∧[1 + (-1)bso_13] ≥ 0)

  
  
  

For Pair 326_0_MAIN_LE(x0, x1) → COND_326_0_MAIN_LE1(>(x1, 0), x0, x1) the following chains were created:

• We consider the chain 326_0_MAIN_LE(x0[2], x1[2]) → COND_326_0_MAIN_LE1(>(x1[2], 0), x0[2], x1[2]), COND_326_0_MAIN_LE1(TRUE, x0[3], x1[3]) → 326_0_MAIN_LE(x0[3], +(x1[3], -1)) which results in the following constraint:
  

  (12)    (>(x1[2], 0)=TRUE∧x0[2]=x0[3]∧x1[2]=x1[3] ⇒ 326_0_MAIN_LE(x0[2], x1[2])≥NonInfC∧326_0_MAIN_LE(x0[2], x1[2])≥COND_326_0_MAIN_LE1(>(x1[2], 0), x0[2], x1[2])∧(U^Increasing(COND_326_0_MAIN_LE1(>(x1[2], 0), x0[2], x1[2])), ≥))

  
  
  We simplified constraint (12) using rule (IV) which results in the following new constraint:
  

  (13)    (>(x1[2], 0)=TRUE ⇒ 326_0_MAIN_LE(x0[2], x1[2])≥NonInfC∧326_0_MAIN_LE(x0[2], x1[2])≥COND_326_0_MAIN_LE1(>(x1[2], 0), x0[2], x1[2])∧(U^Increasing(COND_326_0_MAIN_LE1(>(x1[2], 0), x0[2], x1[2])), ≥))

  
  
  We simplified constraint (13) using rule (POLY_CONSTRAINTS) which results in the following new constraint:
  

  (14)    (x1[2] + [-1] ≥ 0 ⇒ (U^Increasing(COND_326_0_MAIN_LE1(>(x1[2], 0), x0[2], x1[2])), ≥)∧[bni_14 + (-1)Bound*bni_14] + [bni_14]x1[2] + [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)    (x1[2] + [-1] ≥ 0 ⇒ (U^Increasing(COND_326_0_MAIN_LE1(>(x1[2], 0), x0[2], x1[2])), ≥)∧[bni_14 + (-1)Bound*bni_14] + [bni_14]x1[2] + [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)    (x1[2] + [-1] ≥ 0 ⇒ (U^Increasing(COND_326_0_MAIN_LE1(>(x1[2], 0), x0[2], x1[2])), ≥)∧[bni_14 + (-1)Bound*bni_14] + [bni_14]x1[2] + [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)    (x1[2] + [-1] ≥ 0 ⇒ (U^Increasing(COND_326_0_MAIN_LE1(>(x1[2], 0), x0[2], x1[2])), ≥)∧[bni_14] = 0∧[bni_14 + (-1)Bound*bni_14] + [bni_14]x1[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)    (x1[2] ≥ 0 ⇒ (U^Increasing(COND_326_0_MAIN_LE1(>(x1[2], 0), x0[2], x1[2])), ≥)∧[bni_14] = 0∧[(2)bni_14 + (-1)Bound*bni_14] + [bni_14]x1[2] ≥ 0∧0 = 0∧[(-1)bso_15] ≥ 0)

  
  
  

For Pair COND_326_0_MAIN_LE1(TRUE, x0, x1) → 326_0_MAIN_LE(x0, +(x1, -1)) the following chains were created:

• We consider the chain COND_326_0_MAIN_LE1(TRUE, x0[3], x1[3]) → 326_0_MAIN_LE(x0[3], +(x1[3], -1)) which results in the following constraint:
  

  (19)    (COND_326_0_MAIN_LE1(TRUE, x0[3], x1[3])≥NonInfC∧COND_326_0_MAIN_LE1(TRUE, x0[3], x1[3])≥326_0_MAIN_LE(x0[3], +(x1[3], -1))∧(U^Increasing(326_0_MAIN_LE(x0[3], +(x1[3], -1))), ≥))

  
  
  We simplified constraint (19) using rule (POLY_CONSTRAINTS) which results in the following new constraint:
  

  (20)    ((U^Increasing(326_0_MAIN_LE(x0[3], +(x1[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(326_0_MAIN_LE(x0[3], +(x1[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(326_0_MAIN_LE(x0[3], +(x1[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(326_0_MAIN_LE(x0[3], +(x1[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.

• 326_0_MAIN_LE(x0, 0) → COND_326_0_MAIN_LE(>(x0, 1), x0, 0)
  
  • (x0[0] ≥ 0 ⇒ (U^Increasing(COND_326_0_MAIN_LE(>(x0[0], 1), x0[0], 0)), ≥)∧[(3)bni_10 + (-1)Bound*bni_10] + [bni_10]x0[0] ≥ 0∧[(-1)bso_11] ≥ 0)
    
  
  
• COND_326_0_MAIN_LE(TRUE, x0, 0) → 326_0_MAIN_LE(+(x0, -1), 0)
  
  • ((U^Increasing(326_0_MAIN_LE(+(x0[1], -1), 0)), ≥)∧[bni_12] = 0∧0 = 0∧[1 + (-1)bso_13] ≥ 0)
    
  
  
• 326_0_MAIN_LE(x0, x1) → COND_326_0_MAIN_LE1(>(x1, 0), x0, x1)
  
  • (x1[2] ≥ 0 ⇒ (U^Increasing(COND_326_0_MAIN_LE1(>(x1[2], 0), x0[2], x1[2])), ≥)∧[bni_14] = 0∧[(2)bni_14 + (-1)Bound*bni_14] + [bni_14]x1[2] ≥ 0∧0 = 0∧[(-1)bso_15] ≥ 0)
    
  
  
• COND_326_0_MAIN_LE1(TRUE, x0, x1) → 326_0_MAIN_LE(x0, +(x1, -1))
  
  • ((U^Increasing(326_0_MAIN_LE(x0[3], +(x1[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(326_0_MAIN_LE(x₁, x₂)) = [1] + x₂ + x₁   
POL(0) = 0   
POL(COND_326_0_MAIN_LE(x₁, x₂, x₃)) = [1] + x₂   
POL(>(x₁, x₂)) = [-1]   
POL(1) = [1]   
POL(+(x₁, x₂)) = x₁ + x₂   
POL(-1) = [-1]   
POL(COND_326_0_MAIN_LE1(x₁, x₂, x₃)) = [1] + x₃ + x₂   

The following pairs are in P_>:

COND_326_0_MAIN_LE(TRUE, x0[1], 0) → 326_0_MAIN_LE(+(x0[1], -1), 0)
COND_326_0_MAIN_LE1(TRUE, x0[3], x1[3]) → 326_0_MAIN_LE(x0[3], +(x1[3], -1))

The following pairs are in P_bound:

326_0_MAIN_LE(x0[0], 0) → COND_326_0_MAIN_LE(>(x0[0], 1), x0[0], 0)

The following pairs are in P_≥:

326_0_MAIN_LE(x0[0], 0) → COND_326_0_MAIN_LE(>(x0[0], 1), x0[0], 0)
326_0_MAIN_LE(x0[2], x1[2]) → COND_326_0_MAIN_LE1(>(x1[2], 0), x0[2], x1[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

R is empty.

The integer pair graph contains the following rules and edges:
(0): 326_0_MAIN_LE(x0[0], 0) → COND_326_0_MAIN_LE(x0[0] > 1, x0[0], 0)
(2): 326_0_MAIN_LE(x0[2], x1[2]) → COND_326_0_MAIN_LE1(x1[2] > 0, x0[2], x1[2])


The set Q is empty.

(10) IDependencyGraphProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

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

(11) TRUE

(12) 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_326_0_MAIN_LE(TRUE, x0[1], 0) → 326_0_MAIN_LE(x0[1] + -1, 0)
(2): 326_0_MAIN_LE(x0[2], x1[2]) → COND_326_0_MAIN_LE1(x1[2] > 0, x0[2], x1[2])
(3): COND_326_0_MAIN_LE1(TRUE, x0[3], x1[3]) → 326_0_MAIN_LE(x0[3], x1[3] + -1)

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

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

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

The set Q is empty.

(13) IDependencyGraphProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

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

(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:
(3): COND_326_0_MAIN_LE1(TRUE, x0[3], x1[3]) → 326_0_MAIN_LE(x0[3], x1[3] + -1)
(2): 326_0_MAIN_LE(x0[2], x1[2]) → COND_326_0_MAIN_LE1(x1[2] > 0, x0[2], x1[2])

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

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

The set Q is empty.

(15) 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@6302d3de 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_326_0_MAIN_LE1(TRUE, x0[3], x1[3]) → 326_0_MAIN_LE(x0[3], +(x1[3], -1)) the following chains were created:

• We consider the chain COND_326_0_MAIN_LE1(TRUE, x0[3], x1[3]) → 326_0_MAIN_LE(x0[3], +(x1[3], -1)) which results in the following constraint:
  

  (1)    (COND_326_0_MAIN_LE1(TRUE, x0[3], x1[3])≥NonInfC∧COND_326_0_MAIN_LE1(TRUE, x0[3], x1[3])≥326_0_MAIN_LE(x0[3], +(x1[3], -1))∧(U^Increasing(326_0_MAIN_LE(x0[3], +(x1[3], -1))), ≥))

  
  
  We simplified constraint (1) using rule (POLY_CONSTRAINTS) which results in the following new constraint:
  

  (2)    ((U^Increasing(326_0_MAIN_LE(x0[3], +(x1[3], -1))), ≥)∧[bni_7] = 0∧[(-1)bso_8] ≥ 0)

  
  
  We simplified constraint (2) using rule (IDP_POLY_SIMPLIFY) which results in the following new constraint:
  

  (3)    ((U^Increasing(326_0_MAIN_LE(x0[3], +(x1[3], -1))), ≥)∧[bni_7] = 0∧[(-1)bso_8] ≥ 0)

  
  
  We simplified constraint (3) using rule (POLY_REMOVE_MIN_MAX) which results in the following new constraint:
  

  (4)    ((U^Increasing(326_0_MAIN_LE(x0[3], +(x1[3], -1))), ≥)∧[bni_7] = 0∧[(-1)bso_8] ≥ 0)

  
  
  We simplified constraint (4) using rule (IDP_UNRESTRICTED_VARS) which results in the following new constraint:
  

  (5)    ((U^Increasing(326_0_MAIN_LE(x0[3], +(x1[3], -1))), ≥)∧[bni_7] = 0∧0 = 0∧[(-1)bso_8] ≥ 0)

  
  
  

For Pair 326_0_MAIN_LE(x0[2], x1[2]) → COND_326_0_MAIN_LE1(>(x1[2], 0), x0[2], x1[2]) the following chains were created:

• We consider the chain 326_0_MAIN_LE(x0[2], x1[2]) → COND_326_0_MAIN_LE1(>(x1[2], 0), x0[2], x1[2]), COND_326_0_MAIN_LE1(TRUE, x0[3], x1[3]) → 326_0_MAIN_LE(x0[3], +(x1[3], -1)) which results in the following constraint:
  

  (6)    (>(x1[2], 0)=TRUE∧x0[2]=x0[3]∧x1[2]=x1[3] ⇒ 326_0_MAIN_LE(x0[2], x1[2])≥NonInfC∧326_0_MAIN_LE(x0[2], x1[2])≥COND_326_0_MAIN_LE1(>(x1[2], 0), x0[2], x1[2])∧(U^Increasing(COND_326_0_MAIN_LE1(>(x1[2], 0), x0[2], x1[2])), ≥))

  
  
  We simplified constraint (6) using rule (IV) which results in the following new constraint:
  

  (7)    (>(x1[2], 0)=TRUE ⇒ 326_0_MAIN_LE(x0[2], x1[2])≥NonInfC∧326_0_MAIN_LE(x0[2], x1[2])≥COND_326_0_MAIN_LE1(>(x1[2], 0), x0[2], x1[2])∧(U^Increasing(COND_326_0_MAIN_LE1(>(x1[2], 0), x0[2], x1[2])), ≥))

  
  
  We simplified constraint (7) using rule (POLY_CONSTRAINTS) which results in the following new constraint:
  

  (8)    (x1[2] + [-1] ≥ 0 ⇒ (U^Increasing(COND_326_0_MAIN_LE1(>(x1[2], 0), x0[2], x1[2])), ≥)∧[bni_9 + (-1)Bound*bni_9] + [(2)bni_9]x1[2] ≥ 0∧[2 + (-1)bso_10] ≥ 0)

  
  
  We simplified constraint (8) using rule (IDP_POLY_SIMPLIFY) which results in the following new constraint:
  

  (9)    (x1[2] + [-1] ≥ 0 ⇒ (U^Increasing(COND_326_0_MAIN_LE1(>(x1[2], 0), x0[2], x1[2])), ≥)∧[bni_9 + (-1)Bound*bni_9] + [(2)bni_9]x1[2] ≥ 0∧[2 + (-1)bso_10] ≥ 0)

  
  
  We simplified constraint (9) using rule (POLY_REMOVE_MIN_MAX) which results in the following new constraint:
  

  (10)    (x1[2] + [-1] ≥ 0 ⇒ (U^Increasing(COND_326_0_MAIN_LE1(>(x1[2], 0), x0[2], x1[2])), ≥)∧[bni_9 + (-1)Bound*bni_9] + [(2)bni_9]x1[2] ≥ 0∧[2 + (-1)bso_10] ≥ 0)

  
  
  We simplified constraint (10) using rule (IDP_SMT_SPLIT) which results in the following new constraint:
  

  (11)    (x1[2] ≥ 0 ⇒ (U^Increasing(COND_326_0_MAIN_LE1(>(x1[2], 0), x0[2], x1[2])), ≥)∧[(3)bni_9 + (-1)Bound*bni_9] + [(2)bni_9]x1[2] ≥ 0∧[2 + (-1)bso_10] ≥ 0)

  
  
  

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

• COND_326_0_MAIN_LE1(TRUE, x0[3], x1[3]) → 326_0_MAIN_LE(x0[3], +(x1[3], -1))
  
  • ((U^Increasing(326_0_MAIN_LE(x0[3], +(x1[3], -1))), ≥)∧[bni_7] = 0∧0 = 0∧[(-1)bso_8] ≥ 0)
    
  
  
• 326_0_MAIN_LE(x0[2], x1[2]) → COND_326_0_MAIN_LE1(>(x1[2], 0), x0[2], x1[2])
  
  • (x1[2] ≥ 0 ⇒ (U^Increasing(COND_326_0_MAIN_LE1(>(x1[2], 0), x0[2], x1[2])), ≥)∧[(3)bni_9 + (-1)Bound*bni_9] + [(2)bni_9]x1[2] ≥ 0∧[2 + (-1)bso_10] ≥ 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(COND_326_0_MAIN_LE1(x₁, x₂, x₃)) = [-1] + [2]x₃   
POL(326_0_MAIN_LE(x₁, x₂)) = [1] + [2]x₂   
POL(+(x₁, x₂)) = x₁ + x₂   
POL(-1) = [-1]   
POL(>(x₁, x₂)) = [-1]   
POL(0) = 0   

The following pairs are in P_>:

326_0_MAIN_LE(x0[2], x1[2]) → COND_326_0_MAIN_LE1(>(x1[2], 0), x0[2], x1[2])

The following pairs are in P_bound:

326_0_MAIN_LE(x0[2], x1[2]) → COND_326_0_MAIN_LE1(>(x1[2], 0), x0[2], x1[2])

The following pairs are in P_≥:

COND_326_0_MAIN_LE1(TRUE, x0[3], x1[3]) → 326_0_MAIN_LE(x0[3], +(x1[3], -1))

There are no usable rules.

(16) 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:
(3): COND_326_0_MAIN_LE1(TRUE, x0[3], x1[3]) → 326_0_MAIN_LE(x0[3], x1[3] + -1)


The set Q is empty.

(17) IDependencyGraphProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

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

(18) TRUE