Termination of the given JBC could be proven:

0 JBC
↳1 JBC2FIG (⇐)
↳2 FIGraph
↳3 FIGtoITRSProof (⇐)
↳4 ITRS
↳5 ITRStoIDPProof (⇔)
↳6 IDP
↳7 UsableRulesProof (⇔)
↳8 IDP
↳9 IDPNonInfProof (⇐)
↳10 AND
    ↳11 IDP
        ↳12 IDependencyGraphProof (⇔)
        ↳13 TRUE
    ↳14 IDP
        ↳15 IDependencyGraphProof (⇔)
        ↳16 TRUE

(0) Obligation:

JBC Problem based on JBC Program:
Manifest-Version: 1.0 Created-By: 1.6.0_16 (Sun Microsystems Inc.) Main-Class: PastaA5 
/**
 * 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 PastaA5 {
    public static void main(String[] args) {
        Random.args = args;
        int x = Random.random();
        int y = Random.random();

        while (x >= y + 1) {
            y++;
        }
    }
}


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

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


(1) JBC2FIG (SOUND transformation)

Constructed FIGraph.

(2) Obligation:

FIGraph based on JBC Program:
Graph of 186 nodes with 1 SCC.

(3) FIGtoITRSProof (SOUND transformation)

Transformed FIGraph to ITRS rules

(4) Obligation:

ITRS 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 TRS R consists of the following rules:
Load622(i11, i29) → Cond_Load622(i11 >= i29 + 1, i11, i29)
Cond_Load622(TRUE, i11, i29) → Load622(i11, i29 + 1)
The set Q consists of the following terms:
Load622(x0, x1)
Cond_Load622(TRUE, x0, x1)

(5) ITRStoIDPProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

Added dependency pairs

(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


The ITRS R consists of the following rules:
Load622(i11, i29) → Cond_Load622(i11 >= i29 + 1, i11, i29)
Cond_Load622(TRUE, i11, i29) → Load622(i11, i29 + 1)

The integer pair graph contains the following rules and edges:
(0): LOAD622(i11[0], i29[0]) → COND_LOAD622(i11[0] >= i29[0] + 1, i11[0], i29[0])
(1): COND_LOAD622(TRUE, i11[1], i29[1]) → LOAD622(i11[1], i29[1] + 1)

(0) -> (1), if ((i11[0] →* i11[1])∧(i29[0] →* i29[1])∧(i11[0] >= i29[0] + 1 →* TRUE))


(1) -> (0), if ((i29[1] + 1 →* i29[0])∧(i11[1] →* i11[0]))



The set Q consists of the following terms:
Load622(x0, x1)
Cond_Load622(TRUE, x0, x1)

(7) UsableRulesProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

As all Q-normal forms are R-normal forms we are in the innermost case. Hence, by the usable rules processor [LPAR04] we can delete all non-usable rules [FROCOS05] from R.

(8) 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): LOAD622(i11[0], i29[0]) → COND_LOAD622(i11[0] >= i29[0] + 1, i11[0], i29[0])
(1): COND_LOAD622(TRUE, i11[1], i29[1]) → LOAD622(i11[1], i29[1] + 1)

(0) -> (1), if ((i11[0] →* i11[1])∧(i29[0] →* i29[1])∧(i11[0] >= i29[0] + 1 →* TRUE))


(1) -> (0), if ((i29[1] + 1 →* i29[0])∧(i11[1] →* i11[0]))



The set Q consists of the following terms:
Load622(x0, x1)
Cond_Load622(TRUE, x0, x1)

(9) IDPNonInfProof (SOUND transformation)

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 LOAD622(i11, i29) → COND_LOAD622(>=(i11, +(i29, 1)), i11, i29) the following chains were created:
  • We consider the chain LOAD622(i11[0], i29[0]) → COND_LOAD622(>=(i11[0], +(i29[0], 1)), i11[0], i29[0]), COND_LOAD622(TRUE, i11[1], i29[1]) → LOAD622(i11[1], +(i29[1], 1)) which results in the following constraint:

    (1)    (i11[0]=i11[1]∧i29[0]=i29[1]∧>=(i11[0], +(i29[0], 1))=TRUE ⇒ LOAD622(i11[0], i29[0])≥NonInfC∧LOAD622(i11[0], i29[0])≥COND_LOAD622(>=(i11[0], +(i29[0], 1)), i11[0], i29[0])∧(UIncreasing(COND_LOAD622(>=(i11[0], +(i29[0], 1)), i11[0], i29[0])), ≥))



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

    (2)    (>=(i11[0], +(i29[0], 1))=TRUE ⇒ LOAD622(i11[0], i29[0])≥NonInfC∧LOAD622(i11[0], i29[0])≥COND_LOAD622(>=(i11[0], +(i29[0], 1)), i11[0], i29[0])∧(UIncreasing(COND_LOAD622(>=(i11[0], +(i29[0], 1)), i11[0], i29[0])), ≥))



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

    (3)    (i11[0] + [-1] + [-1]i29[0] ≥ 0 ⇒ (UIncreasing(COND_LOAD622(>=(i11[0], +(i29[0], 1)), i11[0], i29[0])), ≥)∧[(-1)bni_8 + (-1)Bound*bni_8] + [(-1)bni_8]i29[0] + [bni_8]i11[0] ≥ 0∧[(-1)bso_9] ≥ 0)



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

    (4)    (i11[0] + [-1] + [-1]i29[0] ≥ 0 ⇒ (UIncreasing(COND_LOAD622(>=(i11[0], +(i29[0], 1)), i11[0], i29[0])), ≥)∧[(-1)bni_8 + (-1)Bound*bni_8] + [(-1)bni_8]i29[0] + [bni_8]i11[0] ≥ 0∧[(-1)bso_9] ≥ 0)



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

    (5)    (i11[0] + [-1] + [-1]i29[0] ≥ 0 ⇒ (UIncreasing(COND_LOAD622(>=(i11[0], +(i29[0], 1)), i11[0], i29[0])), ≥)∧[(-1)bni_8 + (-1)Bound*bni_8] + [(-1)bni_8]i29[0] + [bni_8]i11[0] ≥ 0∧[(-1)bso_9] ≥ 0)



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

    (6)    (i11[0] ≥ 0 ⇒ (UIncreasing(COND_LOAD622(>=(i11[0], +(i29[0], 1)), i11[0], i29[0])), ≥)∧[(-1)Bound*bni_8] + [bni_8]i11[0] ≥ 0∧[(-1)bso_9] ≥ 0)



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

    (7)    (i11[0] ≥ 0∧i29[0] ≥ 0 ⇒ (UIncreasing(COND_LOAD622(>=(i11[0], +(i29[0], 1)), i11[0], i29[0])), ≥)∧[(-1)Bound*bni_8] + [bni_8]i11[0] ≥ 0∧[(-1)bso_9] ≥ 0)


    (8)    (i11[0] ≥ 0∧i29[0] ≥ 0 ⇒ (UIncreasing(COND_LOAD622(>=(i11[0], +(i29[0], 1)), i11[0], i29[0])), ≥)∧[(-1)Bound*bni_8] + [bni_8]i11[0] ≥ 0∧[(-1)bso_9] ≥ 0)







For Pair COND_LOAD622(TRUE, i11, i29) → LOAD622(i11, +(i29, 1)) the following chains were created:
  • We consider the chain COND_LOAD622(TRUE, i11[1], i29[1]) → LOAD622(i11[1], +(i29[1], 1)) which results in the following constraint:

    (9)    (COND_LOAD622(TRUE, i11[1], i29[1])≥NonInfC∧COND_LOAD622(TRUE, i11[1], i29[1])≥LOAD622(i11[1], +(i29[1], 1))∧(UIncreasing(LOAD622(i11[1], +(i29[1], 1))), ≥))



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

    (10)    ((UIncreasing(LOAD622(i11[1], +(i29[1], 1))), ≥)∧[1 + (-1)bso_11] ≥ 0)



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

    (11)    ((UIncreasing(LOAD622(i11[1], +(i29[1], 1))), ≥)∧[1 + (-1)bso_11] ≥ 0)



    We simplified constraint (11) using rule (POLY_REMOVE_MIN_MAX) which results in the following new constraint:

    (12)    ((UIncreasing(LOAD622(i11[1], +(i29[1], 1))), ≥)∧[1 + (-1)bso_11] ≥ 0)



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

    (13)    ((UIncreasing(LOAD622(i11[1], +(i29[1], 1))), ≥)∧0 = 0∧0 = 0∧[1 + (-1)bso_11] ≥ 0)







To summarize, we get the following constraints P≥ for the following pairs.
  • LOAD622(i11, i29) → COND_LOAD622(>=(i11, +(i29, 1)), i11, i29)
    • (i11[0] ≥ 0∧i29[0] ≥ 0 ⇒ (UIncreasing(COND_LOAD622(>=(i11[0], +(i29[0], 1)), i11[0], i29[0])), ≥)∧[(-1)Bound*bni_8] + [bni_8]i11[0] ≥ 0∧[(-1)bso_9] ≥ 0)
    • (i11[0] ≥ 0∧i29[0] ≥ 0 ⇒ (UIncreasing(COND_LOAD622(>=(i11[0], +(i29[0], 1)), i11[0], i29[0])), ≥)∧[(-1)Bound*bni_8] + [bni_8]i11[0] ≥ 0∧[(-1)bso_9] ≥ 0)

  • COND_LOAD622(TRUE, i11, i29) → LOAD622(i11, +(i29, 1))
    • ((UIncreasing(LOAD622(i11[1], +(i29[1], 1))), ≥)∧0 = 0∧0 = 0∧[1 + (-1)bso_11] ≥ 0)




The constraints for P> respective Pbound 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 Pbound.
Using the following integer polynomial ordering the resulting constraints can be solved
Polynomial interpretation over integers[POLO]:

POL(TRUE) = 0   
POL(FALSE) = 0   
POL(LOAD622(x1, x2)) = [-1] + [-1]x2 + x1   
POL(COND_LOAD622(x1, x2, x3)) = [-1] + [-1]x3 + x2   
POL(>=(x1, x2)) = [-1]   
POL(+(x1, x2)) = x1 + x2   
POL(1) = [1]   

The following pairs are in P>:

COND_LOAD622(TRUE, i11[1], i29[1]) → LOAD622(i11[1], +(i29[1], 1))

The following pairs are in Pbound:

LOAD622(i11[0], i29[0]) → COND_LOAD622(>=(i11[0], +(i29[0], 1)), i11[0], i29[0])

The following pairs are in P≥:

LOAD622(i11[0], i29[0]) → COND_LOAD622(>=(i11[0], +(i29[0], 1)), i11[0], i29[0])

There are no usable rules.

(10) Complex Obligation (AND)

(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:
(0): LOAD622(i11[0], i29[0]) → COND_LOAD622(i11[0] >= i29[0] + 1, i11[0], i29[0])


The set Q consists of the following terms:
Load622(x0, x1)
Cond_Load622(TRUE, x0, x1)

(12) IDependencyGraphProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

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

(13) TRUE

(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:
(1): COND_LOAD622(TRUE, i11[1], i29[1]) → LOAD622(i11[1], i29[1] + 1)


The set Q consists of the following terms:
Load622(x0, x1)
Cond_Load622(TRUE, x0, x1)

(15) IDependencyGraphProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

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

(16) TRUE