(0) Obligation:
Q restricted rewrite system:
The TRS R consists of the following rules:
p(0) → 0
p(s(X)) → X
leq(0, Y) → true
leq(s(X), 0) → false
leq(s(X), s(Y)) → leq(X, Y)
if(true, X, Y) → X
if(false, X, Y) → Y
diff(X, Y) → if(leq(X, Y), 0, s(diff(p(X), Y)))
Q is empty.
(1) Overlay + Local Confluence (EQUIVALENT transformation)
The TRS is overlay and locally confluent. By [NOC] we can switch to innermost.
(2) Obligation:
Q restricted rewrite system:
The TRS R consists of the following rules:
p(0) → 0
p(s(X)) → X
leq(0, Y) → true
leq(s(X), 0) → false
leq(s(X), s(Y)) → leq(X, Y)
if(true, X, Y) → X
if(false, X, Y) → Y
diff(X, Y) → if(leq(X, Y), 0, s(diff(p(X), Y)))
The set Q consists of the following terms:
p(0)
p(s(x0))
leq(0, x0)
leq(s(x0), 0)
leq(s(x0), s(x1))
if(true, x0, x1)
if(false, x0, x1)
diff(x0, x1)
(3) DependencyPairsProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)
Using Dependency Pairs [AG00,LPAR04] we result in the following initial DP problem.
(4) Obligation:
Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:
LEQ(s(X), s(Y)) → LEQ(X, Y)
DIFF(X, Y) → IF(leq(X, Y), 0, s(diff(p(X), Y)))
DIFF(X, Y) → LEQ(X, Y)
DIFF(X, Y) → DIFF(p(X), Y)
DIFF(X, Y) → P(X)
The TRS R consists of the following rules:
p(0) → 0
p(s(X)) → X
leq(0, Y) → true
leq(s(X), 0) → false
leq(s(X), s(Y)) → leq(X, Y)
if(true, X, Y) → X
if(false, X, Y) → Y
diff(X, Y) → if(leq(X, Y), 0, s(diff(p(X), Y)))
The set Q consists of the following terms:
p(0)
p(s(x0))
leq(0, x0)
leq(s(x0), 0)
leq(s(x0), s(x1))
if(true, x0, x1)
if(false, x0, x1)
diff(x0, x1)
We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
(5) DependencyGraphProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)
The approximation of the Dependency Graph [LPAR04,FROCOS05,EDGSTAR] contains 2 SCCs with 3 less nodes.
(6) Complex Obligation (AND)
(7) Obligation:
Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:
LEQ(s(X), s(Y)) → LEQ(X, Y)
The TRS R consists of the following rules:
p(0) → 0
p(s(X)) → X
leq(0, Y) → true
leq(s(X), 0) → false
leq(s(X), s(Y)) → leq(X, Y)
if(true, X, Y) → X
if(false, X, Y) → Y
diff(X, Y) → if(leq(X, Y), 0, s(diff(p(X), Y)))
The set Q consists of the following terms:
p(0)
p(s(x0))
leq(0, x0)
leq(s(x0), 0)
leq(s(x0), s(x1))
if(true, x0, x1)
if(false, x0, x1)
diff(x0, x1)
We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
(8) 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.
(9) Obligation:
Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:
LEQ(s(X), s(Y)) → LEQ(X, Y)
R is empty.
The set Q consists of the following terms:
p(0)
p(s(x0))
leq(0, x0)
leq(s(x0), 0)
leq(s(x0), s(x1))
if(true, x0, x1)
if(false, x0, x1)
diff(x0, x1)
We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
(10) QReductionProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)
We deleted the following terms from Q as each root-symbol of these terms does neither occur in P nor in R.[THIEMANN].
p(0)
p(s(x0))
leq(0, x0)
leq(s(x0), 0)
leq(s(x0), s(x1))
if(true, x0, x1)
if(false, x0, x1)
diff(x0, x1)
(11) Obligation:
Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:
LEQ(s(X), s(Y)) → LEQ(X, Y)
R is empty.
Q is empty.
We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
(12) QDPSizeChangeProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)
By using the subterm criterion [SUBTERM_CRITERION] together with the size-change analysis [AAECC05] we have proven that there are no infinite chains for this DP problem.
From the DPs we obtained the following set of size-change graphs:
- LEQ(s(X), s(Y)) → LEQ(X, Y)
The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1, 2 > 2
(13) YES
(14) Obligation:
Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:
DIFF(X, Y) → DIFF(p(X), Y)
The TRS R consists of the following rules:
p(0) → 0
p(s(X)) → X
leq(0, Y) → true
leq(s(X), 0) → false
leq(s(X), s(Y)) → leq(X, Y)
if(true, X, Y) → X
if(false, X, Y) → Y
diff(X, Y) → if(leq(X, Y), 0, s(diff(p(X), Y)))
The set Q consists of the following terms:
p(0)
p(s(x0))
leq(0, x0)
leq(s(x0), 0)
leq(s(x0), s(x1))
if(true, x0, x1)
if(false, x0, x1)
diff(x0, x1)
We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
(15) 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.
(16) Obligation:
Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:
DIFF(X, Y) → DIFF(p(X), Y)
The TRS R consists of the following rules:
p(0) → 0
p(s(X)) → X
The set Q consists of the following terms:
p(0)
p(s(x0))
leq(0, x0)
leq(s(x0), 0)
leq(s(x0), s(x1))
if(true, x0, x1)
if(false, x0, x1)
diff(x0, x1)
We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
(17) QReductionProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)
We deleted the following terms from Q as each root-symbol of these terms does neither occur in P nor in R.[THIEMANN].
leq(0, x0)
leq(s(x0), 0)
leq(s(x0), s(x1))
if(true, x0, x1)
if(false, x0, x1)
diff(x0, x1)
(18) Obligation:
Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:
DIFF(X, Y) → DIFF(p(X), Y)
The TRS R consists of the following rules:
p(0) → 0
p(s(X)) → X
The set Q consists of the following terms:
p(0)
p(s(x0))
We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
(19) UsableRulesReductionPairsProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)
By using the usable rules with reduction pair processor [LPAR04] with a polynomial ordering [POLO], all dependency pairs and the corresponding usable rules [FROCOS05] can be oriented non-strictly. All non-usable rules are removed, and those dependency pairs and usable rules that have been oriented strictly or contain non-usable symbols in their left-hand side are removed as well.
No dependency pairs are removed.
The following rules are removed from R:
p(s(X)) → X
Used ordering: POLO with Polynomial interpretation [POLO]:
POL(0) = 0
POL(DIFF(x1, x2)) = 2·x1 + x2
POL(p(x1)) = x1
POL(s(x1)) = x1
(20) Obligation:
Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:
DIFF(X, Y) → DIFF(p(X), Y)
The TRS R consists of the following rules:
p(0) → 0
The set Q consists of the following terms:
p(0)
p(s(x0))
We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
(21) QReductionProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)
We deleted the following terms from Q as they contain symbols which do neither occur in P nor in R.[THIEMANN].
p(s(x0))
(22) Obligation:
Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:
DIFF(X, Y) → DIFF(p(X), Y)
The TRS R consists of the following rules:
p(0) → 0
The set Q consists of the following terms:
p(0)
We have to consider all (P,Q,R)-chains.
(23) MNOCProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)
We use the modular non-overlap check [FROCOS05] to decrease Q to the empty set.
(24) Obligation:
Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:
DIFF(X, Y) → DIFF(p(X), Y)
The TRS R consists of the following rules:
p(0) → 0
Q is empty.
We have to consider all (P,Q,R)-chains.
(25) NonTerminationProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)
We used the non-termination processor [FROCOS05] to show that the DP problem is infinite.
Found a loop by semiunifying a rule from P directly.
s =
DIFF(
X,
Y) evaluates to t =
DIFF(
p(
X),
Y)
Thus s starts an infinite chain as s semiunifies with t with the following substitutions:
- Matcher: [X / p(X)]
- Semiunifier: [ ]
Rewriting sequenceThe DP semiunifies directly so there is only one rewrite step from DIFF(X, Y) to DIFF(p(X), Y).
(26) NO