Termination w.r.t. Q of the given QTRS could be disproven:

0 QTRS
↳1 DependencyPairsProof (⇔, 0 ms)
↳2 QDP
↳3 DependencyGraphProof (⇔, 0 ms)
↳4 AND
    ↳5 QDP
        ↳6 QDPSizeChangeProof (⇔, 0 ms)
        ↳7 YES
    ↳8 QDP
        ↳9 MRRProof (⇔, 11 ms)
        ↳10 QDP
        ↳11 NonTerminationLoopProof (⇔, 581 ms)
        ↳12 NO

(0) Obligation:

Q restricted rewrite system:
The TRS R consists of the following rules:

active(f(b, X, c)) → mark(f(X, c, X))
active(c) → mark(b)
mark(f(X1, X2, X3)) → active(f(X1, mark(X2), X3))
mark(b) → active(b)
mark(c) → active(c)
f(mark(X1), X2, X3) → f(X1, X2, X3)
f(X1, mark(X2), X3) → f(X1, X2, X3)
f(X1, X2, mark(X3)) → f(X1, X2, X3)
f(active(X1), X2, X3) → f(X1, X2, X3)
f(X1, active(X2), X3) → f(X1, X2, X3)
f(X1, X2, active(X3)) → f(X1, X2, X3)

Q is empty.

(1) DependencyPairsProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

Using Dependency Pairs [AG00,LPAR04] we result in the following initial DP problem.

(2) Obligation:

Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:

ACTIVE(f(b, X, c)) → MARK(f(X, c, X))
ACTIVE(f(b, X, c)) → F(X, c, X)
ACTIVE(c) → MARK(b)
MARK(f(X1, X2, X3)) → ACTIVE(f(X1, mark(X2), X3))
MARK(f(X1, X2, X3)) → F(X1, mark(X2), X3)
MARK(f(X1, X2, X3)) → MARK(X2)
MARK(b) → ACTIVE(b)
MARK(c) → ACTIVE(c)
F(mark(X1), X2, X3) → F(X1, X2, X3)
F(X1, mark(X2), X3) → F(X1, X2, X3)
F(X1, X2, mark(X3)) → F(X1, X2, X3)
F(active(X1), X2, X3) → F(X1, X2, X3)
F(X1, active(X2), X3) → F(X1, X2, X3)
F(X1, X2, active(X3)) → F(X1, X2, X3)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

active(f(b, X, c)) → mark(f(X, c, X))
active(c) → mark(b)
mark(f(X1, X2, X3)) → active(f(X1, mark(X2), X3))
mark(b) → active(b)
mark(c) → active(c)
f(mark(X1), X2, X3) → f(X1, X2, X3)
f(X1, mark(X2), X3) → f(X1, X2, X3)
f(X1, X2, mark(X3)) → f(X1, X2, X3)
f(active(X1), X2, X3) → f(X1, X2, X3)
f(X1, active(X2), X3) → f(X1, X2, X3)
f(X1, X2, active(X3)) → f(X1, X2, X3)

Q is empty.
We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.

(3) DependencyGraphProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

The approximation of the Dependency Graph [LPAR04,FROCOS05,EDGSTAR] contains 2 SCCs with 5 less nodes.

(4) Complex Obligation (AND)

(5) Obligation:

Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:

F(X1, mark(X2), X3) → F(X1, X2, X3)
F(mark(X1), X2, X3) → F(X1, X2, X3)
F(X1, X2, mark(X3)) → F(X1, X2, X3)
F(active(X1), X2, X3) → F(X1, X2, X3)
F(X1, active(X2), X3) → F(X1, X2, X3)
F(X1, X2, active(X3)) → F(X1, X2, X3)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

active(f(b, X, c)) → mark(f(X, c, X))
active(c) → mark(b)
mark(f(X1, X2, X3)) → active(f(X1, mark(X2), X3))
mark(b) → active(b)
mark(c) → active(c)
f(mark(X1), X2, X3) → f(X1, X2, X3)
f(X1, mark(X2), X3) → f(X1, X2, X3)
f(X1, X2, mark(X3)) → f(X1, X2, X3)
f(active(X1), X2, X3) → f(X1, X2, X3)
f(X1, active(X2), X3) → f(X1, X2, X3)
f(X1, X2, active(X3)) → f(X1, X2, X3)

Q is empty.
We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.

(6) 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:

  • F(X1, mark(X2), X3) → F(X1, X2, X3)
    The graph contains the following edges 1 >= 1, 2 > 2, 3 >= 3

  • F(mark(X1), X2, X3) → F(X1, X2, X3)
    The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1, 2 >= 2, 3 >= 3

  • F(X1, X2, mark(X3)) → F(X1, X2, X3)
    The graph contains the following edges 1 >= 1, 2 >= 2, 3 > 3

  • F(active(X1), X2, X3) → F(X1, X2, X3)
    The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1, 2 >= 2, 3 >= 3

  • F(X1, active(X2), X3) → F(X1, X2, X3)
    The graph contains the following edges 1 >= 1, 2 > 2, 3 >= 3

  • F(X1, X2, active(X3)) → F(X1, X2, X3)
    The graph contains the following edges 1 >= 1, 2 >= 2, 3 > 3

(7) YES

(8) Obligation:

Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:

MARK(f(X1, X2, X3)) → ACTIVE(f(X1, mark(X2), X3))
ACTIVE(f(b, X, c)) → MARK(f(X, c, X))
MARK(f(X1, X2, X3)) → MARK(X2)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

active(f(b, X, c)) → mark(f(X, c, X))
active(c) → mark(b)
mark(f(X1, X2, X3)) → active(f(X1, mark(X2), X3))
mark(b) → active(b)
mark(c) → active(c)
f(mark(X1), X2, X3) → f(X1, X2, X3)
f(X1, mark(X2), X3) → f(X1, X2, X3)
f(X1, X2, mark(X3)) → f(X1, X2, X3)
f(active(X1), X2, X3) → f(X1, X2, X3)
f(X1, active(X2), X3) → f(X1, X2, X3)
f(X1, X2, active(X3)) → f(X1, X2, X3)

Q is empty.
We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.

(9) MRRProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

By using the rule removal processor [LPAR04] with the following ordering, at least one Dependency Pair or term rewrite system rule of this QDP problem can be strictly oriented.
Strictly oriented dependency pairs:

MARK(f(X1, X2, X3)) → MARK(X2)


Used ordering: Polynomial interpretation [POLO]:

POL(ACTIVE(x1)) = x1   
POL(MARK(x1)) = x1   
POL(active(x1)) = x1   
POL(b) = 0   
POL(c) = 0   
POL(f(x1, x2, x3)) = 1 + x1 + 2·x2 + x3   
POL(mark(x1)) = x1   

(10) Obligation:

Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:

MARK(f(X1, X2, X3)) → ACTIVE(f(X1, mark(X2), X3))
ACTIVE(f(b, X, c)) → MARK(f(X, c, X))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

active(f(b, X, c)) → mark(f(X, c, X))
active(c) → mark(b)
mark(f(X1, X2, X3)) → active(f(X1, mark(X2), X3))
mark(b) → active(b)
mark(c) → active(c)
f(mark(X1), X2, X3) → f(X1, X2, X3)
f(X1, mark(X2), X3) → f(X1, X2, X3)
f(X1, X2, mark(X3)) → f(X1, X2, X3)
f(active(X1), X2, X3) → f(X1, X2, X3)
f(X1, active(X2), X3) → f(X1, X2, X3)
f(X1, X2, active(X3)) → f(X1, X2, X3)

Q is empty.
We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.

(11) NonTerminationLoopProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

We used the non-termination processor [FROCOS05] to show that the DP problem is infinite.
Found a loop by narrowing to the left:

s = ACTIVE(f(mark(c), X2', mark(c))) evaluates to t =ACTIVE(f(X2', mark(c), X2'))

Thus s starts an infinite chain as s semiunifies with t with the following substitutions:
  • Matcher: [ ]
  • Semiunifier: [X2' / mark(c)]



Rewriting sequence

ACTIVE(f(mark(c), mark(c), mark(c))) → ACTIVE(f(active(c), mark(c), mark(c)))
with rule mark(c) → active(c) at position [0,0] and matcher [ ]

ACTIVE(f(active(c), mark(c), mark(c))) → ACTIVE(f(mark(b), mark(c), mark(c)))
with rule active(c) → mark(b) at position [0,0] and matcher [ ]

ACTIVE(f(mark(b), mark(c), mark(c))) → ACTIVE(f(mark(b), mark(c), c))
with rule f(X1, X2', mark(X3)) → f(X1, X2', X3) at position [0] and matcher [X1 / mark(b), X2' / mark(c), X3 / c]

ACTIVE(f(mark(b), mark(c), c)) → ACTIVE(f(b, mark(c), c))
with rule f(mark(X1), X2, X3) → f(X1, X2, X3) at position [0] and matcher [X1 / b, X2 / mark(c), X3 / c]

ACTIVE(f(b, mark(c), c)) → MARK(f(mark(c), c, mark(c)))
with rule ACTIVE(f(b, X, c)) → MARK(f(X, c, X)) at position [] and matcher [X / mark(c)]

MARK(f(mark(c), c, mark(c))) → ACTIVE(f(mark(c), mark(c), mark(c)))
with rule MARK(f(X1, X2, X3)) → ACTIVE(f(X1, mark(X2), X3))

Now applying the matcher to the start term leads to a term which is equal to the last term in the rewriting sequence


All these steps are and every following step will be a correct step w.r.t to Q.



(12) NO