Termination w.r.t. Q of the following Term Rewriting System could be disproven:
Q restricted rewrite system:
The TRS R consists of the following rules:
c → f(n__g(n__c))
f(n__g(X)) → g(activate(X))
g(X) → n__g(X)
c → n__c
activate(n__g(X)) → g(X)
activate(n__c) → c
activate(X) → X
Q is empty.
↳ QTRS
↳ RRRPoloQTRSProof
Q restricted rewrite system:
The TRS R consists of the following rules:
c → f(n__g(n__c))
f(n__g(X)) → g(activate(X))
g(X) → n__g(X)
c → n__c
activate(n__g(X)) → g(X)
activate(n__c) → c
activate(X) → X
Q is empty.
The following Q TRS is given: Q restricted rewrite system:
The TRS R consists of the following rules:
c → f(n__g(n__c))
f(n__g(X)) → g(activate(X))
g(X) → n__g(X)
c → n__c
activate(n__g(X)) → g(X)
activate(n__c) → c
activate(X) → X
Q is empty.
The following rules can be removed by the rule removal processor [15] because they are oriented strictly by a polynomial ordering:
c → n__c
activate(n__g(X)) → g(X)
activate(X) → X
Used ordering:
Polynomial interpretation [25]:
POL(activate(x1)) = 1 + x1
POL(c) = 1
POL(f(x1)) = 1 + x1
POL(g(x1)) = x1
POL(n__c) = 0
POL(n__g(x1)) = x1
↳ QTRS
↳ RRRPoloQTRSProof
↳ QTRS
↳ Overlay + Local Confluence
Q restricted rewrite system:
The TRS R consists of the following rules:
c → f(n__g(n__c))
f(n__g(X)) → g(activate(X))
g(X) → n__g(X)
activate(n__c) → c
Q is empty.
The TRS is overlay and locally confluent. By [19] we can switch to innermost.
↳ QTRS
↳ RRRPoloQTRSProof
↳ QTRS
↳ Overlay + Local Confluence
↳ QTRS
↳ DependencyPairsProof
Q restricted rewrite system:
The TRS R consists of the following rules:
c → f(n__g(n__c))
f(n__g(X)) → g(activate(X))
g(X) → n__g(X)
activate(n__c) → c
The set Q consists of the following terms:
c
f(n__g(x0))
g(x0)
activate(n__c)
Using Dependency Pairs [1,15] we result in the following initial DP problem:
Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:
F(n__g(X)) → ACTIVATE(X)
ACTIVATE(n__c) → C
C → F(n__g(n__c))
F(n__g(X)) → G(activate(X))
The TRS R consists of the following rules:
c → f(n__g(n__c))
f(n__g(X)) → g(activate(X))
g(X) → n__g(X)
activate(n__c) → c
The set Q consists of the following terms:
c
f(n__g(x0))
g(x0)
activate(n__c)
We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
↳ QTRS
↳ RRRPoloQTRSProof
↳ QTRS
↳ Overlay + Local Confluence
↳ QTRS
↳ DependencyPairsProof
↳ QDP
↳ DependencyGraphProof
Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:
F(n__g(X)) → ACTIVATE(X)
ACTIVATE(n__c) → C
C → F(n__g(n__c))
F(n__g(X)) → G(activate(X))
The TRS R consists of the following rules:
c → f(n__g(n__c))
f(n__g(X)) → g(activate(X))
g(X) → n__g(X)
activate(n__c) → c
The set Q consists of the following terms:
c
f(n__g(x0))
g(x0)
activate(n__c)
We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
The approximation of the Dependency Graph [15,17,22] contains 1 SCC with 1 less node.
↳ QTRS
↳ RRRPoloQTRSProof
↳ QTRS
↳ Overlay + Local Confluence
↳ QTRS
↳ DependencyPairsProof
↳ QDP
↳ DependencyGraphProof
↳ QDP
↳ UsableRulesProof
↳ UsableRulesProof
Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:
F(n__g(X)) → ACTIVATE(X)
C → F(n__g(n__c))
ACTIVATE(n__c) → C
The TRS R consists of the following rules:
c → f(n__g(n__c))
f(n__g(X)) → g(activate(X))
g(X) → n__g(X)
activate(n__c) → c
The set Q consists of the following terms:
c
f(n__g(x0))
g(x0)
activate(n__c)
We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
As all Q-normal forms are R-normal forms we are in the innermost case. Hence, by the usable rules processor [15] we can delete all non-usable rules [17] from R.
↳ QTRS
↳ RRRPoloQTRSProof
↳ QTRS
↳ Overlay + Local Confluence
↳ QTRS
↳ DependencyPairsProof
↳ QDP
↳ DependencyGraphProof
↳ QDP
↳ UsableRulesProof
↳ QDP
↳ QReductionProof
↳ UsableRulesProof
Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:
F(n__g(X)) → ACTIVATE(X)
C → F(n__g(n__c))
ACTIVATE(n__c) → C
R is empty.
The set Q consists of the following terms:
c
f(n__g(x0))
g(x0)
activate(n__c)
We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
We deleted the following terms from Q as each root-symbol of these terms does neither occur in P nor in R.
c
f(n__g(x0))
g(x0)
activate(n__c)
↳ QTRS
↳ RRRPoloQTRSProof
↳ QTRS
↳ Overlay + Local Confluence
↳ QTRS
↳ DependencyPairsProof
↳ QDP
↳ DependencyGraphProof
↳ QDP
↳ UsableRulesProof
↳ QDP
↳ QReductionProof
↳ QDP
↳ NonTerminationProof
↳ UsableRulesProof
Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:
F(n__g(X)) → ACTIVATE(X)
ACTIVATE(n__c) → C
C → F(n__g(n__c))
R is empty.
Q is empty.
We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
We used the non-termination processor [17] to show that the DP problem is infinite.
Found a loop by narrowing to the left:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:
F(n__g(X)) → ACTIVATE(X)
ACTIVATE(n__c) → C
C → F(n__g(n__c))
The TRS R consists of the following rules:none
s = ACTIVATE(n__c) evaluates to t =ACTIVATE(n__c)
Thus s starts an infinite chain as s semiunifies with t with the following substitutions:
- Semiunifier: [ ]
- Matcher: [ ]
Rewriting sequence
ACTIVATE(n__c) → C
with rule ACTIVATE(n__c) → C at position [] and matcher [ ]
C → F(n__g(n__c))
with rule C → F(n__g(n__c)) at position [] and matcher [ ]
F(n__g(n__c)) → ACTIVATE(n__c)
with rule F(n__g(X)) → ACTIVATE(X)
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.
As all Q-normal forms are R-normal forms we are in the innermost case. Hence, by the usable rules processor [15] we can delete all non-usable rules [17] from R.
↳ QTRS
↳ RRRPoloQTRSProof
↳ QTRS
↳ Overlay + Local Confluence
↳ QTRS
↳ DependencyPairsProof
↳ QDP
↳ DependencyGraphProof
↳ QDP
↳ UsableRulesProof
↳ UsableRulesProof
↳ QDP
↳ QReductionProof
Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:
F(n__g(X)) → ACTIVATE(X)
C → F(n__g(n__c))
ACTIVATE(n__c) → C
R is empty.
The set Q consists of the following terms:
c
f(n__g(x0))
g(x0)
activate(n__c)
We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
We deleted the following terms from Q as each root-symbol of these terms does neither occur in P nor in R.
c
f(n__g(x0))
g(x0)
activate(n__c)
↳ QTRS
↳ RRRPoloQTRSProof
↳ QTRS
↳ Overlay + Local Confluence
↳ QTRS
↳ DependencyPairsProof
↳ QDP
↳ DependencyGraphProof
↳ QDP
↳ UsableRulesProof
↳ UsableRulesProof
↳ QDP
↳ QReductionProof
↳ QDP
↳ Instantiation
Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:
F(n__g(X)) → ACTIVATE(X)
ACTIVATE(n__c) → C
C → F(n__g(n__c))
R is empty.
Q is empty.
We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
By instantiating [15] the rule F(n__g(X)) → ACTIVATE(X) we obtained the following new rules:
F(n__g(n__c)) → ACTIVATE(n__c)
↳ QTRS
↳ RRRPoloQTRSProof
↳ QTRS
↳ Overlay + Local Confluence
↳ QTRS
↳ DependencyPairsProof
↳ QDP
↳ DependencyGraphProof
↳ QDP
↳ UsableRulesProof
↳ UsableRulesProof
↳ QDP
↳ QReductionProof
↳ QDP
↳ Instantiation
↳ QDP
Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:
C → F(n__g(n__c))
ACTIVATE(n__c) → C
F(n__g(n__c)) → ACTIVATE(n__c)
R is empty.
Q is empty.
We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.