(0) Obligation:
Q restricted rewrite system:
The TRS R consists of the following rules:
+(x, 0) → x
+(minus(x), x) → 0
minus(0) → 0
minus(minus(x)) → x
minus(+(x, y)) → +(minus(y), minus(x))
*(x, 1) → x
*(x, 0) → 0
*(x, +(y, z)) → +(*(x, y), *(x, z))
*(x, minus(y)) → minus(*(x, y))
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:
MINUS(+(x, y)) → +1(minus(y), minus(x))
MINUS(+(x, y)) → MINUS(y)
MINUS(+(x, y)) → MINUS(x)
*1(x, +(y, z)) → +1(*(x, y), *(x, z))
*1(x, +(y, z)) → *1(x, y)
*1(x, +(y, z)) → *1(x, z)
*1(x, minus(y)) → MINUS(*(x, y))
*1(x, minus(y)) → *1(x, y)
The TRS R consists of the following rules:
+(x, 0) → x
+(minus(x), x) → 0
minus(0) → 0
minus(minus(x)) → x
minus(+(x, y)) → +(minus(y), minus(x))
*(x, 1) → x
*(x, 0) → 0
*(x, +(y, z)) → +(*(x, y), *(x, z))
*(x, minus(y)) → minus(*(x, y))
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 3 less nodes.
(4) Complex Obligation (AND)
(5) Obligation:
Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:
MINUS(+(x, y)) → MINUS(x)
MINUS(+(x, y)) → MINUS(y)
The TRS R consists of the following rules:
+(x, 0) → x
+(minus(x), x) → 0
minus(0) → 0
minus(minus(x)) → x
minus(+(x, y)) → +(minus(y), minus(x))
*(x, 1) → x
*(x, 0) → 0
*(x, +(y, z)) → +(*(x, y), *(x, z))
*(x, minus(y)) → minus(*(x, y))
Q is empty.
We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
(6) UsableRulesProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)
We can use the usable rules and reduction pair processor [LPAR04] with the Ce-compatible extension of the polynomial order that maps every function symbol to the sum of its arguments. Then, we can delete all non-usable rules [FROCOS05] from R.
(7) Obligation:
Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:
MINUS(+(x, y)) → MINUS(x)
MINUS(+(x, y)) → MINUS(y)
R is empty.
Q is empty.
We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
(8) 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:
- MINUS(+(x, y)) → MINUS(x)
The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1
- MINUS(+(x, y)) → MINUS(y)
The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1
(9) TRUE
(10) Obligation:
Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:
*1(x, +(y, z)) → *1(x, z)
*1(x, +(y, z)) → *1(x, y)
*1(x, minus(y)) → *1(x, y)
The TRS R consists of the following rules:
+(x, 0) → x
+(minus(x), x) → 0
minus(0) → 0
minus(minus(x)) → x
minus(+(x, y)) → +(minus(y), minus(x))
*(x, 1) → x
*(x, 0) → 0
*(x, +(y, z)) → +(*(x, y), *(x, z))
*(x, minus(y)) → minus(*(x, y))
Q is empty.
We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
(11) UsableRulesProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)
We can use the usable rules and reduction pair processor [LPAR04] with the Ce-compatible extension of the polynomial order that maps every function symbol to the sum of its arguments. Then, we can delete all non-usable rules [FROCOS05] from R.
(12) Obligation:
Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:
*1(x, +(y, z)) → *1(x, z)
*1(x, +(y, z)) → *1(x, y)
*1(x, minus(y)) → *1(x, y)
R is empty.
Q is empty.
We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
(13) 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:
- *1(x, +(y, z)) → *1(x, z)
The graph contains the following edges 1 >= 1, 2 > 2
- *1(x, +(y, z)) → *1(x, y)
The graph contains the following edges 1 >= 1, 2 > 2
- *1(x, minus(y)) → *1(x, y)
The graph contains the following edges 1 >= 1, 2 > 2
(14) TRUE