(0) Obligation:
Q restricted rewrite system:
The TRS R consists of the following rules:
O(0) → 0
+(0, x) → x
+(x, 0) → x
+(O(x), O(y)) → O(+(x, y))
+(O(x), I(y)) → I(+(x, y))
+(I(x), O(y)) → I(+(x, y))
+(I(x), I(y)) → O(+(+(x, y), I(0)))
*(0, x) → 0
*(x, 0) → 0
*(O(x), y) → O(*(x, y))
*(I(x), y) → +(O(*(x, y)), 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:
+1(O(x), O(y)) → O1(+(x, y))
+1(O(x), O(y)) → +1(x, y)
+1(O(x), I(y)) → +1(x, y)
+1(I(x), O(y)) → +1(x, y)
+1(I(x), I(y)) → O1(+(+(x, y), I(0)))
+1(I(x), I(y)) → +1(+(x, y), I(0))
+1(I(x), I(y)) → +1(x, y)
*1(O(x), y) → O1(*(x, y))
*1(O(x), y) → *1(x, y)
*1(I(x), y) → +1(O(*(x, y)), y)
*1(I(x), y) → O1(*(x, y))
*1(I(x), y) → *1(x, y)
The TRS R consists of the following rules:
O(0) → 0
+(0, x) → x
+(x, 0) → x
+(O(x), O(y)) → O(+(x, y))
+(O(x), I(y)) → I(+(x, y))
+(I(x), O(y)) → I(+(x, y))
+(I(x), I(y)) → O(+(+(x, y), I(0)))
*(0, x) → 0
*(x, 0) → 0
*(O(x), y) → O(*(x, y))
*(I(x), y) → +(O(*(x, y)), 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 5 less nodes.
(4) Complex Obligation (AND)
(5) Obligation:
Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:
+1(O(x), I(y)) → +1(x, y)
+1(O(x), O(y)) → +1(x, y)
+1(I(x), O(y)) → +1(x, y)
+1(I(x), I(y)) → +1(+(x, y), I(0))
+1(I(x), I(y)) → +1(x, y)
The TRS R consists of the following rules:
O(0) → 0
+(0, x) → x
+(x, 0) → x
+(O(x), O(y)) → O(+(x, y))
+(O(x), I(y)) → I(+(x, y))
+(I(x), O(y)) → I(+(x, y))
+(I(x), I(y)) → O(+(+(x, y), I(0)))
*(0, x) → 0
*(x, 0) → 0
*(O(x), y) → O(*(x, y))
*(I(x), y) → +(O(*(x, y)), 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:
+1(O(x), I(y)) → +1(x, y)
+1(O(x), O(y)) → +1(x, y)
+1(I(x), O(y)) → +1(x, y)
+1(I(x), I(y)) → +1(+(x, y), I(0))
+1(I(x), I(y)) → +1(x, y)
The TRS R consists of the following rules:
+(0, x) → x
+(x, 0) → x
+(O(x), O(y)) → O(+(x, y))
+(O(x), I(y)) → I(+(x, y))
+(I(x), O(y)) → I(+(x, y))
+(I(x), I(y)) → O(+(+(x, y), I(0)))
O(0) → 0
Q is empty.
We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
(8) 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:
+1(O(x), I(y)) → +1(x, y)
+1(I(x), O(y)) → +1(x, y)
+1(I(x), I(y)) → +1(+(x, y), I(0))
+1(I(x), I(y)) → +1(x, y)
Strictly oriented rules of the TRS R:
+(I(x), I(y)) → O(+(+(x, y), I(0)))
Used ordering: Polynomial interpretation [POLO]:
POL(+(x1, x2)) = x1 + x2
POL(+1(x1, x2)) = x1 + x2
POL(0) = 0
POL(I(x1)) = 1 + x1
POL(O(x1)) = x1
(9) Obligation:
Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:
+1(O(x), O(y)) → +1(x, y)
The TRS R consists of the following rules:
+(0, x) → x
+(x, 0) → x
+(O(x), O(y)) → O(+(x, y))
+(O(x), I(y)) → I(+(x, y))
+(I(x), O(y)) → I(+(x, y))
O(0) → 0
Q is empty.
We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
(10) 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.
(11) Obligation:
Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:
+1(O(x), O(y)) → +1(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:
- +1(O(x), O(y)) → +1(x, y)
The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1, 2 > 2
(13) TRUE
(14) Obligation:
Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:
*1(I(x), y) → *1(x, y)
*1(O(x), y) → *1(x, y)
The TRS R consists of the following rules:
O(0) → 0
+(0, x) → x
+(x, 0) → x
+(O(x), O(y)) → O(+(x, y))
+(O(x), I(y)) → I(+(x, y))
+(I(x), O(y)) → I(+(x, y))
+(I(x), I(y)) → O(+(+(x, y), I(0)))
*(0, x) → 0
*(x, 0) → 0
*(O(x), y) → O(*(x, y))
*(I(x), y) → +(O(*(x, y)), y)
Q is empty.
We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
(15) 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.
(16) Obligation:
Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:
*1(I(x), y) → *1(x, y)
*1(O(x), y) → *1(x, y)
R is empty.
Q is empty.
We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
(17) 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(I(x), y) → *1(x, y)
The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1, 2 >= 2
- *1(O(x), y) → *1(x, y)
The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1, 2 >= 2
(18) TRUE