The rewrite relation of the following TRS is considered.
a(b(a(x1))) | → | c(c(c(x1))) | (1) |
c(c(c(x1))) | → | a(c(a(x1))) | (2) |
a(x1) | → | b(c(b(x1))) | (3) |
c#(c(c(x1))) | → | c#(a(x1)) | (4) |
c#(c(c(x1))) | → | a#(x1) | (5) |
c#(c(c(x1))) | → | a#(c(a(x1))) | (6) |
a#(x1) | → | c#(b(x1)) | (7) |
a#(b(a(x1))) | → | c#(x1) | (8) |
a#(b(a(x1))) | → | c#(c(x1)) | (9) |
a#(b(a(x1))) | → | c#(c(c(x1))) | (10) |
The dependency pairs are split into 1 component.
c#(c(c(x1))) | → | c#(a(x1)) | (4) |
c#(c(c(x1))) | → | a#(x1) | (5) |
a#(b(a(x1))) | → | c#(x1) | (8) |
c#(c(c(x1))) | → | a#(c(a(x1))) | (6) |
a#(b(a(x1))) | → | c#(c(x1)) | (9) |
a#(b(a(x1))) | → | c#(c(c(x1))) | (10) |
[c(x1)] | = |
|
||||||||||||
[b(x1)] | = |
|
||||||||||||
[a(x1)] | = |
|
||||||||||||
[c#(x1)] | = |
|
||||||||||||
[a#(x1)] | = |
|
a(b(a(x1))) | → | c(c(c(x1))) | (1) |
c(c(c(x1))) | → | a(c(a(x1))) | (2) |
a(x1) | → | b(c(b(x1))) | (3) |
c#(c(c(x1))) | → | c#(a(x1)) | (4) |
a#(b(a(x1))) | → | c#(x1) | (8) |
a#(b(a(x1))) | → | c#(c(x1)) | (9) |
The dependency pairs are split into 1 component.
c#(c(c(x1))) | → | a#(x1) | (5) |
a#(b(a(x1))) | → | c#(c(c(x1))) | (10) |
c#(c(c(x1))) | → | a#(c(a(x1))) | (6) |
[c(x1)] | = |
|
||||||||||||
[b(x1)] | = |
|
||||||||||||
[a(x1)] | = |
|
||||||||||||
[c#(x1)] | = |
|
||||||||||||
[a#(x1)] | = |
|
a(b(a(x1))) | → | c(c(c(x1))) | (1) |
c(c(c(x1))) | → | a(c(a(x1))) | (2) |
a(x1) | → | b(c(b(x1))) | (3) |
c#(c(c(x1))) | → | a#(x1) | (5) |
a#(b(a(x1))) | → | c#(c(c(x1))) | (10) |
[c(x1)] | = |
x1 +
|
||||
[b(x1)] | = |
x1 +
|
||||
[a(x1)] | = |
x1 +
|
||||
[c#(x1)] | = |
x1 +
|
||||
[a#(x1)] | = |
x1 +
|
a(b(a(x1))) | → | c(c(c(x1))) | (1) |
c(c(c(x1))) | → | a(c(a(x1))) | (2) |
a(x1) | → | b(c(b(x1))) | (3) |
c#(c(c(x1))) | → | a#(c(a(x1))) | (6) |
The dependency pairs are split into 0 components.