The rewrite relation of the following TRS is considered.
a(a(b(a(c(a(a(a(x1)))))))) | → | a(a(a(a(a(b(a(c(a(a(b(a(c(x1))))))))))))) | (1) |
a(a(a(c(a(b(a(a(x1)))))))) | → | c(a(b(a(a(c(a(b(a(a(a(a(a(x1))))))))))))) | (2) |
a#(a(a(c(a(b(a(a(x1)))))))) | → | a#(b(a(a(c(a(b(a(a(a(a(a(x1)))))))))))) | (3) |
a#(a(a(c(a(b(a(a(x1)))))))) | → | a#(a(c(a(b(a(a(a(a(a(x1)))))))))) | (4) |
a#(a(a(c(a(b(a(a(x1)))))))) | → | a#(c(a(b(a(a(a(a(a(x1))))))))) | (5) |
a#(a(a(c(a(b(a(a(x1)))))))) | → | a#(b(a(a(a(a(a(x1))))))) | (6) |
a#(a(a(c(a(b(a(a(x1)))))))) | → | a#(a(a(a(a(x1))))) | (7) |
a#(a(a(c(a(b(a(a(x1)))))))) | → | a#(a(a(a(x1)))) | (8) |
a#(a(a(c(a(b(a(a(x1)))))))) | → | a#(a(a(x1))) | (9) |
The dependency pairs are split into 1 component.
a#(a(a(c(a(b(a(a(x1)))))))) | → | a#(a(a(a(x1)))) | (8) |
a#(a(a(c(a(b(a(a(x1)))))))) | → | a#(a(a(a(a(x1))))) | (7) |
a#(a(a(c(a(b(a(a(x1)))))))) | → | a#(a(a(x1))) | (9) |
[a#(x1)] | = |
|
||||||||||||||||||
[a(x1)] | = |
|
||||||||||||||||||
[c(x1)] | = |
|
||||||||||||||||||
[b(x1)] | = |
|
a#(a(a(c(a(b(a(a(x1)))))))) | → | a#(a(a(a(x1)))) | (8) |
[a#(x1)] | = |
|
||||||||||||||||||
[a(x1)] | = |
|
||||||||||||||||||
[c(x1)] | = |
|
||||||||||||||||||
[b(x1)] | = |
|
a#(a(a(c(a(b(a(a(x1)))))))) | → | a#(a(a(a(a(x1))))) | (7) |
Using size-change termination in combination with the subterm criterion one obtains the following initial size-change graphs.
a#(a(a(c(a(b(a(a(x1)))))))) | → | a#(a(a(x1))) | (9) |
1 | > | 1 |
As there is no critical graph in the transitive closure, there are no infinite chains.