The rewrite relation of the following TRS is considered.
b(b(0,y),x) | → | y | (1) |
c(c(c(y))) | → | c(c(a(a(c(b(0,y)),0),0))) | (2) |
a(y,0) | → | b(y,0) | (3) |
c#(c(c(y))) | → | c#(c(a(a(c(b(0,y)),0),0))) | (4) |
c#(c(c(y))) | → | c#(a(a(c(b(0,y)),0),0)) | (5) |
c#(c(c(y))) | → | a#(a(c(b(0,y)),0),0) | (6) |
c#(c(c(y))) | → | a#(c(b(0,y)),0) | (7) |
c#(c(c(y))) | → | c#(b(0,y)) | (8) |
c#(c(c(y))) | → | b#(0,y) | (9) |
a#(y,0) | → | b#(y,0) | (10) |
The dependency pairs are split into 1 component.
c#(c(c(y))) | → | c#(a(a(c(b(0,y)),0),0)) | (5) |
c#(c(c(y))) | → | c#(c(a(a(c(b(0,y)),0),0))) | (4) |
[b(x1, x2)] | = | 1 · x1 + 1 · x2 |
[0] | = | 0 |
[c(x1)] | = | 1 + 2 · x1 |
[a(x1, x2)] | = | 1 · x1 + 2 · x2 |
[c#(x1)] | = | 2 · x1 |
c#(c(c(y))) | → | c#(a(a(c(b(0,y)),0),0)) | (5) |
c#(c(c(y0))) | → | c#(c(b(a(c(b(0,y0)),0),0))) | (11) |
c#(c(c(y0))) | → | c#(c(a(b(c(b(0,y0)),0),0))) | (12) |
c#(c(c(y0))) | → | c#(c(b(b(c(b(0,y0)),0),0))) | (13) |
The dependency pairs are split into 1 component.
c#(c(c(y0))) | → | c#(c(a(b(c(b(0,y0)),0),0))) | (12) |
c#(c(c(y0))) | → | c#(c(b(b(c(b(0,y0)),0),0))) | (13) |
[c(x1)] | = | 1 · x1 |
[b(x1, x2)] | = | 1 · x1 + 1 · x2 |
[0] | = | 0 |
[c#(x1)] | = | 1 · x1 |
There are no rules.
There are no pairs anymore.