We consider the TRS containing the following rules:
f(x,y) | → | x | (1) |
f(x,y) | → | f(x,g(y)) | (2) |
g(x) | → | h(x) | (3) |
F(g(x),x) | → | F(x,g(x)) | (4) |
F(h(x),x) | → | F(x,h(x)) | (5) |
The underlying signature is as follows:
{f/2, g/1, h/1, F/2}f | : | 1 ⨯ 2 → 1 |
g | : | 2 → 2 |
h | : | 2 → 2 |
F | : | 2 ⨯ 2 → 0 |
g(x) | → | h(x) | (3) |
F(g(x),x) | → | F(x,g(x)) | (4) |
F(h(x),x) | → | F(x,h(x)) | (5) |
f(x,y) | → | x | (1) |
f(x,y) | → | f(x,g(y)) | (2) |
g(x) | → | h(x) | (3) |
To prove that the TRS is (non-)confluent, we show (non-)confluence of the following modified system:
g(x) | → | h(x) | (3) |
F(h(x),x) | → | F(x,h(x)) | (5) |
All redundant rules that were added or removed can be simulated in 4 steps .
[g(x1)] | = | 1 · x1 + 2 |
[F(x1, x2)] | = | 2 · x1 + 1 · x2 + 6 |
[h(x1)] | = | 1 · x1 + 2 |
F(h(x),x) | → | F(x,h(x)) | (5) |
[g(x1)] | = | 4 · x1 + 1 |
[h(x1)] | = | 4 · x1 + 0 |
g(x) | → | h(x) | (3) |
There are no rules in the TRS. Hence, it is terminating.
To prove that the TRS is (non-)confluent, we show (non-)confluence of the following modified system:
f(x,y) | → | x | (1) |
g(x) | → | h(x) | (3) |
All redundant rules that were added or removed can be simulated in 4 steps .
Confluence is proven using the following terminating critical-pair-closing-system R:
There are no rules.
There are no rules in the TRS. Hence, it is terminating.