Certification Problem

Input (TPDB SRS_Standard/ICFP_2010/211639)

The rewrite relation of the following TRS is considered.

0(x1)	→	1(x1)	(1)
0(0(x1))	→	0(x1)	(2)
3(4(5(x1)))	→	4(3(5(x1)))	(3)
2(2(2(2(2(2(2(2(2(2(2(2(2(2(2(2(2(2(2(2(2(2(2(2(2(2(2(2(2(2(2(2(2(2(2(2(2(2(2(2(2(2(2(2(2(2(2(2(2(2(2(...display limit reached...)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))	→	1(1(0(1(1(0(0(1(1(1(1(0(0(1(0(0(1(1(1(1(1(1(1(1(1(1(1(0(1(0(0(1(1(0(0(0(0(1(0(1(1(0(0(1(1(1(1(0(1(0(1(...display limit reached...)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))	(4)
0(0(1(1(0(0(1(0(0(1(0(1(1(1(0(1(0(1(1(0(1(1(0(0(1(0(0(1(1(0(0(1(0(1(0(0(1(1(1(0(1(0(1(0(0(0(1(1(1(0(0(...display limit reached...)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))	→	2(2(2(2(2(2(2(2(2(2(2(2(2(2(2(2(2(2(2(2(2(2(2(2(2(2(2(2(2(2(2(2(2(2(2(2(2(2(2(2(2(2(2(2(2(2(2(2(2(2(2(...display limit reached...)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))	(5)

Property / Task

Prove or disprove termination.

Answer / Result

Yes.

Proof (by AProVE @ termCOMP 2023)

1 Rule Removal

Using the linear polynomial interpretation over the naturals

[0(x₁)]	=	1 · x₁ + 18
[1(x₁)]	=	1 · x₁ + 17
[3(x₁)]	=	1 · x₁
[4(x₁)]	=	1 · x₁
[5(x₁)]	=	1 · x₁
[2(x₁)]	=	1 · x₁ + 69

all of the following rules can be deleted.

0(x1)	→	1(x1)	(1)
0(0(x1))	→	0(x1)	(2)
2(2(2(2(2(2(2(2(2(2(2(2(2(2(2(2(2(2(2(2(2(2(2(2(2(2(2(2(2(2(2(2(2(2(2(2(2(2(2(2(2(2(2(2(2(2(2(2(2(2(2(...display limit reached...)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))	→	1(1(0(1(1(0(0(1(1(1(1(0(0(1(0(0(1(1(1(1(1(1(1(1(1(1(1(0(1(0(0(1(1(0(0(0(0(1(0(1(1(0(0(1(1(1(1(0(1(0(1(...display limit reached...)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))	(4)
0(0(1(1(0(0(1(0(0(1(0(1(1(1(0(1(0(1(1(0(1(1(0(0(1(0(0(1(1(0(0(1(0(1(0(0(1(1(1(0(1(0(1(0(0(0(1(1(1(0(0(...display limit reached...)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))	→	2(2(2(2(2(2(2(2(2(2(2(2(2(2(2(2(2(2(2(2(2(2(2(2(2(2(2(2(2(2(2(2(2(2(2(2(2(2(2(2(2(2(2(2(2(2(2(2(2(2(2(...display limit reached...)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))	(5)

1.1 Switch to Innermost Termination

The TRS is overlay and locally confluent:

10

Hence, it suffices to show innermost termination in the following.

1.1.1 Dependency Pair Transformation

The following set of initial dependency pairs has been identified.

3^#(4(5(x1)))

→

3^#(5(x1))

(6)

1.1.1.1 Usable Rules Processor

We restrict the rewrite rules to the following usable rules of the DP problem.

There are no rules.

1.1.1.1.1 Innermost Lhss Removal Processor

We restrict the innermost strategy to the following left hand sides.

There are no lhss.

1.1.1.1.1.1 Size-Change Termination

Using size-change termination in combination with the subterm criterion one obtains the following initial size-change graphs.

3^#(4(5(x1)))	→	3^#(5(x1))	(6)

1	>	1

As there is no critical graph in the transitive closure, there are no infinite chains.