LTS Termination Proof

by AProVE

Input

Integer Transition System

Proof

1 Switch to Cooperation Termination Proof

We consider the following cutpoint-transitions:
f97_0_random_GT f97_0_random_GT f97_0_random_GT: x1 = x1x2 = x2x3 = x3x4 = x4
f162_0_power_GT' f162_0_power_GT' f162_0_power_GT': x1 = x1x2 = x2x3 = x3x4 = x4
f155_0_main_InvokeMethod f155_0_main_InvokeMethod f155_0_main_InvokeMethod: x1 = x1x2 = x2x3 = x3x4 = x4
f1_0_main_Load f1_0_main_Load f1_0_main_Load: x1 = x1x2 = x2x3 = x3x4 = x4
f213_0_power_NE f213_0_power_NE f213_0_power_NE: x1 = x1x2 = x2x3 = x3x4 = x4
f213_0_power_NE' f213_0_power_NE' f213_0_power_NE': x1 = x1x2 = x2x3 = x3x4 = x4
f162_0_power_GT f162_0_power_GT f162_0_power_GT: x1 = x1x2 = x2x3 = x3x4 = x4
__init __init __init: x1 = x1x2 = x2x3 = x3x4 = x4
and for every transition t, a duplicate t is considered.

2 SCC Decomposition

We consider subproblems for each of the 1 SCC(s) of the program graph.

2.1 SCC Subproblem 1/1

Here we consider the SCC { f162_0_power_GT', f213_0_power_NE, f213_0_power_NE', f162_0_power_GT }.

2.1.1 Transition Removal

We remove transitions 8, 13, 12, 9, 10, 14, 11 using the following ranking functions, which are bounded by 0.

f162_0_power_GT: 4⋅x2 + 2
f162_0_power_GT': 4⋅x2 + 1
f213_0_power_NE': 2⋅x2 + 3
f213_0_power_NE: 4⋅x2

2.1.2 Trivial Cooperation Program

There are no more "sharp" transitions in the cooperation program. Hence the cooperation termination is proved.

Tool configuration

AProVE