by T2Cert
| 0 | 0 | 1: | 0 ≤ 0 ∧ 0 ≤ 0 ∧ 1000 − x_0 + x_post ≤ 0 ∧ −1000 + x_0 − x_post ≤ 0 ∧ 201 − x_post ≤ 0 ∧ x_0 − x_post ≤ 0 ∧ − x_0 + x_post ≤ 0 | |
| 1 | 1 | 0: | 0 ≤ 0 ∧ 0 ≤ 0 ∧ − x_post + x_post ≤ 0 ∧ x_post − x_post ≤ 0 ∧ − x_0 + x_0 ≤ 0 ∧ x_0 − x_0 ≤ 0 | |
| 2 | 2 | 0: | 0 ≤ 0 ∧ 0 ≤ 0 ∧ − x_post + x_post ≤ 0 ∧ x_post − x_post ≤ 0 ∧ − x_0 + x_0 ≤ 0 ∧ x_0 − x_0 ≤ 0 | |
| 3 | 3 | 2: | 0 ≤ 0 ∧ 0 ≤ 0 ∧ − x_post + x_post ≤ 0 ∧ x_post − x_post ≤ 0 ∧ − x_0 + x_0 ≤ 0 ∧ x_0 − x_0 ≤ 0 |
The following invariants are asserted.
| 0: | TRUE |
| 1: | 201 − x_0 ≤ 0 ∧ 201 − x_post ≤ 0 |
| 2: | TRUE |
| 3: | TRUE |
The invariants are proved as follows.
| 0 | (0) | TRUE | ||
| 1 | (1) | 201 − x_0 ≤ 0 ∧ 201 − x_post ≤ 0 | ||
| 2 | (2) | TRUE | ||
| 3 | (3) | TRUE |
| 0 | 0 1 | |
| 1 | 1 0 | |
| 2 | 2 0 | |
| 3 | 3 2 |
| 0 | 4 | : | − x_post + x_post ≤ 0 ∧ x_post − x_post ≤ 0 ∧ − x_0 + x_0 ≤ 0 ∧ x_0 − x_0 ≤ 0 |
We remove transitions , using the following ranking functions, which are bounded by −11.
| 3: | 0 |
| 2: | 0 |
| 0: | 0 |
| 1: | 0 |
| : | −4 |
| : | −5 |
| : | −6 |
| : | −6 |
| : | −6 |
| : | −6 |
| 5 | lexWeak[ [0, 0, 0, 0] ] |
| lexWeak[ [0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0] ] | |
| lexWeak[ [0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0] ] | |
| lexStrict[ [0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0] , [0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0] ] | |
| lexStrict[ [0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0] , [0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0] ] |
The following skip-transition is inserted and corresponding redirections w.r.t. the old location are performed.
7 : − x_post + x_post ≤ 0 ∧ x_post − x_post ≤ 0 ∧ − x_0 + x_0 ≤ 0 ∧ x_0 − x_0 ≤ 0
The following skip-transition is inserted and corresponding redirections w.r.t. the old location are performed.
5 : − x_post + x_post ≤ 0 ∧ x_post − x_post ≤ 0 ∧ − x_0 + x_0 ≤ 0 ∧ x_0 − x_0 ≤ 0
We consider subproblems for each of the 1 SCC(s) of the program graph.
Here we consider the SCC { , , , }.
We remove transitions , using the following ranking functions, which are bounded by 1803.
| : | −1000 + 4⋅x_0 |
| : | 1000 + 4⋅x_0 |
| : | −2000 + 4⋅x_0 |
| : | 4⋅x_0 |
| 5 | lexWeak[ [0, 0, 4, 0] ] |
| 7 | lexWeak[ [0, 0, 4, 0] ] |
| lexStrict[ [0, 0, 4, 0, 0, 4, 0] , [0, 0, 4, 0, 4, 0, 0] ] | |
| lexStrict[ [0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 4, 0] , [4, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0] ] |
We remove transitions 5, 7 using the following ranking functions, which are bounded by −1.
| : | 0 |
| : | 0 |
| : | −1 |
| : | 1 |
| 5 | lexStrict[ [0, 0, 0, 0] , [0, 0, 0, 0] ] |
| 7 | lexStrict[ [0, 0, 0, 0] , [0, 0, 0, 0] ] |
We consider 1 subproblems corresponding to sets of cut-point transitions as follows.
There remain no cut-point transition to consider. Hence the cooperation termination is trivial.
T2Cert