Certification Problem

Input (COPS 1064)

We consider two TRSs R and S where R contains the rules

+(a,x) a (1)
+(b,g(a)) a (2)
+(0,x) x (3)
+(x,+(y,z)) +(+(x,y),z) (4)
+(+(x,y),z) +(x,+(y,z)) (5)
+(x,y) +(y,x) (6)

and S contains the following rules:

+(x,0) x (7)
+(x,s(y)) s(+(x,y)) (8)
+(x,p(y)) p(+(x,y)) (9)
+(0,y) y (10)
+(s(x),y) s(+(x,y)) (11)
+(p(x),y) p(+(x,y)) (12)
s(p(x)) x (13)
p(s(x)) x (14)
-(0) 0 (15)
-(s(x)) p(-(x)) (16)
-(p(x)) s(-(x)) (17)
+(+(x,y),z) +(x,+(y,z)) (5)
+(x,y) +(y,x) (6)
-(+(x,y)) +(-(x),-(y)) (18)

The underlying signature is as follows:

{+/2, -/1, 0/0, a/0, b/0, g/1, p/1, s/1}

Property / Task

Prove or disprove commutation.

Answer / Result

No.

Proof (by ACP @ CoCo 2023)

1 Non-Joinable Fork

The systems are not commuting due to the following forking derivations.
t0 = +(a,s(y))
S s(+(a,y))
= s1
and
t0 = +(a,s(y))
R a
= t1
There is no possibility to join s1R*·←S* t1 for the following reason: