Certification Problem

Input (COPS 1654)

We consider the TRS containing the following rules:

f(g(x)) h(x,x) (1)
g(a) b (2)
f(x) h(x,x) (3)
b a (4)
h(x,y) h(g(x),g(y)) (5)
g(x) x (6)
a b (7)

The underlying signature is as follows:

{f/1, g/1, h/2, a/0, b/0}

Property / Task

Prove or disprove confluence.

Answer / Result

Yes.

Proof (by csi @ CoCo 2023)

1 Redundant Rules Transformation

To prove that the TRS is (non-)confluent, we show (non-)confluence of the following modified system:

a b (7)
g(x) x (6)
h(x,y) h(g(x),g(y)) (5)
b a (4)
f(x) h(x,x) (3)
g(a) b (2)
f(g(x)) h(x,x) (1)
a a (8)
h(x,y) h(g(x),y) (9)
h(x,y) h(x,g(y)) (10)
h(x,y) h(g(g(x)),g(g(y))) (11)
b b (12)
f(x) h(g(x),g(x)) (13)
g(a) a (14)
f(g(x)) h(g(x),g(x)) (15)

All redundant rules that were added or removed can be simulated in 2 steps .

1.1 Development Closed

Confluence is proven since the TRS is development closed. The joins can be performed using 1 development step(s).