We consider the TRS containing the following rules:
| a | → | a | (1) |
| f(h(a,a)) | → | f(b) | (2) |
| c | → | b | (3) |
The underlying signature is as follows:
{a/0, f/1, h/2, b/0, c/0}To prove that the TRS is (non-)confluent, we show (non-)confluence of the following modified system:
| c | → | b | (3) |
| f(h(a,a)) | → | f(b) | (2) |
All redundant rules that were added or removed can be simulated in 1 steps .
To prove that the TRS is (non-)confluent, we show (non-)confluence of the following modified system:
| c | → | b | (3) |
| f(h(a,a)) | → | f(b) | (2) |
All redundant rules that were added or removed can be simulated in 2 steps .
Confluence is proven using the following terminating critical-pair-closing-system R:
There are no rules.
There are no rules in the TRS. Hence, it is terminating.