Certification Problem

Input (COPS 695)

We consider the TRS containing the following rules:

h(a,a)	→	c	(1)
b	→	h(b,a)	(2)
b	→	a	(3)
f(c)	→	c	(4)
c	→	a	(5)

The underlying signature is as follows:

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

Property / Task

Prove or disprove confluence.

Answer / Result

No.

Proof (by csi @ CoCo 2023)

1 Non-Joinable Fork

The system is not confluent due to the following forking derivations.

t₀	=	f(c)
	→	f(a)
	=	t₁

t₀	=	f(c)
	→	c
	=	t₁

The two resulting terms cannot be joined for the following reason:

The reachable terms of these two terms are approximated via the following two tree automata, and the tree automata have an empty intersection.
- Automaton 1
  - final states:
    
    {1}
  - transitions:
    
    f(2) → 1
    
    a → 2
  The automaton is closed under rewriting as it is compatible.
- Automaton 2
  - final states:
    
    {3}
  - transitions:
    
    c → 3
    
    a → 3
  The automaton is closed under rewriting as it is compatible.