MAYBE

The TRS could not be proven terminating. The proof attempt took 271 ms.

The following DP Processors were used


Problem 1 was processed with processor DependencyGraph (5ms).
 | – Problem 2 remains open; application of the following processors failed [SubtermCriterion (0ms), DependencyGraph (3ms), PolynomialLinearRange4iUR (0ms), DependencyGraph (2ms), PolynomialOrderingProcessor (0ms), DependencyGraph (2ms), PolynomialLinearRange4 (97ms), DependencyGraph (1ms), ReductionPairSAT (35ms), DependencyGraph (2ms), SizeChangePrinciple (56ms), BackwardsNarrowing (1ms), BackwardInstantiation (timeout), BackwardInstantiation (0ms), ForwardInstantiation (1ms), BackwardInstantiation (2ms), ForwardInstantiation (1ms), Propagation (0ms)].

The following open problems remain:



Open Dependency Pair Problem 2

Dependency Pairs

f#(X, X)h#(a)g#(a, X)f#(b, X)
h#(X)g#(X, X)

Rewrite Rules

h(X)g(X, X)g(a, X)f(b, X)
f(X, X)h(a)ab

Original Signature

Termination of terms over the following signature is verified: f, g, b, a, h


Problem 1: DependencyGraph



Dependency Pair Problem

Dependency Pairs

f#(X, X)h#(a)g#(a, X)f#(b, X)
f#(X, X)a#h#(X)g#(X, X)

Rewrite Rules

h(X)g(X, X)g(a, X)f(b, X)
f(X, X)h(a)ab

Original Signature

Termination of terms over the following signature is verified: f, g, b, a, h

Strategy

Context-sensitive strategy:
μ(T) = μ(b) = μ(a) = μ(a#) = ∅
μ(f) = μ(g) = μ(f#) = μ(h#) = μ(g#) = μ(h) = {1}


The following SCCs where found

f#(X, X) → h#(a)g#(a, X) → f#(b, X)
h#(X) → g#(X, X)