YES

The TRS could be proven terminating. The proof took 165 ms.

The following DP Processors were used


Problem 1 was processed with processor PolynomialLinearRange4 (126ms).
 | – Problem 2 was processed with processor DependencyGraph (1ms).

Problem 1: PolynomialLinearRange4



Dependency Pair Problem

Dependency Pairs

if#(false, X, Y)T(Y)f#(X)if#(X, c, f(true))
T(f(true))f#(true)

Rewrite Rules

f(X)if(X, c, f(true))if(true, X, Y)X
if(false, X, Y)Y

Original Signature

Termination of terms over the following signature is verified: f, c, if, true, false

Strategy

Context-sensitive strategy:
μ(T) = μ(c) = μ(false) = μ(true) = ∅
μ(f) = μ(f#) = {1}
μ(if) = μ(if#) = {1, 2}


Polynomial Interpretation

Standard Usable rules

if(false, X, Y)Yif(true, X, Y)X
f(X)if(X, c, f(true))

The following dependency pairs are strictly oriented by an ordering on the given polynomial interpretation, thus they are removed:

T(f(true))f#(true)

Problem 2: DependencyGraph



Dependency Pair Problem

Dependency Pairs

if#(false, X, Y)T(Y)f#(X)if#(X, c, f(true))

Rewrite Rules

f(X)if(X, c, f(true))if(true, X, Y)X
if(false, X, Y)Y

Original Signature

Termination of terms over the following signature is verified: f, c, if, false, true

Strategy

Context-sensitive strategy:
μ(T) = μ(c) = μ(true) = μ(false) = ∅
μ(f) = μ(f#) = {1}
μ(if) = μ(if#) = {1, 2}


There are no SCCs!