YES

The TRS could be proven terminating. The proof took 3529 ms.

The following DP Processors were used


Problem 1 was processed with processor DependencyGraph (138ms).
 | – Problem 2 was processed with processor SubtermCriterion (0ms).
 | – Problem 3 was processed with processor SubtermCriterion (1ms).
 | – Problem 4 was processed with processor SubtermCriterion (0ms).
 | – Problem 5 was processed with processor PolynomialOrderingProcessor (2257ms).

Problem 1: DependencyGraph



Dependency Pair Problem

Dependency Pairs

gcd#(s(x), s(y), z) → min#(x, y)gcd#(s(x), s(y), z) → max#(x, y)
gcd#(s(x), y, s(z)) → max#(x, z)max#(s(x), s(y)) → max#(x, y)
gcd#(s(x), y, s(z)) → gcd#(-(max(x, z), min(x, z)), y, s(min(x, z)))gcd#(s(x), y, s(z)) → -#(max(x, z), min(x, z))
gcd#(s(x), s(y), z) → gcd#(-(max(x, y), min(x, y)), s(min(x, y)), z)-#(s(x), s(y)) → -#(x, y)
gcd#(x, s(y), s(z)) → min#(y, z)gcd#(x, s(y), s(z)) → max#(y, z)
gcd#(s(x), y, s(z)) → min#(x, z)min#(s(x), s(y)) → min#(x, y)
gcd#(x, s(y), s(z)) → -#(max(y, z), min(y, z))gcd#(s(x), s(y), z) → -#(max(x, y), min(x, y))
gcd#(x, s(y), s(z)) → gcd#(x, -(max(y, z), min(y, z)), s(min(y, z)))

Rewrite Rules

min(x, 0) → 0min(0, y) → 0
min(s(x), s(y)) → s(min(x, y))max(x, 0) → x
max(0, y) → ymax(s(x), s(y)) → s(max(x, y))
-(x, 0) → x-(s(x), s(y)) → -(x, y)
gcd(s(x), s(y), z) → gcd(-(max(x, y), min(x, y)), s(min(x, y)), z)gcd(x, s(y), s(z)) → gcd(x, -(max(y, z), min(y, z)), s(min(y, z)))
gcd(s(x), y, s(z)) → gcd(-(max(x, z), min(x, z)), y, s(min(x, z)))gcd(x, 0, 0) → x
gcd(0, y, 0) → ygcd(0, 0, z) → z

Original Signature

Termination of terms over the following signature is verified: min, 0, max, s, -, gcd

Strategy


The following SCCs where found

min#(s(x), s(y)) → min#(x, y)

max#(s(x), s(y)) → max#(x, y)

-#(s(x), s(y)) → -#(x, y)

gcd#(s(x), y, s(z)) → gcd#(-(max(x, z), min(x, z)), y, s(min(x, z)))gcd#(s(x), s(y), z) → gcd#(-(max(x, y), min(x, y)), s(min(x, y)), z)
gcd#(x, s(y), s(z)) → gcd#(x, -(max(y, z), min(y, z)), s(min(y, z)))

Problem 2: SubtermCriterion



Dependency Pair Problem

Dependency Pairs

-#(s(x), s(y)) → -#(x, y)

Rewrite Rules

min(x, 0) → 0min(0, y) → 0
min(s(x), s(y)) → s(min(x, y))max(x, 0) → x
max(0, y) → ymax(s(x), s(y)) → s(max(x, y))
-(x, 0) → x-(s(x), s(y)) → -(x, y)
gcd(s(x), s(y), z) → gcd(-(max(x, y), min(x, y)), s(min(x, y)), z)gcd(x, s(y), s(z)) → gcd(x, -(max(y, z), min(y, z)), s(min(y, z)))
gcd(s(x), y, s(z)) → gcd(-(max(x, z), min(x, z)), y, s(min(x, z)))gcd(x, 0, 0) → x
gcd(0, y, 0) → ygcd(0, 0, z) → z

Original Signature

Termination of terms over the following signature is verified: min, 0, max, s, -, gcd

Strategy


Projection

The following projection was used:

Thus, the following dependency pairs are removed:

-#(s(x), s(y)) → -#(x, y)

Problem 3: SubtermCriterion



Dependency Pair Problem

Dependency Pairs

min#(s(x), s(y)) → min#(x, y)

Rewrite Rules

min(x, 0) → 0min(0, y) → 0
min(s(x), s(y)) → s(min(x, y))max(x, 0) → x
max(0, y) → ymax(s(x), s(y)) → s(max(x, y))
-(x, 0) → x-(s(x), s(y)) → -(x, y)
gcd(s(x), s(y), z) → gcd(-(max(x, y), min(x, y)), s(min(x, y)), z)gcd(x, s(y), s(z)) → gcd(x, -(max(y, z), min(y, z)), s(min(y, z)))
gcd(s(x), y, s(z)) → gcd(-(max(x, z), min(x, z)), y, s(min(x, z)))gcd(x, 0, 0) → x
gcd(0, y, 0) → ygcd(0, 0, z) → z

Original Signature

Termination of terms over the following signature is verified: min, 0, max, s, -, gcd

Strategy


Projection

The following projection was used:

Thus, the following dependency pairs are removed:

min#(s(x), s(y)) → min#(x, y)

Problem 4: SubtermCriterion



Dependency Pair Problem

Dependency Pairs

max#(s(x), s(y)) → max#(x, y)

Rewrite Rules

min(x, 0) → 0min(0, y) → 0
min(s(x), s(y)) → s(min(x, y))max(x, 0) → x
max(0, y) → ymax(s(x), s(y)) → s(max(x, y))
-(x, 0) → x-(s(x), s(y)) → -(x, y)
gcd(s(x), s(y), z) → gcd(-(max(x, y), min(x, y)), s(min(x, y)), z)gcd(x, s(y), s(z)) → gcd(x, -(max(y, z), min(y, z)), s(min(y, z)))
gcd(s(x), y, s(z)) → gcd(-(max(x, z), min(x, z)), y, s(min(x, z)))gcd(x, 0, 0) → x
gcd(0, y, 0) → ygcd(0, 0, z) → z

Original Signature

Termination of terms over the following signature is verified: min, 0, max, s, -, gcd

Strategy


Projection

The following projection was used:

Thus, the following dependency pairs are removed:

max#(s(x), s(y)) → max#(x, y)

Problem 5: PolynomialOrderingProcessor



Dependency Pair Problem

Dependency Pairs

gcd#(s(x), y, s(z)) → gcd#(-(max(x, z), min(x, z)), y, s(min(x, z)))gcd#(s(x), s(y), z) → gcd#(-(max(x, y), min(x, y)), s(min(x, y)), z)
gcd#(x, s(y), s(z)) → gcd#(x, -(max(y, z), min(y, z)), s(min(y, z)))

Rewrite Rules

min(x, 0) → 0min(0, y) → 0
min(s(x), s(y)) → s(min(x, y))max(x, 0) → x
max(0, y) → ymax(s(x), s(y)) → s(max(x, y))
-(x, 0) → x-(s(x), s(y)) → -(x, y)
gcd(s(x), s(y), z) → gcd(-(max(x, y), min(x, y)), s(min(x, y)), z)gcd(x, s(y), s(z)) → gcd(x, -(max(y, z), min(y, z)), s(min(y, z)))
gcd(s(x), y, s(z)) → gcd(-(max(x, z), min(x, z)), y, s(min(x, z)))gcd(x, 0, 0) → x
gcd(0, y, 0) → ygcd(0, 0, z) → z

Original Signature

Termination of terms over the following signature is verified: min, 0, max, s, -, gcd

Strategy


Polynomial Interpretation

Improved Usable rules

-(s(x), s(y)) → -(x, y)min(0, y) → 0
-(x, 0) → xmax(s(x), s(y)) → s(max(x, y))
min(s(x), s(y)) → s(min(x, y))max(0, y) → y
min(x, 0) → 0max(x, 0) → x

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

gcd#(s(x), y, s(z)) → gcd#(-(max(x, z), min(x, z)), y, s(min(x, z)))gcd#(s(x), s(y), z) → gcd#(-(max(x, y), min(x, y)), s(min(x, y)), z)
gcd#(x, s(y), s(z)) → gcd#(x, -(max(y, z), min(y, z)), s(min(y, z)))