YES

The TRS could be proven terminating. The proof took 118 ms.

The following DP Processors were used


Problem 1 was processed with processor DependencyGraph (7ms).
 | – Problem 2 was processed with processor PolynomialLinearRange4iUR (59ms).
 |    | – Problem 3 was processed with processor DependencyGraph (1ms).

Problem 1: DependencyGraph



Dependency Pair Problem

Dependency Pairs

a__g#(X)a__h#(X)mark#(c)a__c#
a__h#(d)a__g#(c)mark#(g(X))a__g#(X)
mark#(h(X))a__h#(X)

Rewrite Rules

a__g(X)a__h(X)a__cd
a__h(d)a__g(c)mark(g(X))a__g(X)
mark(h(X))a__h(X)mark(c)a__c
mark(d)da__g(X)g(X)
a__h(X)h(X)a__cc

Original Signature

Termination of terms over the following signature is verified: g, d, c, a__c, mark, a__h, a__g, h

Strategy


The following SCCs where found

a__g#(X) → a__h#(X)a__h#(d) → a__g#(c)

Problem 2: PolynomialLinearRange4iUR



Dependency Pair Problem

Dependency Pairs

a__g#(X)a__h#(X)a__h#(d)a__g#(c)

Rewrite Rules

a__g(X)a__h(X)a__cd
a__h(d)a__g(c)mark(g(X))a__g(X)
mark(h(X))a__h(X)mark(c)a__c
mark(d)da__g(X)g(X)
a__h(X)h(X)a__cc

Original Signature

Termination of terms over the following signature is verified: g, d, c, a__c, mark, a__h, a__g, h

Strategy


Polynomial Interpretation

There are no usable rules

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

a__h#(d)a__g#(c)

Problem 3: DependencyGraph



Dependency Pair Problem

Dependency Pairs

a__g#(X)a__h#(X)

Rewrite Rules

a__g(X)a__h(X)a__cd
a__h(d)a__g(c)mark(g(X))a__g(X)
mark(h(X))a__h(X)mark(c)a__c
mark(d)da__g(X)g(X)
a__h(X)h(X)a__cc

Original Signature

Termination of terms over the following signature is verified: g, d, c, a__c, mark, a__h, a__g, h

Strategy


There are no SCCs!