MAYBE
The TRS could not be proven terminating. The proof attempt took 4938 ms.
The following DP Processors were used
Problem 1 was processed with processor PolynomialLinearRange4iUR (0ms).
| – Problem 2 remains open; application of the following processors failed [DependencyGraph (1ms), PolynomialLinearRange4iUR (87ms), DependencyGraph (0ms), PolynomialLinearRange8NegiUR (554ms), DependencyGraph (1ms), ReductionPairSAT (3960ms), DependencyGraph (1ms), SizeChangePrinciple (5ms)].
The following open problems remain:
Open Dependency Pair Problem 2
Dependency Pairs
| f#(f(f(a, f(a, a)), a), x) | → | f#(x, f(x, a)) |
Rewrite Rules
| f(f(f(a, f(a, a)), a), x) | → | f(x, f(x, a)) |
Original Signature
Termination of terms over the following signature is verified: f, a
Problem 1: PolynomialLinearRange4iUR
Dependency Pair Problem
Dependency Pairs
| f#(f(f(a, f(a, a)), a), x) | → | f#(x, f(x, a)) | | f#(f(f(a, f(a, a)), a), x) | → | f#(x, a) |
Rewrite Rules
| f(f(f(a, f(a, a)), a), x) | → | f(x, f(x, a)) |
Original Signature
Termination of terms over the following signature is verified: f, a
Strategy
Polynomial Interpretation
- a: 0
- f(x,y): 1
- f#(x,y): y + x
Improved Usable rules
| f(f(f(a, f(a, a)), a), x) | → | f(x, f(x, a)) |
The following dependency pairs are strictly oriented by an ordering on the given polynomial interpretation, thus they are removed:
| f#(f(f(a, f(a, a)), a), x) | → | f#(x, a) |