MAYBE

The TRS could not be proven terminating. The proof attempt took 538 ms.

The following DP Processors were used


Problem 1 was processed with processor DependencyGraph (0ms).
 | – Problem 2 remains open; application of the following processors failed [SubtermCriterion (1ms), DependencyGraph (1ms), PolynomialLinearRange4iUR (93ms), DependencyGraph (1ms), PolynomialLinearRange8NegiUR (180ms), DependencyGraph (2ms), ReductionPairSAT (153ms), DependencyGraph (1ms), SizeChangePrinciple (7ms)].
 | – Problem 3 was processed with processor SubtermCriterion (0ms).

The following open problems remain:



Open Dependency Pair Problem 2

Dependency Pairs

f#(s(0), g(x))f#(x, g(x))

Rewrite Rules

f(s(0), g(x))f(x, g(x))g(s(x))g(x)

Original Signature

Termination of terms over the following signature is verified: f, g, 0, s


Problem 1: DependencyGraph



Dependency Pair Problem

Dependency Pairs

f#(s(0), g(x))g#(x)f#(s(0), g(x))f#(x, g(x))
g#(s(x))g#(x)

Rewrite Rules

f(s(0), g(x))f(x, g(x))g(s(x))g(x)

Original Signature

Termination of terms over the following signature is verified: f, g, 0, s

Strategy


The following SCCs where found

f#(s(0), g(x)) → f#(x, g(x))

g#(s(x)) → g#(x)

Problem 3: SubtermCriterion



Dependency Pair Problem

Dependency Pairs

g#(s(x))g#(x)

Rewrite Rules

f(s(0), g(x))f(x, g(x))g(s(x))g(x)

Original Signature

Termination of terms over the following signature is verified: f, g, 0, s

Strategy


Projection

The following projection was used:

Thus, the following dependency pairs are removed:

g#(s(x))g#(x)