YES Confluence Proof

Confluence Proof

by csi

Input

The rewrite relation of the following TRS is considered.

nats :(0,inc(nats))
inc(:(x,y)) :(s(x),inc(y))
inc(tl(nats)) tl(inc(nats))
hd(:(x,y)) x
tl(:(x,y)) y
d(:(x,y)) :(x,:(x,d(y)))

Proof

1 Redundant Rules Transformation

To prove that the TRS is (non-)confluent, we show (non-)confluence of the following modified system:

nats :(0,inc(nats))
inc(:(x,y)) :(s(x),inc(y))
hd(:(x,y)) x
tl(:(x,y)) y
d(:(x,y)) :(x,:(x,d(y)))

All redundant rules that were added or removed can be simulated in 4 steps .

1.1 Critical Pair Closing System

Confluence is proven using the following terminating critical-pair-closing-system R:

There are no rules.

1.1.1 R is empty

There are no rules in the TRS. Hence, it is terminating.

Tool configuration

csi