YES
0 RelTRS
↳1 RelTRStoRelADPProof (⇔, 0 ms)
↳2 RelADPP
↳3 RelADPDepGraphProof (⇔, 0 ms)
↳4 RelADPP
↳5 RelADPCleverAfsProof (⇒, 39 ms)
↳6 QDP
↳7 MRRProof (⇔, 48 ms)
↳8 QDP
↳9 DependencyGraphProof (⇔, 0 ms)
↳10 QDP
↳11 QDPOrderProof (⇔, 0 ms)
↳12 QDP
↳13 PisEmptyProof (⇔, 0 ms)
↳14 YES
f(0, y) → 0
f(s(x), y) → f(f(x, y), y)
rand(x) → rand(s(x))
rand(x) → x
We upgrade the RelTRS problem to an equivalent Relative ADP Problem [IJCAR24].
f(0, y) → 0
f(s(x), y) → F(f(x, y), y)
f(s(x), y) → f(F(x, y), y)
rand(x) → RAND(s(x))
rand(x) → x
We use the relative dependency graph processor [IJCAR24].
The approximation of the Relative Dependency Graph contains:
1 SCC with nodes from P_abs,
0 Lassos,
Result: This relative DT problem is equivalent to 1 subproblem.
f(0, y) → 0
f(s(x), y) → F(f(x, y), y)
f(s(x), y) → f(F(x, y), y)
rand(x) → rand(s(x))
rand(x) → x
Furthermore, We use an argument filter [LPAR04].
Filtering:s_1 =
f_2 = 1
0 =
F_2 = 1
rand_1 =
Found this filtering by looking at the following order that orders at least one DP strictly:Combined order from the following AFS and order.
F(x1, x2) = F(x1)
s(x1) = s(x1)
f(x1, x2) = f(x1)
0 = 0
Recursive path order with status [RPO].
Quasi-Precedence:
F1 > [s1, f1] > 0
F1: [1]
s1: multiset
f1: multiset
0: multiset
F(s0(x)) → F(f(x))
F(s0(x)) → F(x)
f(00) → 00
rand0(x) → rand0(s0(x))
f(s0(x)) → f(f(x))
rand0(x) → x
rand0(x) → x
POL(00) = 0
POL(F(x1)) = 2·x1
POL(f(x1)) = x1
POL(rand0(x1)) = 2 + x1
POL(s0(x1)) = x1
F(s0(x)) → F(f(x))
F(s0(x)) → F(x)
f(00) → 00
rand0(x) → rand0(s0(x))
f(s0(x)) → f(f(x))
F(s0(x)) → F(x)
f(00) → 00
rand0(x) → rand0(s0(x))
f(s0(x)) → f(f(x))
The following pairs can be oriented strictly and are deleted.
The remaining pairs can at least be oriented weakly.
F(s0(x)) → F(x)
[s01, f1] > F1
F1: multiset
s01: [1]
f1: [1]
00: multiset
rand0: multiset
f(00) → 00
rand0(x) → rand0(s0(x))
f(s0(x)) → f(f(x))
f(00) → 00
rand0(x) → rand0(s0(x))
f(s0(x)) → f(f(x))