YES Termination w.r.t. Q proof of Transformed_CSR_04_Ex24_Luc06_C.ari

Termination w.r.t. Q of the given QTRS could be proven:

0 QTRS
↳1 QTRSToCSRProof (⇔, 0 ms)
↳2 CSR
↳3 CSRRRRProof (⇔, 34 ms)
↳4 CSR
↳5 CSRRRRProof (⇔, 0 ms)
↳6 CSR
↳7 RisEmptyProof (⇔, 0 ms)
↳8 YES

(0) Obligation:

Q restricted rewrite system:
The TRS R consists of the following rules:

active(f(b, X, c)) → mark(f(X, c, X))
active(c) → mark(b)
active(f(X1, X2, X3)) → f(X1, active(X2), X3)
f(X1, mark(X2), X3) → mark(f(X1, X2, X3))
proper(f(X1, X2, X3)) → f(proper(X1), proper(X2), proper(X3))
proper(b) → ok(b)
proper(c) → ok(c)
f(ok(X1), ok(X2), ok(X3)) → ok(f(X1, X2, X3))
top(mark(X)) → top(proper(X))
top(ok(X)) → top(active(X))

Q is empty.

(1) QTRSToCSRProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

The following Q TRS is given: Q restricted rewrite system:
The TRS R consists of the following rules:

active(f(b, X, c)) → mark(f(X, c, X))
active(c) → mark(b)
active(f(X1, X2, X3)) → f(X1, active(X2), X3)
f(X1, mark(X2), X3) → mark(f(X1, X2, X3))
proper(f(X1, X2, X3)) → f(proper(X1), proper(X2), proper(X3))
proper(b) → ok(b)
proper(c) → ok(c)
f(ok(X1), ok(X2), ok(X3)) → ok(f(X1, X2, X3))
top(mark(X)) → top(proper(X))
top(ok(X)) → top(active(X))

Q is empty.
Special symbols used for the transformation (see [GM04]):
top: top, active: active, mark: mark, ok: ok, proper: proper
The replacement map contains the following entries:

f: {2}
b: empty set
c: empty set
The QTRS contained all rules created by the complete Giesl-Middeldorp transformation. Therefore, the inverse transformation is complete (and sound).

(2) Obligation:

Context-sensitive rewrite system:
The TRS R consists of the following rules:

f(b, X, c) → f(X, c, X)
c → b

The replacement map contains the following entries:

f: {2}
b: empty set
c: empty set

(3) CSRRRRProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

The following CSR is given: Context-sensitive rewrite system:
The TRS R consists of the following rules:

f(b, X, c) → f(X, c, X)
c → b

The replacement map contains the following entries:

f: {2}
b: empty set
c: empty set
Used ordering:
Polynomial interpretation [POLO]:


POL(b) = 1   
POL(c) = 2   
POL(f(x1, x2, x3)) = 2·x2 + 2·x3   
With this ordering the following rules can be removed by the rule removal processor [LPAR04] because they are oriented strictly:

c → b


(4) Obligation:

Context-sensitive rewrite system:
The TRS R consists of the following rules:

f(b, X, c) → f(X, c, X)

The replacement map contains the following entries:

f: {2}
b: empty set
c: empty set

(5) CSRRRRProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

The following CSR is given: Context-sensitive rewrite system:
The TRS R consists of the following rules:

f(b, X, c) → f(X, c, X)

The replacement map contains the following entries:

f: {2}
b: empty set
c: empty set
Used ordering:
Polynomial interpretation [POLO]:


POL(b) = 1   
POL(c) = 0   
POL(f(x1, x2, x3)) = x1 + x2   
With this ordering the following rules can be removed by the rule removal processor [LPAR04] because they are oriented strictly:

f(b, X, c) → f(X, c, X)


(6) Obligation:

Context-sensitive rewrite system:
R is empty.

(7) RisEmptyProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

The CSR R is empty. Hence, termination is trivially proven.

(8) YES