YES We show the termination of the TRS R: le(|0|(),y) -> true() le(s(x),|0|()) -> false() le(s(x),s(y)) -> le(x,y) pred(s(x)) -> x minus(x,|0|()) -> x minus(x,s(y)) -> pred(minus(x,y)) gcd(|0|(),y) -> y gcd(s(x),|0|()) -> s(x) gcd(s(x),s(y)) -> if_gcd(le(y,x),s(x),s(y)) if_gcd(true(),s(x),s(y)) -> gcd(minus(x,y),s(y)) if_gcd(false(),s(x),s(y)) -> gcd(minus(y,x),s(x)) -- SCC decomposition. Consider the dependency pair problem (P, R), where P consists of p1: le#(s(x),s(y)) -> le#(x,y) p2: minus#(x,s(y)) -> pred#(minus(x,y)) p3: minus#(x,s(y)) -> minus#(x,y) p4: gcd#(s(x),s(y)) -> if_gcd#(le(y,x),s(x),s(y)) p5: gcd#(s(x),s(y)) -> le#(y,x) p6: if_gcd#(true(),s(x),s(y)) -> gcd#(minus(x,y),s(y)) p7: if_gcd#(true(),s(x),s(y)) -> minus#(x,y) p8: if_gcd#(false(),s(x),s(y)) -> gcd#(minus(y,x),s(x)) p9: if_gcd#(false(),s(x),s(y)) -> minus#(y,x) and R consists of: r1: le(|0|(),y) -> true() r2: le(s(x),|0|()) -> false() r3: le(s(x),s(y)) -> le(x,y) r4: pred(s(x)) -> x r5: minus(x,|0|()) -> x r6: minus(x,s(y)) -> pred(minus(x,y)) r7: gcd(|0|(),y) -> y r8: gcd(s(x),|0|()) -> s(x) r9: gcd(s(x),s(y)) -> if_gcd(le(y,x),s(x),s(y)) r10: if_gcd(true(),s(x),s(y)) -> gcd(minus(x,y),s(y)) r11: if_gcd(false(),s(x),s(y)) -> gcd(minus(y,x),s(x)) The estimated dependency graph contains the following SCCs: {p4, p6, p8} {p1} {p3} -- Reduction pair. Consider the dependency pair problem (P, R), where P consists of p1: if_gcd#(false(),s(x),s(y)) -> gcd#(minus(y,x),s(x)) p2: gcd#(s(x),s(y)) -> if_gcd#(le(y,x),s(x),s(y)) p3: if_gcd#(true(),s(x),s(y)) -> gcd#(minus(x,y),s(y)) and R consists of: r1: le(|0|(),y) -> true() r2: le(s(x),|0|()) -> false() r3: le(s(x),s(y)) -> le(x,y) r4: pred(s(x)) -> x r5: minus(x,|0|()) -> x r6: minus(x,s(y)) -> pred(minus(x,y)) r7: gcd(|0|(),y) -> y r8: gcd(s(x),|0|()) -> s(x) r9: gcd(s(x),s(y)) -> if_gcd(le(y,x),s(x),s(y)) r10: if_gcd(true(),s(x),s(y)) -> gcd(minus(x,y),s(y)) r11: if_gcd(false(),s(x),s(y)) -> gcd(minus(y,x),s(x)) The set of usable rules consists of r1, r2, r3, r4, r5, r6 Take the reduction pair: generalized weighted path order (>=MG, >G) base order 1: max/plus interpretation on natural numbers: if_gcd#_A(x1,x2,x3) = max{35, x1 - 1, x2, x3 - 18} false_A = 21 s_A(x1) = x1 + 34 gcd#_A(x1,x2) = max{15, x1 + 1, x2 - 18} minus_A(x1,x2) = max{11, x1 + 10} le_A(x1,x2) = max{20, x1 - 9} true_A = 14 |0|_A = 22 pred_A(x1) = max{9, x1 - 10} base order 2: marked-algebra reduction triple (>=A, >=A!, >A!): max/plus interpretation on natural numbers: if_gcd#_A(x1,x2,x3) = 1 false_A = 12 s_A(x1) = max{20, x1 + 14} gcd#_A(x1,x2) = 1 minus_A(x1,x2) = max{26, x1 + 12} le_A(x1,x2) = max{3, x1 - 3} true_A = 0 |0|_A = 2 pred_A(x1) = max{13, x1 - 14} if_gcd#!_A(x1,x2,x3) = max{0, x1 - 11, x3 - 21} false!_A = 11 s!_A(x1) = 15 gcd#!_A(x1,x2) = max{0, x2 - 21} minus!_A(x1,x2) = 0 le!_A(x1,x2) = max{12, x1 - 1, x2 + 1} true!_A = 13 |0|!_A = 14 pred!_A(x1) = max{1, x1 - 27} partial status: pi(if_gcd#) = [2] pi(false) = [] pi(s) = [1] pi(gcd#) = [1] pi(minus) = [] pi(le) = [] pi(true) = [] pi(|0|) = [] pi(pred) = [] The following rules are removed: p1 -- SCC decomposition. Consider the dependency pair problem (P, R), where P consists of p1: gcd#(s(x),s(y)) -> if_gcd#(le(y,x),s(x),s(y)) p2: if_gcd#(true(),s(x),s(y)) -> gcd#(minus(x,y),s(y)) and R consists of: r1: le(|0|(),y) -> true() r2: le(s(x),|0|()) -> false() r3: le(s(x),s(y)) -> le(x,y) r4: pred(s(x)) -> x r5: minus(x,|0|()) -> x r6: minus(x,s(y)) -> pred(minus(x,y)) r7: gcd(|0|(),y) -> y r8: gcd(s(x),|0|()) -> s(x) r9: gcd(s(x),s(y)) -> if_gcd(le(y,x),s(x),s(y)) r10: if_gcd(true(),s(x),s(y)) -> gcd(minus(x,y),s(y)) r11: if_gcd(false(),s(x),s(y)) -> gcd(minus(y,x),s(x)) The estimated dependency graph contains the following SCCs: {p1, p2} -- Reduction pair. Consider the dependency pair problem (P, R), where P consists of p1: gcd#(s(x),s(y)) -> if_gcd#(le(y,x),s(x),s(y)) p2: if_gcd#(true(),s(x),s(y)) -> gcd#(minus(x,y),s(y)) and R consists of: r1: le(|0|(),y) -> true() r2: le(s(x),|0|()) -> false() r3: le(s(x),s(y)) -> le(x,y) r4: pred(s(x)) -> x r5: minus(x,|0|()) -> x r6: minus(x,s(y)) -> pred(minus(x,y)) r7: gcd(|0|(),y) -> y r8: gcd(s(x),|0|()) -> s(x) r9: gcd(s(x),s(y)) -> if_gcd(le(y,x),s(x),s(y)) r10: if_gcd(true(),s(x),s(y)) -> gcd(minus(x,y),s(y)) r11: if_gcd(false(),s(x),s(y)) -> gcd(minus(y,x),s(x)) The set of usable rules consists of r1, r2, r3, r4, r5, r6 Take the reduction pair: generalized weighted path order (>=MG, >G) base order 1: max/plus interpretation on natural numbers: gcd#_A(x1,x2) = x1 + 2 s_A(x1) = x1 + 17 if_gcd#_A(x1,x2,x3) = x2 + 1 le_A(x1,x2) = 8 true_A = 3 minus_A(x1,x2) = max{14, x1 + 1} |0|_A = 18 false_A = 1 pred_A(x1) = max{9, x1 - 15} base order 2: marked-algebra reduction triple (>=A, >=A!, >A!): max/plus interpretation on natural numbers: gcd#_A(x1,x2) = max{0, x1 - 36, x2 - 38} s_A(x1) = max{30, x1 + 28} if_gcd#_A(x1,x2,x3) = max{0, x1 - 33, x2 - 39, x3 - 38} le_A(x1,x2) = max{x1 - 40, x2 + 20} true_A = 24 minus_A(x1,x2) = max{35, x1 + 7, x2 - 31} |0|_A = 64 false_A = 0 pred_A(x1) = max{8, x1 - 28} gcd#!_A(x1,x2) = max{1, x1 - 9} s!_A(x1) = max{22, x1 + 3} if_gcd#!_A(x1,x2,x3) = max{2, x1 - 1, x3 - 68} le!_A(x1,x2) = max{18, x2 - 65} true!_A = 25 minus!_A(x1,x2) = max{24, x1 - 1, x2 - 26} |0|!_A = 26 false!_A = 17 pred!_A(x1) = max{23, x1 - 34} partial status: pi(gcd#) = [] pi(s) = [] pi(if_gcd#) = [2] pi(le) = [] pi(true) = [] pi(minus) = [] pi(|0|) = [] pi(false) = [] pi(pred) = [] The following rules are removed: p1, p2 Then no dependency pair remains. -- Reduction pair. Consider the dependency pair problem (P, R), where P consists of p1: le#(s(x),s(y)) -> le#(x,y) and R consists of: r1: le(|0|(),y) -> true() r2: le(s(x),|0|()) -> false() r3: le(s(x),s(y)) -> le(x,y) r4: pred(s(x)) -> x r5: minus(x,|0|()) -> x r6: minus(x,s(y)) -> pred(minus(x,y)) r7: gcd(|0|(),y) -> y r8: gcd(s(x),|0|()) -> s(x) r9: gcd(s(x),s(y)) -> if_gcd(le(y,x),s(x),s(y)) r10: if_gcd(true(),s(x),s(y)) -> gcd(minus(x,y),s(y)) r11: if_gcd(false(),s(x),s(y)) -> gcd(minus(y,x),s(x)) The set of usable rules consists of r1 Take the reduction pair: generalized weighted path order (>=MG, >G) base order 1: max/plus interpretation on natural numbers: le#_A(x1,x2) = 0 s_A(x1) = max{3, x1 - 12} le_A(x1,x2) = max{4, x1 - 18, x2 - 4} |0|_A = 2 true_A = 1 base order 2: marked-algebra reduction triple (>=A, >=A!, >A!): max/plus interpretation on natural numbers: le#_A(x1,x2) = max{x1, x2} s_A(x1) = max{19, x1 + 4} le_A(x1,x2) = max{14, x1 - 20, x2 - 1} |0|_A = 0 true_A = 0 le#!_A(x1,x2) = max{4, x1 - 5, x2 - 51} s!_A(x1) = max{3, x1 - 50} le!_A(x1,x2) = max{4, x1 - 68, x2 - 36} |0|!_A = 2 true!_A = 1 partial status: pi(le#) = [] pi(s) = [] pi(le) = [] pi(|0|) = [] pi(true) = [] The following rules are removed: p1 Then no dependency pair remains. -- Reduction pair. Consider the dependency pair problem (P, R), where P consists of p1: minus#(x,s(y)) -> minus#(x,y) and R consists of: r1: le(|0|(),y) -> true() r2: le(s(x),|0|()) -> false() r3: le(s(x),s(y)) -> le(x,y) r4: pred(s(x)) -> x r5: minus(x,|0|()) -> x r6: minus(x,s(y)) -> pred(minus(x,y)) r7: gcd(|0|(),y) -> y r8: gcd(s(x),|0|()) -> s(x) r9: gcd(s(x),s(y)) -> if_gcd(le(y,x),s(x),s(y)) r10: if_gcd(true(),s(x),s(y)) -> gcd(minus(x,y),s(y)) r11: if_gcd(false(),s(x),s(y)) -> gcd(minus(y,x),s(x)) The set of usable rules consists of r1, r2 Take the reduction pair: generalized weighted path order (>=MG, >G) base order 1: max/plus interpretation on natural numbers: minus#_A(x1,x2) = x1 s_A(x1) = max{5, x1 - 10} le_A(x1,x2) = max{2, x1 - 24, x2 - 22} |0|_A = 4 true_A = 1 false_A = 1 base order 2: marked-algebra reduction triple (>=A, >=A!, >A!): max/plus interpretation on natural numbers: minus#_A(x1,x2) = x2 s_A(x1) = max{25, x1 + 6} le_A(x1,x2) = max{18, x1 - 26, x2 - 1} |0|_A = 0 true_A = 0 false_A = 0 minus#!_A(x1,x2) = max{4, x2 - 1} s!_A(x1) = max{3, x1 - 48} le!_A(x1,x2) = max{2, x1 - 47, x2 - 47} |0|!_A = 2 true!_A = 1 false!_A = 1 partial status: pi(minus#) = [1] pi(s) = [] pi(le) = [] pi(|0|) = [] pi(true) = [] pi(false) = [] The following rules are removed: p1 Then no dependency pair remains.