Skip to main content

Proving Termination by Bounded Increase

  • Conference paper
Automated Deduction – CADE-21 (CADE 2007)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 4603))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

Most methods for termination analysis of term rewrite systems (TRSs) essentially try to find arguments of functions that decrease in recursive calls. However, they fail if the reason for termination is that an argument is increased in recursive calls repeatedly until it reaches a bound. In this paper, we solve that problem and show how to prove innermost termination of TRSs with bounded increase automatically.

Supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft DFG under grant GI 274/5-1 and by the DFG Research Training Group 1298 (AlgoSyn).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Arts, T., Giesl, J.: Termination of term rewriting using dependency pairs. Theoretical Computer Science 236, 133–178 (2000)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  2. Baader, F., Nipkow, T.: Term Rewriting and All That. Cambridge (1998)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Brauburger, J., Giesl, J.: Termination analysis by inductive evaluation. In: Kirchner, C., Kirchner, H. (eds.) Automated Deduction - CADE-15. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 1421, pp. 254–269. Springer, Heidelberg (1998)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  4. Contejean, E., Marché, C., Tomás, A.P., Urbain, X.: Mechanically proving termination using polynomial interpretations. J. Aut. Reason. 34(4), 325–363 (2005)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  5. Cook, B., Podelski, A., Rybalchenko, A.: Terminator: Beyond safety. In: Ball, T., Jones, R.B. (eds.) CAV 2006. LNCS, vol. 4144, pp. 415–418. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  6. Fernández, M.-L.: Relaxing monotonicity for innermost termination. Information Processing Letters 93(3), 117–123 (2005)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  7. Fuhs, C., Giesl, J., Middeldorp, A., Schneider-Kamp, P., Thiemann, R., Zankl, H.: SAT solving for termination analysis with polynomial interpretations. In: Marques-Silva, J., Sakallah, K.A. (eds.) SAT 2007. LNCS, vol. 4501, Springer, Heidelberg (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Giesl, J., Thiemann, R., Schneider-Kamp, P.: The dependency pair framework: Combining techniques for automated termination proofs. In: Baader, F., Voronkov, A. (eds.) LPAR 2004. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3452, pp. 301–331. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Giesl, J., Thiemann, R., Schneider-Kamp, P.: AProVE 1.2: Automatic termination proofs in the DP framework. In: Furbach, U., Shankar, N. (eds.) IJCAR 2006. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4130, pp. 281–286. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  10. Giesl, J., Thiemann, R., Schneider-Kamp, P., Falke, S.: Mechanizing and improving dependency pairs. Journal of Automated Reasoning 37(3), 155–203 (2006)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  11. Giesl, J., Thiemann, R., Swiderski, S., Schneider-Kamp, P.: Proving termination by bounded increase. Technical Report AIB-2007-03, RWTH Aachen (2007), Available from http://aib.informatik.rwth-aachen.de

  12. Hirokawa, N., Middeldorp, A.: Automating the dependency pair method. Information and Computation 199(1,2), 172–199 (2005)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  13. Hirokawa, N., Middeldorp, A.: Tyrolean termination tool: Techniques and features. Information and Computation 205(4), 474–511 (2007)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  14. Lankford, D.: On proving term rewriting systems are Noetherian. Technical Report MTP-3, Louisiana Technical University, Ruston, LA, USA (1979)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Manolios, P., Vroon, D.: Termination analysis with calling context graphs. In: Ball, T., Jones, R.B. (eds.) CAV 2006. LNCS, vol. 4144, pp. 401–414. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  16. Marché, C., Zantema, H.: The termination competition. In: Proc. RTA  2007 (to appear, 2007)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Frank Pfenning

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2007 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Giesl, J., Thiemann, R., Swiderski, S., Schneider-Kamp, P. (2007). Proving Termination by Bounded Increase. In: Pfenning, F. (eds) Automated Deduction – CADE-21. CADE 2007. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 4603. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-73595-3_33

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-73595-3_33

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-73594-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-73595-3

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics