Towards an efficient construction of test sets for deciding ground reducibility

  • Klaus Schmid
  • Roland Fettig
Regular Papers
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 914)


We propose a method for constructing test sets for deciding whether a term is ground reducible w.r.t. an arbitrary, many-sorted, unconditional term rewriting system. Our approach is based on a suitable characterization of such test sets using a certain notion of transnormality. It generates very small test sets and shows some promise to be an important step towards a practicable implementation.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    B. Bogaert and S. Tison. Equality and disequality constraints on direct subterms in tree automata. In Proc. 9 th STACS, volume 577 of LNCS, pages 161–171. Springer, 1992.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    R. Bündgen. Term completion versus algebraic completion. Ph.D. thesis, Fakultät für Informatik, Eberhard-Karls-Universität, Tübingen, Germany, May 1991.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    H. Comon and F. Jacquemard. Ground reducibility and automata with disequality constraints. In Proc. 11 th STACS, LNCS 775, pages 151–162. Springer, 1994.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    H. Comon and J.-L. Remy. How to characterize the language of ground normal forms. Rapports de Recherche 676, INRIA, 1987.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    N. Dershowitz and J.-P. Jouannaud. Notations for rewriting. Bulletin EATCS, No. 43, pages 162–172, Feb 1991.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    D. Hofbauer and M. Huber. Linearizing term rewriting systems using test sets. Journal of Symbolic Computation, 17:91–129, 1994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    J. Jouannaud and E. Kounalis. Automatic proofs by induction in theories without constructors. Information and Computation, 82:1–33, July 1989. An earlier version of this paper appeared in Bulletin EATCS, No. 27, 1985, pages 49–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    D. Kapur, P. Narendran, and H. Zhang. On sufficient completeness and related properties of term rewriting systems. Acta Informatica, 24:395–415, 1987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    D. Kapur, P. Narendran, and H. Zhang. Automating inductionless induction using test sets. Journal of Symbolic Computation, 11:83–111, 1991.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    E. Kounalis. Testing for inductive (co)-reducibility. In CAAP'90, Copenhagen, Denmark, volume 431 of LNCS, pages 221–238, 1990.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    E. Kounalis. Testing for the ground (co)-reducibility property in term-rewriting systems. Theoretical Computer Science, Elsevier, 106:87–117, 1992.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    G. Kucherov and M. Tajine. Decidability of regularity and related properties of ground normal form languages. In 3rd CTRS, LNCS 656, pages 272–286, 1992.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    D. Plaisted. Semantic confluence tests and completion methods. Information and Control, 65:182–215, 1985.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    S. Vágvölgyi and R. Gilleron. For a rewriting system it is decidable whether the set of irreducible ground terms is recognizable. Bulletin EATCS, No. 48, pages 197–200, 1992.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • Klaus Schmid
    • 1
  • Roland Fettig
    • 1
  1. 1.FB InformatikUniversität KaiserslauternKaiserslauternGermany

Personalised recommendations