Non-termination using Regular Languages

We describe a method for proving non-looping non-termination, that is, of term rewriting systems that do not admit looping reductions. As certificates of non-termination, we employ regular (tree) automata.Comment: Published at International Workshop on Termination 201

Proving Looping and Non-Looping Non-Termination by Finite Automata

A new technique is presented to prove non-termination of term rewriting. The basic idea is to find a non-empty regular language of terms that is closed under rewriting and does not contain normal forms. It is automated by representing the language by a tree automaton with a fixed number of states, and expressing the mentioned requirements in a SAT formula. Satisfiability of this formula implies non-termination. Our approach succeeds for many examples where all earlier techniques fail, for instance for the S-rule from combinatory logic

Synchronizing non-deterministic finite automata

In this paper, we show that every D3-directing CNFA can be mapped uniquely to a DFA with the same synchronizing word length. This implies that \v{C}ern\'y's conjecture generalizes to CNFAs and that the general upper bound for the length of a shortest D3-directing word is equal to the Pin-Frankl bound for DFAs. As a second consequence, for several classes of CNFAs sharper bounds are established. Finally, our results allow us to detect all critical CNFAs on at most 6 states. It turns out that only very few critical CNFAs exist.Comment: 21 page

Stream Productivity by Outermost Termination

Streams are infinite sequences over a given data type. A stream specification is a set of equations intended to define a stream. A core property is productivity: unfolding the equations produces the intended stream in the limit. In this paper we show that productivity is equivalent to termination with respect to the balanced outermost strategy of a TRS obtained by adding an additional rule. For specifications not involving branching symbols balancedness is obtained for free, by which tools for proving outermost termination can be used to prove productivity fully automatically

Proving non-termination by finite automata

A new technique is presented to prove non-termination of term rewriting. The basic idea is to find a non-empty regular language of terms that is closed under rewriting and does not contain normal forms. It is automated by representing the language by a tree automaton with a fixed number of states, and expressing the mentioned requirements in a SAT formula. Satisfiability of this formula implies non-termination. Our approach succeeds for many examples where all earlier techniques fail, for instance for the S-rule from combinatory logic

Combining Insertion and Deletion in RNA-editing Preserves Regularity

Inspired by RNA-editing as occurs in transcriptional processes in the living cell, we introduce an abstract notion of string adjustment, called guided rewriting. This formalism allows simultaneously inserting and deleting elements. We prove that guided rewriting preserves regularity: for every regular language its closure under guided rewriting is regular too. This contrasts an earlier abstraction of RNA-editing separating insertion and deletion for which it was proved that regularity is not preserved. The particular automaton construction here relies on an auxiliary notion of slice sequence which enables to sweep from left to right through a completed rewrite sequence.Comment: In Proceedings MeCBIC 2012, arXiv:1211.347

Termination of term rewriting by semantic labelling

A new kind of transformation of term rewriting systems (TRS) is proposed, depending on a choice for a model for the TRS. The labelled TRS is obtained from the original one by labelling operation symbols, possibly creating extra copies of some rules. This construction has the remarkable property that the labelled TRS is terminating if and only if the original TRS is terminating. Although the labelled version has more operation symbols and may have more rules (sometimes innitely many), termination is often easier to prove for the labelled TRS than for the original one. This provides a new technique for proving termination, making classical techniques like path orders and polynomial interpretations applicable even for non-simplifying TRS's. The requirement of having a model can slightly be weakened, yielding a remarkably simple termination proof of the system SUBST of [11] describing explicit substitution in -calculus