2006
DOI: 10.1007/11805618_25
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Termination of String Rewriting with Matrix Interpretations

Abstract: We provide a critical assessment of the current set of benchmarks for relative SRS termination in the Termination Problems Database (TPDB): most of the benchmarks in Waldmann_19 and ICFP_10_relative are, in fact, strictly terminating (i. e., terminating when non-strict rules are considered strict), so these benchmarks should be removed, or relabelled. To fill this gap, we enumerate small relative string rewrite systems. At present, we have complete enumerations for a 2-letter alphabet up to size 11, and for a … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
2

Citation Types

0
39
0

Year Published

2006
2006
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
8
1
1

Relationship

2
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 37 publications
(39 citation statements)
references
References 9 publications
0
39
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Finally, let us point another direction of extending WPO: unifying with the matrix interpretation method [13,8]. This goal is apparently challenging, since a matrix interpretation is not weakly simple in general.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Finally, let us point another direction of extending WPO: unifying with the matrix interpretation method [13,8]. This goal is apparently challenging, since a matrix interpretation is not weakly simple in general.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Finally, it would be interesting to study whether our results can be extended to handle matrix interpretations [16,9], which have recently been adopted in automated tools as an alternative to RPO and polynomial interpretations for solving ordering constraints.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Both [3] and [4] describe extremely fast SAT-based implementations. Successful SAT encodings of other termination techniques are described in [7,8,13,22,23].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%