0.00/0.00	YES
0.00/0.00	
0.00/0.00	
0.00/0.00	Succeeded in reading "/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.trs".
0.00/0.00	    (CONDITIONTYPE ORIENTED)
0.00/0.00	    (VAR x)
0.00/0.00	    (RULES
0.00/0.00	      h(x) -> a
0.00/0.00	      g(x) -> x
0.00/0.00	      g(x) -> a | h(x) == b
0.00/0.00	      c -> c
0.00/0.00	    )
0.00/0.00	    (COMMENT doi:10.4230/LIPIcs.FSCD.2016.29 [90] Example 17)
0.00/0.00	
0.00/0.00	No "->="-rules.
0.00/0.00	
0.00/0.00	Decomposed conditions if possible.
0.00/0.00	    (CONDITIONTYPE ORIENTED)
0.00/0.00	    (VAR x)
0.00/0.00	    (RULES
0.00/0.00	      h(x) -> a
0.00/0.00	      g(x) -> x
0.00/0.00	      g(x) -> a | h(x) == b
0.00/0.00	      c -> c
0.00/0.00	    )
0.00/0.00	    (COMMENT doi:10.4230/LIPIcs.FSCD.2016.29 [90] Example 17)
0.00/0.00	
0.00/0.00	Removed infeasible rules as much as possible.
0.00/0.00	    (VAR x)
0.00/0.00	    (RULES
0.00/0.00	      c -> c
0.00/0.00	      g(x) -> x
0.00/0.00	      h(x) -> a
0.00/0.00	    )
0.00/0.00	    (COMMENT doi:10.4230/LIPIcs.FSCD.2016.29 [90] Example 17)
0.00/0.00	
0.00/0.00	Try to disprove confluence of the following (C)TRS:
0.00/0.00	    (VAR x)
0.00/0.00	    (RULES
0.00/0.00	      c -> c
0.00/0.00	      g(x) -> x
0.00/0.00	      h(x) -> a
0.00/0.00	    )
0.00/0.00	    (COMMENT doi:10.4230/LIPIcs.FSCD.2016.29 [90] Example 17)
0.00/0.00	
0.00/0.00	Try to prove confluence of the following TRS:
0.00/0.00	    (VAR x)
0.00/0.00	    (RULES
0.00/0.00	      c -> c
0.00/0.00	      g(x) -> x
0.00/0.00	      h(x) -> a
0.00/0.00	    )
0.00/0.00	    (COMMENT doi:10.4230/LIPIcs.FSCD.2016.29 [90] Example 17)
0.00/0.00	
0.00/0.00	Succeeded in proving confluence due to orthogonality.
0.00/0.00	
0.00/0.00	Proved via the following orthogonal TRS:
0.00/0.00	(VAR x)
0.00/0.00	(RULES
0.00/0.00	  c -> c
0.00/0.00	  g(x) -> x
0.00/0.00	  h(x) -> a
0.00/0.00	)
0.00/0.00	(COMMENT doi:10.4230/LIPIcs.FSCD.2016.29 [90] Example 17)
0.00/0.00	
0.00/0.00	YES
0.00/0.00	EOF