{"title":"Non-Omega-Overlapping TRSs are UN","authors":"Stefan Kahrs, Connor Smith","doi":"10.4230/LIPIcs.FSCD.2016.22","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper solves problem #79 of RTA's list of open \nproblems --- in the positive. If the rules of a TRS do not overlap w.r.t. \nsubstitutions of infinite terms then the TRS has unique normal forms. \nWe solve the problem by reducing the problem to one of consistency for \n\"similar\" constructor term rewriting systems. For this we introduce \na new proof technique. We define a relation ⇓ that is \nconsistent by construction, and which --- if transitive --- would \ncoincide with the rewrite system's equivalence relation =R. \n \nWe then prove the transitivity of ⇓ by coalgebraic \nreasoning. Any concrete proof for instances of this relation only \nrefers to terms of some finite coalgebra, and we then construct an \nequivalence relation on that coalgebra which coincides with ⇓.","PeriodicalId":284975,"journal":{"name":"International Conference on Formal Structures for Computation and Deduction","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Conference on Formal Structures for Computation and Deduction","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4230/LIPIcs.FSCD.2016.22","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4
Abstract
This paper solves problem #79 of RTA's list of open
problems --- in the positive. If the rules of a TRS do not overlap w.r.t.
substitutions of infinite terms then the TRS has unique normal forms.
We solve the problem by reducing the problem to one of consistency for
"similar" constructor term rewriting systems. For this we introduce
a new proof technique. We define a relation ⇓ that is
consistent by construction, and which --- if transitive --- would
coincide with the rewrite system's equivalence relation =R.
We then prove the transitivity of ⇓ by coalgebraic
reasoning. Any concrete proof for instances of this relation only
refers to terms of some finite coalgebra, and we then construct an
equivalence relation on that coalgebra which coincides with ⇓.