YES 1.2530000000000001 H-Termination proof of /home/matraf/haskell/eval_FullyBlown_Fast/List.hs
H-Termination of the given Haskell-Program with start terms could successfully be proven:



HASKELL
  ↳ IFR

mainModule List
  ((delete :: Int  ->  [Int ->  [Int]) :: Int  ->  [Int ->  [Int])

module List where
  import qualified Maybe
import qualified Prelude

  delete :: Eq a => a  ->  [a ->  [a]
delete deleteBy (==)

  deleteBy :: (a  ->  a  ->  Bool ->  a  ->  [a ->  [a]
deleteBy _ _ [] []
deleteBy eq x (y : ys if x `eq` y then ys else y : deleteBy eq x ys


module Maybe where
  import qualified List
import qualified Prelude



If Reductions:
The following If expression
if eq x y then ys else y : deleteBy eq x ys

is transformed to
deleteBy0 ys y eq x True = ys
deleteBy0 ys y eq x False = y : deleteBy eq x ys



↳ HASKELL
  ↳ IFR
HASKELL
      ↳ BR

mainModule List
  ((delete :: Int  ->  [Int ->  [Int]) :: Int  ->  [Int ->  [Int])

module List where
  import qualified Maybe
import qualified Prelude

  delete :: Eq a => a  ->  [a ->  [a]
delete deleteBy (==)

  deleteBy :: (a  ->  a  ->  Bool ->  a  ->  [a ->  [a]
deleteBy _ _ [] []
deleteBy eq x (y : ysdeleteBy0 ys y eq x (x `eq` y)

  
deleteBy0 ys y eq x True ys
deleteBy0 ys y eq x False y : deleteBy eq x ys


module Maybe where
  import qualified List
import qualified Prelude



Replaced joker patterns by fresh variables and removed binding patterns.

↳ HASKELL
  ↳ IFR
    ↳ HASKELL
      ↳ BR
HASKELL
          ↳ COR

mainModule List
  ((delete :: Int  ->  [Int ->  [Int]) :: Int  ->  [Int ->  [Int])

module List where
  import qualified Maybe
import qualified Prelude

  delete :: Eq a => a  ->  [a ->  [a]
delete deleteBy (==)

  deleteBy :: (a  ->  a  ->  Bool ->  a  ->  [a ->  [a]
deleteBy vw vx [] []
deleteBy eq x (y : ysdeleteBy0 ys y eq x (x `eq` y)

  
deleteBy0 ys y eq x True ys
deleteBy0 ys y eq x False y : deleteBy eq x ys


module Maybe where
  import qualified List
import qualified Prelude



Cond Reductions:
The following Function with conditions
undefined 
 | False
 = undefined

is transformed to
undefined  = undefined1

undefined0 True = undefined

undefined1  = undefined0 False



↳ HASKELL
  ↳ IFR
    ↳ HASKELL
      ↳ BR
        ↳ HASKELL
          ↳ COR
HASKELL
              ↳ Narrow

mainModule List
  (delete :: Int  ->  [Int ->  [Int])

module List where
  import qualified Maybe
import qualified Prelude

  delete :: Eq a => a  ->  [a ->  [a]
delete deleteBy (==)

  deleteBy :: (a  ->  a  ->  Bool ->  a  ->  [a ->  [a]
deleteBy vw vx [] []
deleteBy eq x (y : ysdeleteBy0 ys y eq x (x `eq` y)

  
deleteBy0 ys y eq x True ys
deleteBy0 ys y eq x False y : deleteBy eq x ys


module Maybe where
  import qualified List
import qualified Prelude



Haskell To QDPs


↳ HASKELL
  ↳ IFR
    ↳ HASKELL
      ↳ BR
        ↳ HASKELL
          ↳ COR
            ↳ HASKELL
              ↳ Narrow
QDP
                  ↳ DependencyGraphProof

Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:

new_deleteBy3(:(ww410, ww411)) → new_deleteBy01(ww411, ww410, Neg(Zero))
new_deleteBy2(ww300, :(ww410, ww411)) → new_deleteBy01(ww411, ww410, Neg(Succ(ww300)))
new_deleteBy0(ww45, ww46, ww47, Zero, Succ(ww490)) → new_deleteBy00(ww45, ww46, ww47)
new_deleteBy01(ww41, Neg(Succ(ww4000)), Neg(Zero)) → new_deleteBy3(ww41)
new_deleteBy02(ww51, ww52, ww53, Succ(ww540), Succ(ww550)) → new_deleteBy02(ww51, ww52, ww53, ww540, ww550)
new_deleteBy02(ww51, ww52, ww53, Succ(ww540), Zero) → new_deleteBy2(ww53, ww51)
new_deleteBy00(ww45, ww46, ww47) → new_deleteBy(ww47, ww45)
new_deleteBy01(:(ww410, ww411), Neg(ww400), Pos(Succ(ww300))) → new_deleteBy01(ww411, ww410, Pos(Succ(ww300)))
new_deleteBy01(ww41, Neg(Zero), Neg(Succ(ww300))) → new_deleteBy2(ww300, ww41)
new_deleteBy01(ww41, Neg(Succ(ww4000)), Pos(Zero)) → new_deleteBy1(ww41)
new_deleteBy01(:(ww410, ww411), Pos(Succ(ww4000)), Neg(Zero)) → new_deleteBy01(ww411, ww410, Neg(Zero))
new_deleteBy01(:(ww410, ww411), Pos(Succ(ww4000)), Pos(Zero)) → new_deleteBy01(ww411, ww410, Pos(Zero))
new_deleteBy(ww300, :(ww410, ww411)) → new_deleteBy01(ww411, ww410, Pos(Succ(ww300)))
new_deleteBy1(:(ww410, ww411)) → new_deleteBy01(ww411, ww410, Pos(Zero))
new_deleteBy02(ww51, ww52, ww53, Zero, Succ(ww550)) → new_deleteBy03(ww51, ww52, ww53)
new_deleteBy01(:(ww410, ww411), Pos(ww400), Neg(Succ(ww300))) → new_deleteBy01(ww411, ww410, Neg(Succ(ww300)))
new_deleteBy0(ww45, ww46, ww47, Succ(ww480), Zero) → new_deleteBy(ww47, ww45)
new_deleteBy0(ww45, ww46, ww47, Succ(ww480), Succ(ww490)) → new_deleteBy0(ww45, ww46, ww47, ww480, ww490)
new_deleteBy01(ww41, Neg(Succ(ww4000)), Neg(Succ(ww300))) → new_deleteBy02(ww41, ww4000, ww300, ww300, ww4000)
new_deleteBy01(ww41, Pos(Succ(ww4000)), Pos(Succ(ww300))) → new_deleteBy0(ww41, ww4000, ww300, ww300, ww4000)
new_deleteBy01(ww41, Pos(Zero), Pos(Succ(ww300))) → new_deleteBy(ww300, ww41)
new_deleteBy03(ww51, ww52, ww53) → new_deleteBy2(ww53, ww51)

R is empty.
Q is empty.
We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
The approximation of the Dependency Graph [15,17,22] contains 4 SCCs.

↳ HASKELL
  ↳ IFR
    ↳ HASKELL
      ↳ BR
        ↳ HASKELL
          ↳ COR
            ↳ HASKELL
              ↳ Narrow
                ↳ QDP
                  ↳ DependencyGraphProof
                    ↳ AND
QDP
                        ↳ QDPSizeChangeProof
                      ↳ QDP
                      ↳ QDP
                      ↳ QDP

Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:

new_deleteBy01(ww41, Neg(Succ(ww4000)), Pos(Zero)) → new_deleteBy1(ww41)
new_deleteBy01(:(ww410, ww411), Pos(Succ(ww4000)), Pos(Zero)) → new_deleteBy01(ww411, ww410, Pos(Zero))
new_deleteBy1(:(ww410, ww411)) → new_deleteBy01(ww411, ww410, Pos(Zero))

R is empty.
Q is empty.
We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
By using the subterm criterion [20] together with the size-change analysis [32] we have proven that there are no infinite chains for this DP problem.

From the DPs we obtained the following set of size-change graphs:



↳ HASKELL
  ↳ IFR
    ↳ HASKELL
      ↳ BR
        ↳ HASKELL
          ↳ COR
            ↳ HASKELL
              ↳ Narrow
                ↳ QDP
                  ↳ DependencyGraphProof
                    ↳ AND
                      ↳ QDP
QDP
                        ↳ QDPSizeChangeProof
                      ↳ QDP
                      ↳ QDP

Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:

new_deleteBy(ww300, :(ww410, ww411)) → new_deleteBy01(ww411, ww410, Pos(Succ(ww300)))
new_deleteBy0(ww45, ww46, ww47, Zero, Succ(ww490)) → new_deleteBy00(ww45, ww46, ww47)
new_deleteBy0(ww45, ww46, ww47, Succ(ww480), Zero) → new_deleteBy(ww47, ww45)
new_deleteBy0(ww45, ww46, ww47, Succ(ww480), Succ(ww490)) → new_deleteBy0(ww45, ww46, ww47, ww480, ww490)
new_deleteBy01(:(ww410, ww411), Neg(ww400), Pos(Succ(ww300))) → new_deleteBy01(ww411, ww410, Pos(Succ(ww300)))
new_deleteBy00(ww45, ww46, ww47) → new_deleteBy(ww47, ww45)
new_deleteBy01(ww41, Pos(Succ(ww4000)), Pos(Succ(ww300))) → new_deleteBy0(ww41, ww4000, ww300, ww300, ww4000)
new_deleteBy01(ww41, Pos(Zero), Pos(Succ(ww300))) → new_deleteBy(ww300, ww41)

R is empty.
Q is empty.
We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
By using the subterm criterion [20] together with the size-change analysis [32] we have proven that there are no infinite chains for this DP problem.

From the DPs we obtained the following set of size-change graphs:



↳ HASKELL
  ↳ IFR
    ↳ HASKELL
      ↳ BR
        ↳ HASKELL
          ↳ COR
            ↳ HASKELL
              ↳ Narrow
                ↳ QDP
                  ↳ DependencyGraphProof
                    ↳ AND
                      ↳ QDP
                      ↳ QDP
QDP
                        ↳ QDPSizeChangeProof
                      ↳ QDP

Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:

new_deleteBy2(ww300, :(ww410, ww411)) → new_deleteBy01(ww411, ww410, Neg(Succ(ww300)))
new_deleteBy02(ww51, ww52, ww53, Zero, Succ(ww550)) → new_deleteBy03(ww51, ww52, ww53)
new_deleteBy01(:(ww410, ww411), Pos(ww400), Neg(Succ(ww300))) → new_deleteBy01(ww411, ww410, Neg(Succ(ww300)))
new_deleteBy02(ww51, ww52, ww53, Succ(ww540), Succ(ww550)) → new_deleteBy02(ww51, ww52, ww53, ww540, ww550)
new_deleteBy02(ww51, ww52, ww53, Succ(ww540), Zero) → new_deleteBy2(ww53, ww51)
new_deleteBy01(ww41, Neg(Succ(ww4000)), Neg(Succ(ww300))) → new_deleteBy02(ww41, ww4000, ww300, ww300, ww4000)
new_deleteBy03(ww51, ww52, ww53) → new_deleteBy2(ww53, ww51)
new_deleteBy01(ww41, Neg(Zero), Neg(Succ(ww300))) → new_deleteBy2(ww300, ww41)

R is empty.
Q is empty.
We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
By using the subterm criterion [20] together with the size-change analysis [32] we have proven that there are no infinite chains for this DP problem.

From the DPs we obtained the following set of size-change graphs:



↳ HASKELL
  ↳ IFR
    ↳ HASKELL
      ↳ BR
        ↳ HASKELL
          ↳ COR
            ↳ HASKELL
              ↳ Narrow
                ↳ QDP
                  ↳ DependencyGraphProof
                    ↳ AND
                      ↳ QDP
                      ↳ QDP
                      ↳ QDP
QDP
                        ↳ QDPSizeChangeProof

Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:

new_deleteBy3(:(ww410, ww411)) → new_deleteBy01(ww411, ww410, Neg(Zero))
new_deleteBy01(:(ww410, ww411), Pos(Succ(ww4000)), Neg(Zero)) → new_deleteBy01(ww411, ww410, Neg(Zero))
new_deleteBy01(ww41, Neg(Succ(ww4000)), Neg(Zero)) → new_deleteBy3(ww41)

R is empty.
Q is empty.
We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
By using the subterm criterion [20] together with the size-change analysis [32] we have proven that there are no infinite chains for this DP problem.

From the DPs we obtained the following set of size-change graphs: