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]
|
| 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]
|
| deleteBy :: (a -> a -> Bool) -> a -> [a] -> [a]
deleteBy | _ _ [] | = | [] |
deleteBy | eq x (y : ys) | = | deleteBy0 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]
|
| deleteBy :: (a -> a -> Bool) -> a -> [a] -> [a]
deleteBy | vw vx [] | = | [] |
deleteBy | eq x (y : ys) | = | deleteBy0 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
is transformed to
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]
|
| deleteBy :: (a -> a -> Bool) -> a -> [a] -> [a]
deleteBy | vw vx [] | = | [] |
deleteBy | eq x (y : ys) | = | deleteBy0 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:
- new_deleteBy01(ww41, Neg(Succ(ww4000)), Pos(Zero)) → new_deleteBy1(ww41)
The graph contains the following edges 1 >= 1
- new_deleteBy01(:(ww410, ww411), Pos(Succ(ww4000)), Pos(Zero)) → new_deleteBy01(ww411, ww410, Pos(Zero))
The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1, 1 > 2, 3 >= 3
- new_deleteBy1(:(ww410, ww411)) → new_deleteBy01(ww411, ww410, Pos(Zero))
The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1, 1 > 2
↳ 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:
- new_deleteBy(ww300, :(ww410, ww411)) → new_deleteBy01(ww411, ww410, Pos(Succ(ww300)))
The graph contains the following edges 2 > 1, 2 > 2
- new_deleteBy0(ww45, ww46, ww47, Zero, Succ(ww490)) → new_deleteBy00(ww45, ww46, ww47)
The graph contains the following edges 1 >= 1, 2 >= 2, 3 >= 3
- new_deleteBy01(ww41, Pos(Zero), Pos(Succ(ww300))) → new_deleteBy(ww300, ww41)
The graph contains the following edges 3 > 1, 1 >= 2
- new_deleteBy0(ww45, ww46, ww47, Succ(ww480), Succ(ww490)) → new_deleteBy0(ww45, ww46, ww47, ww480, ww490)
The graph contains the following edges 1 >= 1, 2 >= 2, 3 >= 3, 4 > 4, 5 > 5
- new_deleteBy01(:(ww410, ww411), Neg(ww400), Pos(Succ(ww300))) → new_deleteBy01(ww411, ww410, Pos(Succ(ww300)))
The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1, 1 > 2, 3 >= 3
- new_deleteBy01(ww41, Pos(Succ(ww4000)), Pos(Succ(ww300))) → new_deleteBy0(ww41, ww4000, ww300, ww300, ww4000)
The graph contains the following edges 1 >= 1, 2 > 2, 3 > 3, 3 > 4, 2 > 5
- new_deleteBy0(ww45, ww46, ww47, Succ(ww480), Zero) → new_deleteBy(ww47, ww45)
The graph contains the following edges 3 >= 1, 1 >= 2
- new_deleteBy00(ww45, ww46, ww47) → new_deleteBy(ww47, ww45)
The graph contains the following edges 3 >= 1, 1 >= 2
↳ 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:
- new_deleteBy2(ww300, :(ww410, ww411)) → new_deleteBy01(ww411, ww410, Neg(Succ(ww300)))
The graph contains the following edges 2 > 1, 2 > 2
- new_deleteBy01(:(ww410, ww411), Pos(ww400), Neg(Succ(ww300))) → new_deleteBy01(ww411, ww410, Neg(Succ(ww300)))
The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1, 1 > 2, 3 >= 3
- new_deleteBy01(ww41, Neg(Zero), Neg(Succ(ww300))) → new_deleteBy2(ww300, ww41)
The graph contains the following edges 3 > 1, 1 >= 2
- new_deleteBy01(ww41, Neg(Succ(ww4000)), Neg(Succ(ww300))) → new_deleteBy02(ww41, ww4000, ww300, ww300, ww4000)
The graph contains the following edges 1 >= 1, 2 > 2, 3 > 3, 3 > 4, 2 > 5
- new_deleteBy02(ww51, ww52, ww53, Succ(ww540), Zero) → new_deleteBy2(ww53, ww51)
The graph contains the following edges 3 >= 1, 1 >= 2
- new_deleteBy03(ww51, ww52, ww53) → new_deleteBy2(ww53, ww51)
The graph contains the following edges 3 >= 1, 1 >= 2
- new_deleteBy02(ww51, ww52, ww53, Succ(ww540), Succ(ww550)) → new_deleteBy02(ww51, ww52, ww53, ww540, ww550)
The graph contains the following edges 1 >= 1, 2 >= 2, 3 >= 3, 4 > 4, 5 > 5
- new_deleteBy02(ww51, ww52, ww53, Zero, Succ(ww550)) → new_deleteBy03(ww51, ww52, ww53)
The graph contains the following edges 1 >= 1, 2 >= 2, 3 >= 3
↳ 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:
- new_deleteBy3(:(ww410, ww411)) → new_deleteBy01(ww411, ww410, Neg(Zero))
The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1, 1 > 2
- new_deleteBy01(:(ww410, ww411), Pos(Succ(ww4000)), Neg(Zero)) → new_deleteBy01(ww411, ww410, Neg(Zero))
The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1, 1 > 2, 3 >= 3
- new_deleteBy01(ww41, Neg(Succ(ww4000)), Neg(Zero)) → new_deleteBy3(ww41)
The graph contains the following edges 1 >= 1