MAYBE 1.794
H-Termination proof of /home/matraf/haskell/eval_FullyBlown_Fast/Monad.hs
H-Termination of the given Haskell-Program with start terms could not be shown:
↳ HASKELL
↳ LR
mainModule Monad
| ((filterM :: Monad b => (a -> b Bool) -> [a] -> b [a]) :: Monad b => (a -> b Bool) -> [a] -> b [a]) |
module Monad where
| import qualified Maybe import qualified Prelude
|
| filterM :: Monad a => (b -> a Bool) -> [b] -> a [b]
filterM | _ [] | = | return [] |
filterM | p (x : xs) | = | p x >>= (\flg ->filterM p xs >>= (\ys ->return ( if flg then x : ys else ys))) |
|
module Maybe where
| import qualified Monad import qualified Prelude
|
Lambda Reductions:
The following Lambda expression
\ys→return (if flg then x : ys else ys)
is transformed to
filterM0 | flg x ys | = return (if flg then x : ys else ys) |
The following Lambda expression
\flg→filterM p xs >>= filterM0 flg x
is transformed to
filterM1 | p xs x flg | = filterM p xs >>= filterM0 flg x |
↳ HASKELL
↳ LR
↳ HASKELL
↳ IFR
mainModule Monad
| ((filterM :: Monad a => (b -> a Bool) -> [b] -> a [b]) :: Monad a => (b -> a Bool) -> [b] -> a [b]) |
module Maybe where
| import qualified Monad import qualified Prelude
|
module Monad where
| import qualified Maybe import qualified Prelude
|
| filterM :: Monad a => (b -> a Bool) -> [b] -> a [b]
filterM | _ [] | = | return [] |
filterM | p (x : xs) | = | p x >>= filterM1 p xs x |
|
|
filterM0 | flg x ys | = | return ( if flg then x : ys else ys) |
|
|
filterM1 | p xs x flg | = | filterM p xs >>= filterM0 flg x |
|
If Reductions:
The following If expression
if flg then x : ys else ys
is transformed to
filterM00 | x ys True | = x : ys |
filterM00 | x ys False | = ys |
↳ HASKELL
↳ LR
↳ HASKELL
↳ IFR
↳ HASKELL
↳ BR
mainModule Monad
| ((filterM :: Monad b => (a -> b Bool) -> [a] -> b [a]) :: Monad b => (a -> b Bool) -> [a] -> b [a]) |
module Monad where
| import qualified Maybe import qualified Prelude
|
| filterM :: Monad a => (b -> a Bool) -> [b] -> a [b]
filterM | _ [] | = | return [] |
filterM | p (x : xs) | = | p x >>= filterM1 p xs x |
|
|
filterM0 | flg x ys | = | return (filterM00 x ys flg) |
|
|
filterM00 | x ys True | = | x : ys |
filterM00 | x ys False | = | ys |
|
|
filterM1 | p xs x flg | = | filterM p xs >>= filterM0 flg x |
|
module Maybe where
| import qualified Monad import qualified Prelude
|
Replaced joker patterns by fresh variables and removed binding patterns.
↳ HASKELL
↳ LR
↳ HASKELL
↳ IFR
↳ HASKELL
↳ BR
↳ HASKELL
↳ COR
mainModule Monad
| ((filterM :: Monad a => (b -> a Bool) -> [b] -> a [b]) :: Monad a => (b -> a Bool) -> [b] -> a [b]) |
module Maybe where
| import qualified Monad import qualified Prelude
|
module Monad where
| import qualified Maybe import qualified Prelude
|
| filterM :: Monad b => (a -> b Bool) -> [a] -> b [a]
filterM | vw [] | = | return [] |
filterM | p (x : xs) | = | p x >>= filterM1 p xs x |
|
|
filterM0 | flg x ys | = | return (filterM00 x ys flg) |
|
|
filterM00 | x ys True | = | x : ys |
filterM00 | x ys False | = | ys |
|
|
filterM1 | p xs x flg | = | filterM p xs >>= filterM0 flg x |
|
Cond Reductions:
The following Function with conditions
is transformed to
undefined0 | True | = undefined |
undefined1 | | = undefined0 False |
↳ HASKELL
↳ LR
↳ HASKELL
↳ IFR
↳ HASKELL
↳ BR
↳ HASKELL
↳ COR
↳ HASKELL
↳ Narrow
↳ Narrow
mainModule Monad
| (filterM :: Monad a => (b -> a Bool) -> [b] -> a [b]) |
module Monad where
| import qualified Maybe import qualified Prelude
|
| filterM :: Monad a => (b -> a Bool) -> [b] -> a [b]
filterM | vw [] | = | return [] |
filterM | p (x : xs) | = | p x >>= filterM1 p xs x |
|
|
filterM0 | flg x ys | = | return (filterM00 x ys flg) |
|
|
filterM00 | x ys True | = | x : ys |
filterM00 | x ys False | = | ys |
|
|
filterM1 | p xs x flg | = | filterM p xs >>= filterM0 flg x |
|
module Maybe where
| import qualified Monad import qualified Prelude
|
Haskell To QDPs
↳ HASKELL
↳ LR
↳ HASKELL
↳ IFR
↳ HASKELL
↳ BR
↳ HASKELL
↳ COR
↳ HASKELL
↳ Narrow
↳ AND
↳ QDP
↳ QDPSizeChangeProof
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ Narrow
Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:
new_psPs(:(vz140, vz141), vz7, h) → new_psPs(vz141, vz7, h)
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_psPs(:(vz140, vz141), vz7, h) → new_psPs(vz141, vz7, h)
The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1, 2 >= 2, 3 >= 3
↳ HASKELL
↳ LR
↳ HASKELL
↳ IFR
↳ HASKELL
↳ BR
↳ HASKELL
↳ COR
↳ HASKELL
↳ Narrow
↳ AND
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ QDPSizeChangeProof
↳ QDP
↳ Narrow
Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:
new_gtGtEs(:(vz1010, vz1011), vz60, vz40, h) → new_gtGtEs(vz1011, vz60, vz40, h)
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_gtGtEs(:(vz1010, vz1011), vz60, vz40, h) → new_gtGtEs(vz1011, vz60, vz40, h)
The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1, 2 >= 2, 3 >= 3, 4 >= 4
↳ HASKELL
↳ LR
↳ HASKELL
↳ IFR
↳ HASKELL
↳ BR
↳ HASKELL
↳ COR
↳ HASKELL
↳ Narrow
↳ AND
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ DependencyGraphProof
↳ Narrow
Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:
new_psPs0(vz3, vz41, vz40, h) → new_filterM(vz3, vz41, ty_[], h)
new_gtGtEs1(vz3, vz41, vz40, h) → new_psPs0(vz3, vz41, vz40, h)
new_filterM(vz3, :(vz40, vz41), ty_IO, h) → new_filterM(vz3, vz41, ty_IO, h)
new_filterM(vz3, :(vz40, vz41), ty_[], h) → new_gtGtEs1(vz3, vz41, vz40, h)
new_filterM(vz3, :(vz40, vz41), ty_Maybe, h) → new_gtGtEs0(vz3, vz41, vz40, h)
new_filterM1(vz3, vz41, vz40, vz9, h) → new_filterM(vz3, vz41, ty_IO, h)
new_gtGtEs0(vz3, vz41, vz40, h) → new_filterM(vz3, vz41, ty_Maybe, h)
new_gtGtEs1(vz3, vz41, vz40, h) → new_gtGtEs1(vz3, vz41, vz40, h)
The TRS R consists of the following rules:
new_psPs6([], vz60, vz40, vz7, h) → new_psPs4(vz7, h)
new_psPs5(vz3, vz41, vz40, vz60, vz7, h) → new_psPs6(new_filterM0(vz3, vz41, ty_[], h), vz60, vz40, vz7, h)
new_psPs2(vz12, vz101, vz60, vz40, vz7, h) → new_psPs3(vz12, new_psPs4(new_gtGtEs3(vz101, vz60, vz40, h), h), vz7, h)
new_filterM00(vz40, vz80, False, h) → vz80
new_gtGtEs2(:(vz60, vz61), vz3, vz41, vz40, h) → new_psPs5(vz3, vz41, vz40, vz60, new_gtGtEs2(vz61, vz3, vz41, vz40, h), h)
new_return(vz16, h) → :(vz16, [])
new_filterM00(vz40, vz80, True, h) → :(vz40, vz80)
new_psPs4(vz7, h) → vz7
new_gtGtEs3(:(vz1010, vz1011), vz60, vz40, h) → new_psPs1(new_return(new_filterM00(vz40, vz1010, vz60, h), h), new_gtGtEs3(vz1011, vz60, vz40, h), h)
new_psPs1([], vz7, h) → vz7
new_psPs6(:(vz100, vz101), vz60, vz40, vz7, h) → new_psPs2(new_filterM00(vz40, vz100, vz60, h), vz101, vz60, vz40, vz7, h)
new_gtGtEs2([], vz3, vz41, vz40, h) → []
new_psPs3(vz12, vz14, vz7, h) → :(vz12, new_psPs1(vz14, vz7, h))
new_gtGtEs3([], vz60, vz40, h) → []
new_psPs1(:(vz140, vz141), vz7, h) → :(vz140, new_psPs1(vz141, vz7, h))
The set Q consists of the following terms:
new_psPs4(x0, x1)
new_psPs1([], x0, x1)
new_gtGtEs3(:(x0, x1), x2, x3, x4)
new_filterM00(x0, x1, True, x2)
new_psPs6([], x0, x1, x2, x3)
new_filterM00(x0, x1, False, x2)
new_gtGtEs2([], x0, x1, x2, x3)
new_gtGtEs3([], x0, x1, x2)
new_return(x0, x1)
new_psPs2(x0, x1, x2, x3, x4, x5)
new_gtGtEs2(:(x0, x1), x2, x3, x4, x5)
new_psPs5(x0, x1, x2, x3, x4, x5)
new_psPs3(x0, x1, x2, x3)
new_psPs1(:(x0, x1), x2, x3)
new_psPs6(:(x0, x1), x2, x3, x4, x5)
We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
The approximation of the Dependency Graph [15,17,22] contains 3 SCCs with 1 less node.
↳ HASKELL
↳ LR
↳ HASKELL
↳ IFR
↳ HASKELL
↳ BR
↳ HASKELL
↳ COR
↳ HASKELL
↳ Narrow
↳ AND
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ DependencyGraphProof
↳ AND
↳ QDP
↳ UsableRulesProof
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ Narrow
Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:
new_filterM(vz3, :(vz40, vz41), ty_Maybe, h) → new_gtGtEs0(vz3, vz41, vz40, h)
new_gtGtEs0(vz3, vz41, vz40, h) → new_filterM(vz3, vz41, ty_Maybe, h)
The TRS R consists of the following rules:
new_psPs6([], vz60, vz40, vz7, h) → new_psPs4(vz7, h)
new_psPs5(vz3, vz41, vz40, vz60, vz7, h) → new_psPs6(new_filterM0(vz3, vz41, ty_[], h), vz60, vz40, vz7, h)
new_psPs2(vz12, vz101, vz60, vz40, vz7, h) → new_psPs3(vz12, new_psPs4(new_gtGtEs3(vz101, vz60, vz40, h), h), vz7, h)
new_filterM00(vz40, vz80, False, h) → vz80
new_gtGtEs2(:(vz60, vz61), vz3, vz41, vz40, h) → new_psPs5(vz3, vz41, vz40, vz60, new_gtGtEs2(vz61, vz3, vz41, vz40, h), h)
new_return(vz16, h) → :(vz16, [])
new_filterM00(vz40, vz80, True, h) → :(vz40, vz80)
new_psPs4(vz7, h) → vz7
new_gtGtEs3(:(vz1010, vz1011), vz60, vz40, h) → new_psPs1(new_return(new_filterM00(vz40, vz1010, vz60, h), h), new_gtGtEs3(vz1011, vz60, vz40, h), h)
new_psPs1([], vz7, h) → vz7
new_psPs6(:(vz100, vz101), vz60, vz40, vz7, h) → new_psPs2(new_filterM00(vz40, vz100, vz60, h), vz101, vz60, vz40, vz7, h)
new_gtGtEs2([], vz3, vz41, vz40, h) → []
new_psPs3(vz12, vz14, vz7, h) → :(vz12, new_psPs1(vz14, vz7, h))
new_gtGtEs3([], vz60, vz40, h) → []
new_psPs1(:(vz140, vz141), vz7, h) → :(vz140, new_psPs1(vz141, vz7, h))
The set Q consists of the following terms:
new_psPs4(x0, x1)
new_psPs1([], x0, x1)
new_gtGtEs3(:(x0, x1), x2, x3, x4)
new_filterM00(x0, x1, True, x2)
new_psPs6([], x0, x1, x2, x3)
new_filterM00(x0, x1, False, x2)
new_gtGtEs2([], x0, x1, x2, x3)
new_gtGtEs3([], x0, x1, x2)
new_return(x0, x1)
new_psPs2(x0, x1, x2, x3, x4, x5)
new_gtGtEs2(:(x0, x1), x2, x3, x4, x5)
new_psPs5(x0, x1, x2, x3, x4, x5)
new_psPs3(x0, x1, x2, x3)
new_psPs1(:(x0, x1), x2, x3)
new_psPs6(:(x0, x1), x2, x3, x4, x5)
We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
As all Q-normal forms are R-normal forms we are in the innermost case. Hence, by the usable rules processor [15] we can delete all non-usable rules [17] from R.
↳ HASKELL
↳ LR
↳ HASKELL
↳ IFR
↳ HASKELL
↳ BR
↳ HASKELL
↳ COR
↳ HASKELL
↳ Narrow
↳ AND
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ DependencyGraphProof
↳ AND
↳ QDP
↳ UsableRulesProof
↳ QDP
↳ QReductionProof
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ Narrow
Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:
new_filterM(vz3, :(vz40, vz41), ty_Maybe, h) → new_gtGtEs0(vz3, vz41, vz40, h)
new_gtGtEs0(vz3, vz41, vz40, h) → new_filterM(vz3, vz41, ty_Maybe, h)
R is empty.
The set Q consists of the following terms:
new_psPs4(x0, x1)
new_psPs1([], x0, x1)
new_gtGtEs3(:(x0, x1), x2, x3, x4)
new_filterM00(x0, x1, True, x2)
new_psPs6([], x0, x1, x2, x3)
new_filterM00(x0, x1, False, x2)
new_gtGtEs2([], x0, x1, x2, x3)
new_gtGtEs3([], x0, x1, x2)
new_return(x0, x1)
new_psPs2(x0, x1, x2, x3, x4, x5)
new_gtGtEs2(:(x0, x1), x2, x3, x4, x5)
new_psPs5(x0, x1, x2, x3, x4, x5)
new_psPs3(x0, x1, x2, x3)
new_psPs1(:(x0, x1), x2, x3)
new_psPs6(:(x0, x1), x2, x3, x4, x5)
We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
We deleted the following terms from Q as each root-symbol of these terms does neither occur in P nor in R.
new_psPs4(x0, x1)
new_psPs1([], x0, x1)
new_gtGtEs3(:(x0, x1), x2, x3, x4)
new_filterM00(x0, x1, True, x2)
new_psPs6([], x0, x1, x2, x3)
new_filterM00(x0, x1, False, x2)
new_gtGtEs2([], x0, x1, x2, x3)
new_gtGtEs3([], x0, x1, x2)
new_return(x0, x1)
new_psPs2(x0, x1, x2, x3, x4, x5)
new_gtGtEs2(:(x0, x1), x2, x3, x4, x5)
new_psPs5(x0, x1, x2, x3, x4, x5)
new_psPs3(x0, x1, x2, x3)
new_psPs1(:(x0, x1), x2, x3)
new_psPs6(:(x0, x1), x2, x3, x4, x5)
↳ HASKELL
↳ LR
↳ HASKELL
↳ IFR
↳ HASKELL
↳ BR
↳ HASKELL
↳ COR
↳ HASKELL
↳ Narrow
↳ AND
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ DependencyGraphProof
↳ AND
↳ QDP
↳ UsableRulesProof
↳ QDP
↳ QReductionProof
↳ QDP
↳ QDPSizeChangeProof
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ Narrow
Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:
new_filterM(vz3, :(vz40, vz41), ty_Maybe, h) → new_gtGtEs0(vz3, vz41, vz40, h)
new_gtGtEs0(vz3, vz41, vz40, h) → new_filterM(vz3, vz41, ty_Maybe, h)
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_gtGtEs0(vz3, vz41, vz40, h) → new_filterM(vz3, vz41, ty_Maybe, h)
The graph contains the following edges 1 >= 1, 2 >= 2, 4 >= 4
- new_filterM(vz3, :(vz40, vz41), ty_Maybe, h) → new_gtGtEs0(vz3, vz41, vz40, h)
The graph contains the following edges 1 >= 1, 2 > 2, 2 > 3, 4 >= 4
↳ HASKELL
↳ LR
↳ HASKELL
↳ IFR
↳ HASKELL
↳ BR
↳ HASKELL
↳ COR
↳ HASKELL
↳ Narrow
↳ AND
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ DependencyGraphProof
↳ AND
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ UsableRulesProof
↳ QDP
↳ Narrow
Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:
new_filterM(vz3, :(vz40, vz41), ty_IO, h) → new_filterM(vz3, vz41, ty_IO, h)
The TRS R consists of the following rules:
new_psPs6([], vz60, vz40, vz7, h) → new_psPs4(vz7, h)
new_psPs5(vz3, vz41, vz40, vz60, vz7, h) → new_psPs6(new_filterM0(vz3, vz41, ty_[], h), vz60, vz40, vz7, h)
new_psPs2(vz12, vz101, vz60, vz40, vz7, h) → new_psPs3(vz12, new_psPs4(new_gtGtEs3(vz101, vz60, vz40, h), h), vz7, h)
new_filterM00(vz40, vz80, False, h) → vz80
new_gtGtEs2(:(vz60, vz61), vz3, vz41, vz40, h) → new_psPs5(vz3, vz41, vz40, vz60, new_gtGtEs2(vz61, vz3, vz41, vz40, h), h)
new_return(vz16, h) → :(vz16, [])
new_filterM00(vz40, vz80, True, h) → :(vz40, vz80)
new_psPs4(vz7, h) → vz7
new_gtGtEs3(:(vz1010, vz1011), vz60, vz40, h) → new_psPs1(new_return(new_filterM00(vz40, vz1010, vz60, h), h), new_gtGtEs3(vz1011, vz60, vz40, h), h)
new_psPs1([], vz7, h) → vz7
new_psPs6(:(vz100, vz101), vz60, vz40, vz7, h) → new_psPs2(new_filterM00(vz40, vz100, vz60, h), vz101, vz60, vz40, vz7, h)
new_gtGtEs2([], vz3, vz41, vz40, h) → []
new_psPs3(vz12, vz14, vz7, h) → :(vz12, new_psPs1(vz14, vz7, h))
new_gtGtEs3([], vz60, vz40, h) → []
new_psPs1(:(vz140, vz141), vz7, h) → :(vz140, new_psPs1(vz141, vz7, h))
The set Q consists of the following terms:
new_psPs4(x0, x1)
new_psPs1([], x0, x1)
new_gtGtEs3(:(x0, x1), x2, x3, x4)
new_filterM00(x0, x1, True, x2)
new_psPs6([], x0, x1, x2, x3)
new_filterM00(x0, x1, False, x2)
new_gtGtEs2([], x0, x1, x2, x3)
new_gtGtEs3([], x0, x1, x2)
new_return(x0, x1)
new_psPs2(x0, x1, x2, x3, x4, x5)
new_gtGtEs2(:(x0, x1), x2, x3, x4, x5)
new_psPs5(x0, x1, x2, x3, x4, x5)
new_psPs3(x0, x1, x2, x3)
new_psPs1(:(x0, x1), x2, x3)
new_psPs6(:(x0, x1), x2, x3, x4, x5)
We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
As all Q-normal forms are R-normal forms we are in the innermost case. Hence, by the usable rules processor [15] we can delete all non-usable rules [17] from R.
↳ HASKELL
↳ LR
↳ HASKELL
↳ IFR
↳ HASKELL
↳ BR
↳ HASKELL
↳ COR
↳ HASKELL
↳ Narrow
↳ AND
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ DependencyGraphProof
↳ AND
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ UsableRulesProof
↳ QDP
↳ QReductionProof
↳ QDP
↳ Narrow
Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:
new_filterM(vz3, :(vz40, vz41), ty_IO, h) → new_filterM(vz3, vz41, ty_IO, h)
R is empty.
The set Q consists of the following terms:
new_psPs4(x0, x1)
new_psPs1([], x0, x1)
new_gtGtEs3(:(x0, x1), x2, x3, x4)
new_filterM00(x0, x1, True, x2)
new_psPs6([], x0, x1, x2, x3)
new_filterM00(x0, x1, False, x2)
new_gtGtEs2([], x0, x1, x2, x3)
new_gtGtEs3([], x0, x1, x2)
new_return(x0, x1)
new_psPs2(x0, x1, x2, x3, x4, x5)
new_gtGtEs2(:(x0, x1), x2, x3, x4, x5)
new_psPs5(x0, x1, x2, x3, x4, x5)
new_psPs3(x0, x1, x2, x3)
new_psPs1(:(x0, x1), x2, x3)
new_psPs6(:(x0, x1), x2, x3, x4, x5)
We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
We deleted the following terms from Q as each root-symbol of these terms does neither occur in P nor in R.
new_psPs4(x0, x1)
new_psPs1([], x0, x1)
new_gtGtEs3(:(x0, x1), x2, x3, x4)
new_filterM00(x0, x1, True, x2)
new_psPs6([], x0, x1, x2, x3)
new_filterM00(x0, x1, False, x2)
new_gtGtEs2([], x0, x1, x2, x3)
new_gtGtEs3([], x0, x1, x2)
new_return(x0, x1)
new_psPs2(x0, x1, x2, x3, x4, x5)
new_gtGtEs2(:(x0, x1), x2, x3, x4, x5)
new_psPs5(x0, x1, x2, x3, x4, x5)
new_psPs3(x0, x1, x2, x3)
new_psPs1(:(x0, x1), x2, x3)
new_psPs6(:(x0, x1), x2, x3, x4, x5)
↳ HASKELL
↳ LR
↳ HASKELL
↳ IFR
↳ HASKELL
↳ BR
↳ HASKELL
↳ COR
↳ HASKELL
↳ Narrow
↳ AND
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ DependencyGraphProof
↳ AND
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ UsableRulesProof
↳ QDP
↳ QReductionProof
↳ QDP
↳ QDPSizeChangeProof
↳ QDP
↳ Narrow
Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:
new_filterM(vz3, :(vz40, vz41), ty_IO, h) → new_filterM(vz3, vz41, ty_IO, h)
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_filterM(vz3, :(vz40, vz41), ty_IO, h) → new_filterM(vz3, vz41, ty_IO, h)
The graph contains the following edges 1 >= 1, 2 > 2, 3 >= 3, 4 >= 4
↳ HASKELL
↳ LR
↳ HASKELL
↳ IFR
↳ HASKELL
↳ BR
↳ HASKELL
↳ COR
↳ HASKELL
↳ Narrow
↳ AND
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ DependencyGraphProof
↳ AND
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ UsableRulesProof
↳ Narrow
Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:
new_psPs0(vz3, vz41, vz40, h) → new_filterM(vz3, vz41, ty_[], h)
new_gtGtEs1(vz3, vz41, vz40, h) → new_psPs0(vz3, vz41, vz40, h)
new_filterM(vz3, :(vz40, vz41), ty_[], h) → new_gtGtEs1(vz3, vz41, vz40, h)
new_gtGtEs1(vz3, vz41, vz40, h) → new_gtGtEs1(vz3, vz41, vz40, h)
The TRS R consists of the following rules:
new_psPs6([], vz60, vz40, vz7, h) → new_psPs4(vz7, h)
new_psPs5(vz3, vz41, vz40, vz60, vz7, h) → new_psPs6(new_filterM0(vz3, vz41, ty_[], h), vz60, vz40, vz7, h)
new_psPs2(vz12, vz101, vz60, vz40, vz7, h) → new_psPs3(vz12, new_psPs4(new_gtGtEs3(vz101, vz60, vz40, h), h), vz7, h)
new_filterM00(vz40, vz80, False, h) → vz80
new_gtGtEs2(:(vz60, vz61), vz3, vz41, vz40, h) → new_psPs5(vz3, vz41, vz40, vz60, new_gtGtEs2(vz61, vz3, vz41, vz40, h), h)
new_return(vz16, h) → :(vz16, [])
new_filterM00(vz40, vz80, True, h) → :(vz40, vz80)
new_psPs4(vz7, h) → vz7
new_gtGtEs3(:(vz1010, vz1011), vz60, vz40, h) → new_psPs1(new_return(new_filterM00(vz40, vz1010, vz60, h), h), new_gtGtEs3(vz1011, vz60, vz40, h), h)
new_psPs1([], vz7, h) → vz7
new_psPs6(:(vz100, vz101), vz60, vz40, vz7, h) → new_psPs2(new_filterM00(vz40, vz100, vz60, h), vz101, vz60, vz40, vz7, h)
new_gtGtEs2([], vz3, vz41, vz40, h) → []
new_psPs3(vz12, vz14, vz7, h) → :(vz12, new_psPs1(vz14, vz7, h))
new_gtGtEs3([], vz60, vz40, h) → []
new_psPs1(:(vz140, vz141), vz7, h) → :(vz140, new_psPs1(vz141, vz7, h))
The set Q consists of the following terms:
new_psPs4(x0, x1)
new_psPs1([], x0, x1)
new_gtGtEs3(:(x0, x1), x2, x3, x4)
new_filterM00(x0, x1, True, x2)
new_psPs6([], x0, x1, x2, x3)
new_filterM00(x0, x1, False, x2)
new_gtGtEs2([], x0, x1, x2, x3)
new_gtGtEs3([], x0, x1, x2)
new_return(x0, x1)
new_psPs2(x0, x1, x2, x3, x4, x5)
new_gtGtEs2(:(x0, x1), x2, x3, x4, x5)
new_psPs5(x0, x1, x2, x3, x4, x5)
new_psPs3(x0, x1, x2, x3)
new_psPs1(:(x0, x1), x2, x3)
new_psPs6(:(x0, x1), x2, x3, x4, x5)
We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
As all Q-normal forms are R-normal forms we are in the innermost case. Hence, by the usable rules processor [15] we can delete all non-usable rules [17] from R.
↳ HASKELL
↳ LR
↳ HASKELL
↳ IFR
↳ HASKELL
↳ BR
↳ HASKELL
↳ COR
↳ HASKELL
↳ Narrow
↳ AND
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ DependencyGraphProof
↳ AND
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ UsableRulesProof
↳ QDP
↳ QReductionProof
↳ Narrow
Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:
new_psPs0(vz3, vz41, vz40, h) → new_filterM(vz3, vz41, ty_[], h)
new_gtGtEs1(vz3, vz41, vz40, h) → new_psPs0(vz3, vz41, vz40, h)
new_filterM(vz3, :(vz40, vz41), ty_[], h) → new_gtGtEs1(vz3, vz41, vz40, h)
new_gtGtEs1(vz3, vz41, vz40, h) → new_gtGtEs1(vz3, vz41, vz40, h)
R is empty.
The set Q consists of the following terms:
new_psPs4(x0, x1)
new_psPs1([], x0, x1)
new_gtGtEs3(:(x0, x1), x2, x3, x4)
new_filterM00(x0, x1, True, x2)
new_psPs6([], x0, x1, x2, x3)
new_filterM00(x0, x1, False, x2)
new_gtGtEs2([], x0, x1, x2, x3)
new_gtGtEs3([], x0, x1, x2)
new_return(x0, x1)
new_psPs2(x0, x1, x2, x3, x4, x5)
new_gtGtEs2(:(x0, x1), x2, x3, x4, x5)
new_psPs5(x0, x1, x2, x3, x4, x5)
new_psPs3(x0, x1, x2, x3)
new_psPs1(:(x0, x1), x2, x3)
new_psPs6(:(x0, x1), x2, x3, x4, x5)
We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
We deleted the following terms from Q as each root-symbol of these terms does neither occur in P nor in R.
new_psPs4(x0, x1)
new_psPs1([], x0, x1)
new_gtGtEs3(:(x0, x1), x2, x3, x4)
new_filterM00(x0, x1, True, x2)
new_psPs6([], x0, x1, x2, x3)
new_filterM00(x0, x1, False, x2)
new_gtGtEs2([], x0, x1, x2, x3)
new_gtGtEs3([], x0, x1, x2)
new_return(x0, x1)
new_psPs2(x0, x1, x2, x3, x4, x5)
new_gtGtEs2(:(x0, x1), x2, x3, x4, x5)
new_psPs5(x0, x1, x2, x3, x4, x5)
new_psPs3(x0, x1, x2, x3)
new_psPs1(:(x0, x1), x2, x3)
new_psPs6(:(x0, x1), x2, x3, x4, x5)
↳ HASKELL
↳ LR
↳ HASKELL
↳ IFR
↳ HASKELL
↳ BR
↳ HASKELL
↳ COR
↳ HASKELL
↳ Narrow
↳ AND
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ DependencyGraphProof
↳ AND
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ UsableRulesProof
↳ QDP
↳ QReductionProof
↳ QDP
↳ UsableRulesReductionPairsProof
↳ Narrow
Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:
new_psPs0(vz3, vz41, vz40, h) → new_filterM(vz3, vz41, ty_[], h)
new_gtGtEs1(vz3, vz41, vz40, h) → new_psPs0(vz3, vz41, vz40, h)
new_filterM(vz3, :(vz40, vz41), ty_[], h) → new_gtGtEs1(vz3, vz41, vz40, h)
new_gtGtEs1(vz3, vz41, vz40, h) → new_gtGtEs1(vz3, vz41, vz40, h)
R is empty.
Q is empty.
We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
By using the usable rules with reduction pair processor [15] with a polynomial ordering [25], all dependency pairs and the corresponding usable rules [17] can be oriented non-strictly. All non-usable rules are removed, and those dependency pairs and usable rules that have been oriented strictly or contain non-usable symbols in their left-hand side are removed as well.
The following dependency pairs can be deleted:
new_psPs0(vz3, vz41, vz40, h) → new_filterM(vz3, vz41, ty_[], h)
new_filterM(vz3, :(vz40, vz41), ty_[], h) → new_gtGtEs1(vz3, vz41, vz40, h)
No rules are removed from R.
Used ordering: POLO with Polynomial interpretation [25]:
POL(:(x1, x2)) = 1 + 2·x1 + x2
POL(new_filterM(x1, x2, x3, x4)) = x1 + 2·x2 + 2·x3 + x4
POL(new_gtGtEs1(x1, x2, x3, x4)) = 1 + x1 + 2·x2 + x3 + x4
POL(new_psPs0(x1, x2, x3, x4)) = 1 + x1 + 2·x2 + x3 + x4
POL(ty_[]) = 0
↳ HASKELL
↳ LR
↳ HASKELL
↳ IFR
↳ HASKELL
↳ BR
↳ HASKELL
↳ COR
↳ HASKELL
↳ Narrow
↳ AND
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ DependencyGraphProof
↳ AND
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ UsableRulesProof
↳ QDP
↳ QReductionProof
↳ QDP
↳ UsableRulesReductionPairsProof
↳ QDP
↳ DependencyGraphProof
↳ Narrow
Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:
new_gtGtEs1(vz3, vz41, vz40, h) → new_psPs0(vz3, vz41, vz40, h)
new_gtGtEs1(vz3, vz41, vz40, h) → new_gtGtEs1(vz3, vz41, vz40, h)
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 1 SCC with 1 less node.
↳ HASKELL
↳ LR
↳ HASKELL
↳ IFR
↳ HASKELL
↳ BR
↳ HASKELL
↳ COR
↳ HASKELL
↳ Narrow
↳ AND
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ DependencyGraphProof
↳ AND
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ UsableRulesProof
↳ QDP
↳ QReductionProof
↳ QDP
↳ UsableRulesReductionPairsProof
↳ QDP
↳ DependencyGraphProof
↳ QDP
↳ NonTerminationProof
↳ Narrow
Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:
new_gtGtEs1(vz3, vz41, vz40, h) → new_gtGtEs1(vz3, vz41, vz40, h)
R is empty.
Q is empty.
We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
We used the non-termination processor [17] to show that the DP problem is infinite.
Found a loop by semiunifying a rule from P directly.
The TRS P consists of the following rules:
new_gtGtEs1(vz3, vz41, vz40, h) → new_gtGtEs1(vz3, vz41, vz40, h)
The TRS R consists of the following rules:none
s = new_gtGtEs1(vz3, vz41, vz40, h) evaluates to t =new_gtGtEs1(vz3, vz41, vz40, h)
Thus s starts an infinite chain as s semiunifies with t with the following substitutions:
- Semiunifier: [ ]
- Matcher: [ ]
Rewriting sequence
The DP semiunifies directly so there is only one rewrite step from new_gtGtEs1(vz3, vz41, vz40, h) to new_gtGtEs1(vz3, vz41, vz40, h).
Haskell To QDPs