MAYBE 1.686
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
| ((zipWithM :: Monad c => (d -> a -> c b) -> [d] -> [a] -> c [b]) :: Monad c => (d -> a -> c b) -> [d] -> [a] -> c [b]) |
module Monad where
| import qualified Maybe import qualified Prelude
|
| zipWithM :: Monad c => (a -> b -> c d) -> [a] -> [b] -> c [d]
zipWithM | f xs ys | = | sequence (zipWith f xs ys) |
|
module Maybe where
| import qualified Monad import qualified Prelude
|
Lambda Reductions:
The following Lambda expression
\xs→return (x : xs)
is transformed to
sequence0 | x xs | = return (x : xs) |
The following Lambda expression
\x→sequence cs >>= sequence0 x
is transformed to
sequence1 | cs x | = sequence cs >>= sequence0 x |
↳ HASKELL
↳ LR
↳ HASKELL
↳ BR
mainModule Monad
| ((zipWithM :: Monad b => (a -> c -> b d) -> [a] -> [c] -> b [d]) :: Monad b => (a -> c -> b d) -> [a] -> [c] -> b [d]) |
module Maybe where
| import qualified Monad import qualified Prelude
|
module Monad where
| import qualified Maybe import qualified Prelude
|
| zipWithM :: Monad a => (d -> b -> a c) -> [d] -> [b] -> a [c]
zipWithM | f xs ys | = | sequence (zipWith f xs ys) |
|
Replaced joker patterns by fresh variables and removed binding patterns.
↳ HASKELL
↳ LR
↳ HASKELL
↳ BR
↳ HASKELL
↳ COR
mainModule Monad
| ((zipWithM :: Monad d => (a -> b -> d c) -> [a] -> [b] -> d [c]) :: Monad d => (a -> b -> d c) -> [a] -> [b] -> d [c]) |
module Monad where
| import qualified Maybe import qualified Prelude
|
| zipWithM :: Monad a => (b -> d -> a c) -> [b] -> [d] -> a [c]
zipWithM | f xs ys | = | sequence (zipWith f xs ys) |
|
module Maybe where
| import qualified Monad import qualified Prelude
|
Cond Reductions:
The following Function with conditions
is transformed to
undefined0 | True | = undefined |
undefined1 | | = undefined0 False |
↳ HASKELL
↳ LR
↳ HASKELL
↳ BR
↳ HASKELL
↳ COR
↳ HASKELL
↳ Narrow
↳ Narrow
mainModule Monad
| (zipWithM :: Monad a => (d -> b -> a c) -> [d] -> [b] -> a [c]) |
module Maybe where
| import qualified Monad import qualified Prelude
|
module Monad where
| import qualified Maybe import qualified Prelude
|
| zipWithM :: Monad d => (a -> c -> d b) -> [a] -> [c] -> d [b]
zipWithM | f xs ys | = | sequence (zipWith f xs ys) |
|
Haskell To QDPs
↳ HASKELL
↳ LR
↳ 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(:(wv130, wv131), wv8, h) → new_psPs(wv131, wv8, 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(:(wv130, wv131), wv8, h) → new_psPs(wv131, wv8, h)
The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1, 2 >= 2, 3 >= 3
↳ HASKELL
↳ LR
↳ 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(:(wv1110, wv1111), wv70, h) → new_gtGtEs(wv1111, wv70, 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(:(wv1110, wv1111), wv70, h) → new_gtGtEs(wv1111, wv70, h)
The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1, 2 >= 2, 3 >= 3
↳ HASKELL
↳ LR
↳ HASKELL
↳ BR
↳ HASKELL
↳ COR
↳ HASKELL
↳ Narrow
↳ AND
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ DependencyGraphProof
↳ Narrow
Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:
new_gtGtEs0(wv3, wv41, wv51, h, ba, bb) → new_sequence(wv3, wv41, wv51, ty_Maybe, h, ba, bb)
new_sequence1(wv3, wv41, wv51, wv10, h, ba, bb) → new_sequence(wv3, wv41, wv51, ty_IO, h, ba, bb)
new_psPs0(wv3, wv41, wv51, h, ba, bb) → new_sequence(wv3, wv41, wv51, ty_[], h, ba, bb)
new_sequence(wv3, :(wv40, wv41), :(wv50, wv51), ty_[], h, ba, bb) → new_gtGtEs1(wv3, wv41, wv51, h, ba, bb)
new_gtGtEs1(wv3, wv41, wv51, h, ba, bb) → new_psPs0(wv3, wv41, wv51, h, ba, bb)
new_gtGtEs1(wv3, wv41, wv51, h, ba, bb) → new_gtGtEs1(wv3, wv41, wv51, h, ba, bb)
new_sequence(wv3, :(wv40, wv41), :(wv50, wv51), ty_Maybe, h, ba, bb) → new_gtGtEs0(wv3, wv41, wv51, h, ba, bb)
new_sequence(wv3, :(wv40, wv41), :(wv50, wv51), ty_IO, h, ba, bb) → new_sequence(wv3, wv41, wv51, ty_IO, h, ba, bb)
The TRS R consists of the following rules:
new_gtGtEs3([], wv70, h) → []
new_psPs4(:(wv110, wv111), wv70, wv8, h) → new_psPs5(wv70, wv110, new_psPs1(new_gtGtEs3(wv111, wv70, h), h), wv8, h)
new_psPs5(wv70, wv110, wv13, wv8, h) → :(:(wv70, wv110), new_psPs2(wv13, wv8, h))
new_gtGtEs2(:(wv70, wv71), wv3, wv41, wv51, h, ba, bb) → new_psPs3(wv3, wv41, wv51, wv70, new_gtGtEs2(wv71, wv3, wv41, wv51, h, ba, bb), h, ba, bb)
new_psPs2(:(wv130, wv131), wv8, h) → :(wv130, new_psPs2(wv131, wv8, h))
new_gtGtEs3(:(wv1110, wv1111), wv70, h) → new_psPs2(:(:(wv70, wv1110), []), new_gtGtEs3(wv1111, wv70, h), h)
new_psPs1(wv8, h) → wv8
new_psPs3(wv3, wv41, wv51, wv70, wv8, h, ba, bb) → new_psPs4(new_sequence0(wv3, wv41, wv51, ty_[], h, ba, bb), wv70, wv8, h)
new_psPs2([], wv8, h) → wv8
new_gtGtEs2([], wv3, wv41, wv51, h, ba, bb) → []
new_psPs4([], wv70, wv8, h) → new_psPs1(wv8, h)
The set Q consists of the following terms:
new_gtGtEs3([], x0, x1)
new_gtGtEs2([], x0, x1, x2, x3, x4, x5)
new_gtGtEs2(:(x0, x1), x2, x3, x4, x5, x6, x7)
new_psPs5(x0, x1, x2, x3, x4)
new_psPs2(:(x0, x1), x2, x3)
new_psPs3(x0, x1, x2, x3, x4, x5, x6, x7)
new_psPs2([], x0, x1)
new_psPs1(x0, x1)
new_psPs4([], x0, x1, x2)
new_psPs4(:(x0, x1), x2, x3, x4)
new_gtGtEs3(:(x0, x1), x2, x3)
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
↳ 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_sequence(wv3, :(wv40, wv41), :(wv50, wv51), ty_IO, h, ba, bb) → new_sequence(wv3, wv41, wv51, ty_IO, h, ba, bb)
The TRS R consists of the following rules:
new_gtGtEs3([], wv70, h) → []
new_psPs4(:(wv110, wv111), wv70, wv8, h) → new_psPs5(wv70, wv110, new_psPs1(new_gtGtEs3(wv111, wv70, h), h), wv8, h)
new_psPs5(wv70, wv110, wv13, wv8, h) → :(:(wv70, wv110), new_psPs2(wv13, wv8, h))
new_gtGtEs2(:(wv70, wv71), wv3, wv41, wv51, h, ba, bb) → new_psPs3(wv3, wv41, wv51, wv70, new_gtGtEs2(wv71, wv3, wv41, wv51, h, ba, bb), h, ba, bb)
new_psPs2(:(wv130, wv131), wv8, h) → :(wv130, new_psPs2(wv131, wv8, h))
new_gtGtEs3(:(wv1110, wv1111), wv70, h) → new_psPs2(:(:(wv70, wv1110), []), new_gtGtEs3(wv1111, wv70, h), h)
new_psPs1(wv8, h) → wv8
new_psPs3(wv3, wv41, wv51, wv70, wv8, h, ba, bb) → new_psPs4(new_sequence0(wv3, wv41, wv51, ty_[], h, ba, bb), wv70, wv8, h)
new_psPs2([], wv8, h) → wv8
new_gtGtEs2([], wv3, wv41, wv51, h, ba, bb) → []
new_psPs4([], wv70, wv8, h) → new_psPs1(wv8, h)
The set Q consists of the following terms:
new_gtGtEs3([], x0, x1)
new_gtGtEs2([], x0, x1, x2, x3, x4, x5)
new_gtGtEs2(:(x0, x1), x2, x3, x4, x5, x6, x7)
new_psPs5(x0, x1, x2, x3, x4)
new_psPs2(:(x0, x1), x2, x3)
new_psPs3(x0, x1, x2, x3, x4, x5, x6, x7)
new_psPs2([], x0, x1)
new_psPs1(x0, x1)
new_psPs4([], x0, x1, x2)
new_psPs4(:(x0, x1), x2, x3, x4)
new_gtGtEs3(:(x0, x1), x2, x3)
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
↳ 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_sequence(wv3, :(wv40, wv41), :(wv50, wv51), ty_IO, h, ba, bb) → new_sequence(wv3, wv41, wv51, ty_IO, h, ba, bb)
R is empty.
The set Q consists of the following terms:
new_gtGtEs3([], x0, x1)
new_gtGtEs2([], x0, x1, x2, x3, x4, x5)
new_gtGtEs2(:(x0, x1), x2, x3, x4, x5, x6, x7)
new_psPs5(x0, x1, x2, x3, x4)
new_psPs2(:(x0, x1), x2, x3)
new_psPs3(x0, x1, x2, x3, x4, x5, x6, x7)
new_psPs2([], x0, x1)
new_psPs1(x0, x1)
new_psPs4([], x0, x1, x2)
new_psPs4(:(x0, x1), x2, x3, x4)
new_gtGtEs3(:(x0, x1), x2, x3)
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_gtGtEs3([], x0, x1)
new_gtGtEs2([], x0, x1, x2, x3, x4, x5)
new_gtGtEs2(:(x0, x1), x2, x3, x4, x5, x6, x7)
new_psPs5(x0, x1, x2, x3, x4)
new_psPs2(:(x0, x1), x2, x3)
new_psPs3(x0, x1, x2, x3, x4, x5, x6, x7)
new_psPs2([], x0, x1)
new_psPs1(x0, x1)
new_psPs4([], x0, x1, x2)
new_psPs4(:(x0, x1), x2, x3, x4)
new_gtGtEs3(:(x0, x1), x2, x3)
↳ HASKELL
↳ LR
↳ 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_sequence(wv3, :(wv40, wv41), :(wv50, wv51), ty_IO, h, ba, bb) → new_sequence(wv3, wv41, wv51, ty_IO, h, ba, bb)
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_sequence(wv3, :(wv40, wv41), :(wv50, wv51), ty_IO, h, ba, bb) → new_sequence(wv3, wv41, wv51, ty_IO, h, ba, bb)
The graph contains the following edges 1 >= 1, 2 > 2, 3 > 3, 4 >= 4, 5 >= 5, 6 >= 6, 7 >= 7
↳ HASKELL
↳ LR
↳ 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_psPs0(wv3, wv41, wv51, h, ba, bb) → new_sequence(wv3, wv41, wv51, ty_[], h, ba, bb)
new_sequence(wv3, :(wv40, wv41), :(wv50, wv51), ty_[], h, ba, bb) → new_gtGtEs1(wv3, wv41, wv51, h, ba, bb)
new_gtGtEs1(wv3, wv41, wv51, h, ba, bb) → new_psPs0(wv3, wv41, wv51, h, ba, bb)
new_gtGtEs1(wv3, wv41, wv51, h, ba, bb) → new_gtGtEs1(wv3, wv41, wv51, h, ba, bb)
The TRS R consists of the following rules:
new_gtGtEs3([], wv70, h) → []
new_psPs4(:(wv110, wv111), wv70, wv8, h) → new_psPs5(wv70, wv110, new_psPs1(new_gtGtEs3(wv111, wv70, h), h), wv8, h)
new_psPs5(wv70, wv110, wv13, wv8, h) → :(:(wv70, wv110), new_psPs2(wv13, wv8, h))
new_gtGtEs2(:(wv70, wv71), wv3, wv41, wv51, h, ba, bb) → new_psPs3(wv3, wv41, wv51, wv70, new_gtGtEs2(wv71, wv3, wv41, wv51, h, ba, bb), h, ba, bb)
new_psPs2(:(wv130, wv131), wv8, h) → :(wv130, new_psPs2(wv131, wv8, h))
new_gtGtEs3(:(wv1110, wv1111), wv70, h) → new_psPs2(:(:(wv70, wv1110), []), new_gtGtEs3(wv1111, wv70, h), h)
new_psPs1(wv8, h) → wv8
new_psPs3(wv3, wv41, wv51, wv70, wv8, h, ba, bb) → new_psPs4(new_sequence0(wv3, wv41, wv51, ty_[], h, ba, bb), wv70, wv8, h)
new_psPs2([], wv8, h) → wv8
new_gtGtEs2([], wv3, wv41, wv51, h, ba, bb) → []
new_psPs4([], wv70, wv8, h) → new_psPs1(wv8, h)
The set Q consists of the following terms:
new_gtGtEs3([], x0, x1)
new_gtGtEs2([], x0, x1, x2, x3, x4, x5)
new_gtGtEs2(:(x0, x1), x2, x3, x4, x5, x6, x7)
new_psPs5(x0, x1, x2, x3, x4)
new_psPs2(:(x0, x1), x2, x3)
new_psPs3(x0, x1, x2, x3, x4, x5, x6, x7)
new_psPs2([], x0, x1)
new_psPs1(x0, x1)
new_psPs4([], x0, x1, x2)
new_psPs4(:(x0, x1), x2, x3, x4)
new_gtGtEs3(:(x0, x1), x2, x3)
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
↳ 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_psPs0(wv3, wv41, wv51, h, ba, bb) → new_sequence(wv3, wv41, wv51, ty_[], h, ba, bb)
new_sequence(wv3, :(wv40, wv41), :(wv50, wv51), ty_[], h, ba, bb) → new_gtGtEs1(wv3, wv41, wv51, h, ba, bb)
new_gtGtEs1(wv3, wv41, wv51, h, ba, bb) → new_psPs0(wv3, wv41, wv51, h, ba, bb)
new_gtGtEs1(wv3, wv41, wv51, h, ba, bb) → new_gtGtEs1(wv3, wv41, wv51, h, ba, bb)
R is empty.
The set Q consists of the following terms:
new_gtGtEs3([], x0, x1)
new_gtGtEs2([], x0, x1, x2, x3, x4, x5)
new_gtGtEs2(:(x0, x1), x2, x3, x4, x5, x6, x7)
new_psPs5(x0, x1, x2, x3, x4)
new_psPs2(:(x0, x1), x2, x3)
new_psPs3(x0, x1, x2, x3, x4, x5, x6, x7)
new_psPs2([], x0, x1)
new_psPs1(x0, x1)
new_psPs4([], x0, x1, x2)
new_psPs4(:(x0, x1), x2, x3, x4)
new_gtGtEs3(:(x0, x1), x2, x3)
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_gtGtEs3([], x0, x1)
new_gtGtEs2([], x0, x1, x2, x3, x4, x5)
new_gtGtEs2(:(x0, x1), x2, x3, x4, x5, x6, x7)
new_psPs5(x0, x1, x2, x3, x4)
new_psPs2(:(x0, x1), x2, x3)
new_psPs3(x0, x1, x2, x3, x4, x5, x6, x7)
new_psPs2([], x0, x1)
new_psPs1(x0, x1)
new_psPs4([], x0, x1, x2)
new_psPs4(:(x0, x1), x2, x3, x4)
new_gtGtEs3(:(x0, x1), x2, x3)
↳ HASKELL
↳ LR
↳ HASKELL
↳ BR
↳ HASKELL
↳ COR
↳ HASKELL
↳ Narrow
↳ AND
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ DependencyGraphProof
↳ AND
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ UsableRulesProof
↳ QDP
↳ QReductionProof
↳ QDP
↳ UsableRulesReductionPairsProof
↳ QDP
↳ Narrow
Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:
new_psPs0(wv3, wv41, wv51, h, ba, bb) → new_sequence(wv3, wv41, wv51, ty_[], h, ba, bb)
new_sequence(wv3, :(wv40, wv41), :(wv50, wv51), ty_[], h, ba, bb) → new_gtGtEs1(wv3, wv41, wv51, h, ba, bb)
new_gtGtEs1(wv3, wv41, wv51, h, ba, bb) → new_psPs0(wv3, wv41, wv51, h, ba, bb)
new_gtGtEs1(wv3, wv41, wv51, h, ba, bb) → new_gtGtEs1(wv3, wv41, wv51, h, ba, bb)
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_sequence(wv3, :(wv40, wv41), :(wv50, wv51), ty_[], h, ba, bb) → new_gtGtEs1(wv3, wv41, wv51, h, ba, bb)
No rules are removed from R.
Used ordering: POLO with Polynomial interpretation [25]:
POL(:(x1, x2)) = x1 + x2
POL(new_gtGtEs1(x1, x2, x3, x4, x5, x6)) = x1 + x2 + 2·x3 + x4 + x5 + x6
POL(new_psPs0(x1, x2, x3, x4, x5, x6)) = x1 + x2 + 2·x3 + x4 + x5 + x6
POL(new_sequence(x1, x2, x3, x4, x5, x6, x7)) = x1 + x2 + 2·x3 + 2·x4 + x5 + x6 + x7
POL(ty_[]) = 0
↳ HASKELL
↳ LR
↳ HASKELL
↳ BR
↳ HASKELL
↳ COR
↳ HASKELL
↳ Narrow
↳ AND
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ DependencyGraphProof
↳ AND
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ UsableRulesProof
↳ QDP
↳ QReductionProof
↳ QDP
↳ UsableRulesReductionPairsProof
↳ QDP
↳ DependencyGraphProof
↳ QDP
↳ Narrow
Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:
new_psPs0(wv3, wv41, wv51, h, ba, bb) → new_sequence(wv3, wv41, wv51, ty_[], h, ba, bb)
new_gtGtEs1(wv3, wv41, wv51, h, ba, bb) → new_psPs0(wv3, wv41, wv51, h, ba, bb)
new_gtGtEs1(wv3, wv41, wv51, h, ba, bb) → new_gtGtEs1(wv3, wv41, wv51, h, ba, bb)
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 2 less nodes.
↳ HASKELL
↳ LR
↳ HASKELL
↳ BR
↳ HASKELL
↳ COR
↳ HASKELL
↳ Narrow
↳ AND
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ DependencyGraphProof
↳ AND
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ UsableRulesProof
↳ QDP
↳ QReductionProof
↳ QDP
↳ UsableRulesReductionPairsProof
↳ QDP
↳ DependencyGraphProof
↳ QDP
↳ NonTerminationProof
↳ QDP
↳ Narrow
Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:
new_gtGtEs1(wv3, wv41, wv51, h, ba, bb) → new_gtGtEs1(wv3, wv41, wv51, h, ba, bb)
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(wv3, wv41, wv51, h, ba, bb) → new_gtGtEs1(wv3, wv41, wv51, h, ba, bb)
The TRS R consists of the following rules:none
s = new_gtGtEs1(wv3, wv41, wv51, h, ba, bb) evaluates to t =new_gtGtEs1(wv3, wv41, wv51, h, ba, bb)
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(wv3, wv41, wv51, h, ba, bb) to new_gtGtEs1(wv3, wv41, wv51, h, ba, bb).
↳ HASKELL
↳ LR
↳ 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_gtGtEs0(wv3, wv41, wv51, h, ba, bb) → new_sequence(wv3, wv41, wv51, ty_Maybe, h, ba, bb)
new_sequence(wv3, :(wv40, wv41), :(wv50, wv51), ty_Maybe, h, ba, bb) → new_gtGtEs0(wv3, wv41, wv51, h, ba, bb)
The TRS R consists of the following rules:
new_gtGtEs3([], wv70, h) → []
new_psPs4(:(wv110, wv111), wv70, wv8, h) → new_psPs5(wv70, wv110, new_psPs1(new_gtGtEs3(wv111, wv70, h), h), wv8, h)
new_psPs5(wv70, wv110, wv13, wv8, h) → :(:(wv70, wv110), new_psPs2(wv13, wv8, h))
new_gtGtEs2(:(wv70, wv71), wv3, wv41, wv51, h, ba, bb) → new_psPs3(wv3, wv41, wv51, wv70, new_gtGtEs2(wv71, wv3, wv41, wv51, h, ba, bb), h, ba, bb)
new_psPs2(:(wv130, wv131), wv8, h) → :(wv130, new_psPs2(wv131, wv8, h))
new_gtGtEs3(:(wv1110, wv1111), wv70, h) → new_psPs2(:(:(wv70, wv1110), []), new_gtGtEs3(wv1111, wv70, h), h)
new_psPs1(wv8, h) → wv8
new_psPs3(wv3, wv41, wv51, wv70, wv8, h, ba, bb) → new_psPs4(new_sequence0(wv3, wv41, wv51, ty_[], h, ba, bb), wv70, wv8, h)
new_psPs2([], wv8, h) → wv8
new_gtGtEs2([], wv3, wv41, wv51, h, ba, bb) → []
new_psPs4([], wv70, wv8, h) → new_psPs1(wv8, h)
The set Q consists of the following terms:
new_gtGtEs3([], x0, x1)
new_gtGtEs2([], x0, x1, x2, x3, x4, x5)
new_gtGtEs2(:(x0, x1), x2, x3, x4, x5, x6, x7)
new_psPs5(x0, x1, x2, x3, x4)
new_psPs2(:(x0, x1), x2, x3)
new_psPs3(x0, x1, x2, x3, x4, x5, x6, x7)
new_psPs2([], x0, x1)
new_psPs1(x0, x1)
new_psPs4([], x0, x1, x2)
new_psPs4(:(x0, x1), x2, x3, x4)
new_gtGtEs3(:(x0, x1), x2, x3)
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
↳ 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_gtGtEs0(wv3, wv41, wv51, h, ba, bb) → new_sequence(wv3, wv41, wv51, ty_Maybe, h, ba, bb)
new_sequence(wv3, :(wv40, wv41), :(wv50, wv51), ty_Maybe, h, ba, bb) → new_gtGtEs0(wv3, wv41, wv51, h, ba, bb)
R is empty.
The set Q consists of the following terms:
new_gtGtEs3([], x0, x1)
new_gtGtEs2([], x0, x1, x2, x3, x4, x5)
new_gtGtEs2(:(x0, x1), x2, x3, x4, x5, x6, x7)
new_psPs5(x0, x1, x2, x3, x4)
new_psPs2(:(x0, x1), x2, x3)
new_psPs3(x0, x1, x2, x3, x4, x5, x6, x7)
new_psPs2([], x0, x1)
new_psPs1(x0, x1)
new_psPs4([], x0, x1, x2)
new_psPs4(:(x0, x1), x2, x3, x4)
new_gtGtEs3(:(x0, x1), x2, x3)
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_gtGtEs3([], x0, x1)
new_gtGtEs2([], x0, x1, x2, x3, x4, x5)
new_gtGtEs2(:(x0, x1), x2, x3, x4, x5, x6, x7)
new_psPs5(x0, x1, x2, x3, x4)
new_psPs2(:(x0, x1), x2, x3)
new_psPs3(x0, x1, x2, x3, x4, x5, x6, x7)
new_psPs2([], x0, x1)
new_psPs1(x0, x1)
new_psPs4([], x0, x1, x2)
new_psPs4(:(x0, x1), x2, x3, x4)
new_gtGtEs3(:(x0, x1), x2, x3)
↳ HASKELL
↳ LR
↳ HASKELL
↳ BR
↳ HASKELL
↳ COR
↳ HASKELL
↳ Narrow
↳ AND
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ DependencyGraphProof
↳ AND
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ UsableRulesProof
↳ QDP
↳ QReductionProof
↳ QDP
↳ QDPSizeChangeProof
↳ Narrow
Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:
new_gtGtEs0(wv3, wv41, wv51, h, ba, bb) → new_sequence(wv3, wv41, wv51, ty_Maybe, h, ba, bb)
new_sequence(wv3, :(wv40, wv41), :(wv50, wv51), ty_Maybe, h, ba, bb) → new_gtGtEs0(wv3, wv41, wv51, h, ba, bb)
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_sequence(wv3, :(wv40, wv41), :(wv50, wv51), ty_Maybe, h, ba, bb) → new_gtGtEs0(wv3, wv41, wv51, h, ba, bb)
The graph contains the following edges 1 >= 1, 2 > 2, 3 > 3, 5 >= 4, 6 >= 5, 7 >= 6
- new_gtGtEs0(wv3, wv41, wv51, h, ba, bb) → new_sequence(wv3, wv41, wv51, ty_Maybe, h, ba, bb)
The graph contains the following edges 1 >= 1, 2 >= 2, 3 >= 3, 4 >= 5, 5 >= 6, 6 >= 7
Haskell To QDPs