MAYBE 1.667
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
| ((foldM :: Monad b => (a -> c -> b a) -> a -> [c] -> b a) :: Monad b => (a -> c -> b a) -> a -> [c] -> b a) |
module Monad where
| import qualified Maybe import qualified Prelude
|
| foldM :: Monad c => (b -> a -> c b) -> b -> [a] -> c b
foldM | _ a [] | = | return a |
foldM | f a (x : xs) | = | f a x >>= (\fax ->foldM f fax xs) |
|
module Maybe where
| import qualified Monad import qualified Prelude
|
Lambda Reductions:
The following Lambda expression
\fax→foldM f fax xs
is transformed to
foldM0 | f xs fax | = foldM f fax xs |
↳ HASKELL
↳ LR
↳ HASKELL
↳ BR
mainModule Monad
| ((foldM :: Monad a => (c -> b -> a c) -> c -> [b] -> a c) :: Monad a => (c -> b -> a c) -> c -> [b] -> a c) |
module Maybe where
| import qualified Monad import qualified Prelude
|
module Monad where
| import qualified Maybe import qualified Prelude
|
| foldM :: Monad b => (c -> a -> b c) -> c -> [a] -> b c
foldM | _ a [] | = | return a |
foldM | f a (x : xs) | = | f a x >>= foldM0 f xs |
|
|
foldM0 | f xs fax | = | foldM f fax xs |
|
Replaced joker patterns by fresh variables and removed binding patterns.
↳ HASKELL
↳ LR
↳ HASKELL
↳ BR
↳ HASKELL
↳ COR
mainModule Monad
| ((foldM :: Monad a => (b -> c -> a b) -> b -> [c] -> a b) :: Monad a => (b -> c -> a b) -> b -> [c] -> a b) |
module Monad where
| import qualified Maybe import qualified Prelude
|
| foldM :: Monad b => (c -> a -> b c) -> c -> [a] -> b c
foldM | vw a [] | = | return a |
foldM | f a (x : xs) | = | f a x >>= foldM0 f xs |
|
|
foldM0 | f xs fax | = | foldM f fax xs |
|
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
| (foldM :: Monad b => (c -> a -> b c) -> c -> [a] -> b c) |
module Maybe where
| import qualified Monad import qualified Prelude
|
module Monad where
| import qualified Maybe import qualified Prelude
|
| foldM :: Monad a => (b -> c -> a b) -> b -> [c] -> a b
foldM | vw a [] | = | return a |
foldM | f a (x : xs) | = | f a x >>= foldM0 f xs |
|
|
foldM0 | f xs fax | = | foldM f fax xs |
|
Haskell To QDPs
↳ HASKELL
↳ LR
↳ HASKELL
↳ BR
↳ HASKELL
↳ COR
↳ HASKELL
↳ Narrow
↳ AND
↳ QDP
↳ QDPSizeChangeProof
↳ QDP
↳ Narrow
Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:
new_psPs(:(vz100, vz101), vz8, h) → new_psPs(vz101, vz8, 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(:(vz100, vz101), vz8, h) → new_psPs(vz101, vz8, h)
The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1, 2 >= 2, 3 >= 3
↳ HASKELL
↳ LR
↳ HASKELL
↳ BR
↳ HASKELL
↳ COR
↳ HASKELL
↳ Narrow
↳ AND
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ DependencyGraphProof
↳ Narrow
Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:
new_foldM0(vz3, vz51, vz9, h, ba) → new_foldM(vz3, vz51, ty_IO, h, ba)
new_gtGtEs(vz3, vz51, h, ba) → new_foldM(vz3, vz51, ty_Maybe, h, ba)
new_gtGtEs0(vz3, vz51, h, ba) → new_foldM(vz3, vz51, ty_[], h, ba)
new_foldM(vz3, :(vz50, vz51), ty_IO, h, ba) → new_foldM(vz3, vz51, ty_IO, h, ba)
new_foldM(vz3, :(vz50, vz51), ty_[], h, ba) → new_gtGtEs0(vz3, vz51, h, ba)
new_foldM(vz3, :(vz50, vz51), ty_Maybe, h, ba) → new_gtGtEs(vz3, vz51, h, ba)
new_gtGtEs0(vz3, vz51, h, ba) → new_gtGtEs0(vz3, vz51, h, ba)
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 3 SCCs with 1 less node.
↳ HASKELL
↳ LR
↳ HASKELL
↳ BR
↳ HASKELL
↳ COR
↳ HASKELL
↳ Narrow
↳ AND
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ DependencyGraphProof
↳ AND
↳ QDP
↳ QDPSizeChangeProof
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ Narrow
Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:
new_foldM(vz3, :(vz50, vz51), ty_IO, h, ba) → new_foldM(vz3, vz51, ty_IO, h, ba)
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_foldM(vz3, :(vz50, vz51), ty_IO, h, ba) → new_foldM(vz3, vz51, ty_IO, h, ba)
The graph contains the following edges 1 >= 1, 2 > 2, 3 >= 3, 4 >= 4, 5 >= 5
↳ HASKELL
↳ LR
↳ HASKELL
↳ BR
↳ HASKELL
↳ COR
↳ HASKELL
↳ Narrow
↳ AND
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ DependencyGraphProof
↳ AND
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ UsableRulesReductionPairsProof
↳ QDP
↳ Narrow
Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:
new_gtGtEs0(vz3, vz51, h, ba) → new_foldM(vz3, vz51, ty_[], h, ba)
new_foldM(vz3, :(vz50, vz51), ty_[], h, ba) → new_gtGtEs0(vz3, vz51, h, ba)
new_gtGtEs0(vz3, vz51, h, ba) → new_gtGtEs0(vz3, vz51, h, ba)
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_gtGtEs0(vz3, vz51, h, ba) → new_foldM(vz3, vz51, ty_[], h, ba)
new_foldM(vz3, :(vz50, vz51), ty_[], h, ba) → new_gtGtEs0(vz3, vz51, h, ba)
No rules are removed from R.
Used ordering: POLO with Polynomial interpretation [25]:
POL(:(x1, x2)) = 2 + x1 + 2·x2
POL(new_foldM(x1, x2, x3, x4, x5)) = x1 + x2 + 2·x3 + x4 + x5
POL(new_gtGtEs0(x1, x2, x3, x4)) = 1 + x1 + 2·x2 + x3 + x4
POL(ty_[]) = 0
↳ HASKELL
↳ LR
↳ HASKELL
↳ BR
↳ HASKELL
↳ COR
↳ HASKELL
↳ Narrow
↳ AND
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ DependencyGraphProof
↳ AND
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ UsableRulesReductionPairsProof
↳ QDP
↳ NonTerminationProof
↳ QDP
↳ Narrow
Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:
new_gtGtEs0(vz3, vz51, h, ba) → new_gtGtEs0(vz3, vz51, h, ba)
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_gtGtEs0(vz3, vz51, h, ba) → new_gtGtEs0(vz3, vz51, h, ba)
The TRS R consists of the following rules:none
s = new_gtGtEs0(vz3, vz51, h, ba) evaluates to t =new_gtGtEs0(vz3, vz51, h, ba)
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_gtGtEs0(vz3, vz51, h, ba) to new_gtGtEs0(vz3, vz51, h, ba).
↳ HASKELL
↳ LR
↳ HASKELL
↳ BR
↳ HASKELL
↳ COR
↳ HASKELL
↳ Narrow
↳ AND
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ DependencyGraphProof
↳ AND
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ QDPSizeChangeProof
↳ Narrow
Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:
new_gtGtEs(vz3, vz51, h, ba) → new_foldM(vz3, vz51, ty_Maybe, h, ba)
new_foldM(vz3, :(vz50, vz51), ty_Maybe, h, ba) → new_gtGtEs(vz3, vz51, h, ba)
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(vz3, vz51, h, ba) → new_foldM(vz3, vz51, ty_Maybe, h, ba)
The graph contains the following edges 1 >= 1, 2 >= 2, 3 >= 4, 4 >= 5
- new_foldM(vz3, :(vz50, vz51), ty_Maybe, h, ba) → new_gtGtEs(vz3, vz51, h, ba)
The graph contains the following edges 1 >= 1, 2 > 2, 4 >= 3, 5 >= 4
Haskell To QDPs
↳ HASKELL
↳ LR
↳ HASKELL
↳ BR
↳ HASKELL
↳ COR
↳ HASKELL
↳ Narrow
↳ Narrow
↳ QDP
↳ DependencyGraphProof
Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:
new_foldM0(vz3, vz51, vz9, h, ba, []) → new_foldM(vz3, vz9, vz51, ty_IO, h, ba, [])
new_gtGtEs(Just(vz60), vz3, vz51, h, ba, []) → new_foldM(vz3, vz60, vz51, ty_Maybe, h, ba, [])
R is empty.
Q is empty.
We have to consider all (P,Q,R)-chains.
The approximation of the Dependency Graph [15,17,22] contains 0 SCCs with 2 less nodes.