YES 0.842
H-Termination proof of /home/matraf/haskell/eval_FullyBlown_Fast/Monad.hs
H-Termination of the given Haskell-Program with start terms could successfully be proven:
↳ HASKELL
↳ LR
mainModule Monad
| ((liftM3 :: Monad b => (e -> a -> d -> c) -> b e -> b a -> b d -> b c) :: Monad b => (e -> a -> d -> c) -> b e -> b a -> b d -> b c) |
module Monad where
| import qualified Maybe import qualified Prelude
|
| liftM3 :: Monad a => (e -> c -> d -> b) -> a e -> a c -> a d -> a b
liftM3 | f m1 m2 m3 | = | m1 >>= (\x1 ->m2 >>= (\x2 ->m3 >>= (\x3 ->return (f x1 x2 x3)))) |
|
module Maybe where
| import qualified Monad import qualified Prelude
|
Lambda Reductions:
The following Lambda expression
\x3→return (f x1 x2 x3)
is transformed to
liftM30 | f x1 x2 x3 | = return (f x1 x2 x3) |
The following Lambda expression
\x2→m3 >>= liftM30 f x1 x2
is transformed to
liftM31 | m3 f x1 x2 | = m3 >>= liftM30 f x1 x2 |
The following Lambda expression
\x1→m2 >>= liftM31 m3 f x1
is transformed to
liftM32 | m2 m3 f x1 | = m2 >>= liftM31 m3 f x1 |
↳ HASKELL
↳ LR
↳ HASKELL
↳ BR
mainModule Monad
| ((liftM3 :: Monad c => (e -> d -> b -> a) -> c e -> c d -> c b -> c a) :: Monad c => (e -> d -> b -> a) -> c e -> c d -> c b -> c a) |
module Maybe where
| import qualified Monad import qualified Prelude
|
module Monad where
| import qualified Maybe import qualified Prelude
|
| liftM3 :: Monad a => (e -> d -> b -> c) -> a e -> a d -> a b -> a c
liftM3 | f m1 m2 m3 | = | m1 >>= liftM32 m2 m3 f |
|
|
liftM30 | f x1 x2 x3 | = | return (f x1 x2 x3) |
|
|
liftM31 | m3 f x1 x2 | = | m3 >>= liftM30 f x1 x2 |
|
|
liftM32 | m2 m3 f x1 | = | m2 >>= liftM31 m3 f x1 |
|
Replaced joker patterns by fresh variables and removed binding patterns.
↳ HASKELL
↳ LR
↳ HASKELL
↳ BR
↳ HASKELL
↳ COR
mainModule Monad
| ((liftM3 :: Monad b => (c -> e -> d -> a) -> b c -> b e -> b d -> b a) :: Monad b => (c -> e -> d -> a) -> b c -> b e -> b d -> b a) |
module Monad where
| import qualified Maybe import qualified Prelude
|
| liftM3 :: Monad c => (d -> b -> a -> e) -> c d -> c b -> c a -> c e
liftM3 | f m1 m2 m3 | = | m1 >>= liftM32 m2 m3 f |
|
|
liftM30 | f x1 x2 x3 | = | return (f x1 x2 x3) |
|
|
liftM31 | m3 f x1 x2 | = | m3 >>= liftM30 f x1 x2 |
|
|
liftM32 | m2 m3 f x1 | = | m2 >>= liftM31 m3 f x1 |
|
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
mainModule Monad
| (liftM3 :: Monad d => (a -> c -> b -> e) -> d a -> d c -> d b -> d e) |
module Maybe where
| import qualified Monad import qualified Prelude
|
module Monad where
| import qualified Maybe import qualified Prelude
|
| liftM3 :: Monad d => (b -> e -> c -> a) -> d b -> d e -> d c -> d a
liftM3 | f m1 m2 m3 | = | m1 >>= liftM32 m2 m3 f |
|
|
liftM30 | f x1 x2 x3 | = | return (f x1 x2 x3) |
|
|
liftM31 | m3 f x1 x2 | = | m3 >>= liftM30 f x1 x2 |
|
|
liftM32 | m2 m3 f x1 | = | m2 >>= liftM31 m3 f x1 |
|
Haskell To QDPs
↳ HASKELL
↳ LR
↳ HASKELL
↳ BR
↳ HASKELL
↳ COR
↳ HASKELL
↳ Narrow
↳ AND
↳ QDP
↳ QDPSizeChangeProof
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:
new_psPs(:(vy90, vy91), vy7, h) → new_psPs(vy91, vy7, 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(:(vy90, vy91), vy7, h) → new_psPs(vy91, vy7, 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
↳ QDP
Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:
new_gtGtEs(:(vy60, vy61), vy3, vy40, vy50, h, ba, bb, bc) → new_gtGtEs(vy61, vy3, vy40, vy50, h, ba, bb, bc)
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(:(vy60, vy61), vy3, vy40, vy50, h, ba, bb, bc) → new_gtGtEs(vy61, vy3, vy40, vy50, h, ba, bb, bc)
The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1, 2 >= 2, 3 >= 3, 4 >= 4, 5 >= 5, 6 >= 6, 7 >= 7, 8 >= 8
↳ HASKELL
↳ LR
↳ HASKELL
↳ BR
↳ HASKELL
↳ COR
↳ HASKELL
↳ Narrow
↳ AND
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ QDPSizeChangeProof
↳ QDP
Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:
new_gtGtEs0(:(vy50, vy51), vy6, vy3, vy40, h, ba, bb, bc) → new_gtGtEs0(vy51, vy6, vy3, vy40, h, ba, bb, bc)
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(:(vy50, vy51), vy6, vy3, vy40, h, ba, bb, bc) → new_gtGtEs0(vy51, vy6, vy3, vy40, h, ba, bb, bc)
The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1, 2 >= 2, 3 >= 3, 4 >= 4, 5 >= 5, 6 >= 6, 7 >= 7, 8 >= 8
↳ HASKELL
↳ LR
↳ HASKELL
↳ BR
↳ HASKELL
↳ COR
↳ HASKELL
↳ Narrow
↳ AND
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ QDPSizeChangeProof
Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:
new_gtGtEs1(:(vy40, vy41), vy5, vy6, vy3, h, ba, bb, bc) → new_gtGtEs1(vy41, vy5, vy6, vy3, h, ba, bb, bc)
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_gtGtEs1(:(vy40, vy41), vy5, vy6, vy3, h, ba, bb, bc) → new_gtGtEs1(vy41, vy5, vy6, vy3, h, ba, bb, bc)
The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1, 2 >= 2, 3 >= 3, 4 >= 4, 5 >= 5, 6 >= 6, 7 >= 7, 8 >= 8