YES 184.536 H-Termination proof of /home/matraf/haskell/eval_FullyBlown_Fast/empty.hs
H-Termination of the given Haskell-Program with start terms could successfully be proven:



HASKELL
  ↳ BR

mainModule Main
  ((isAlphaNum :: Char  ->  Bool) :: Char  ->  Bool)

module Main where
  import qualified Prelude



Replaced joker patterns by fresh variables and removed binding patterns.

↳ HASKELL
  ↳ BR
HASKELL
      ↳ COR

mainModule Main
  ((isAlphaNum :: Char  ->  Bool) :: Char  ->  Bool)

module Main where
  import qualified Prelude



Cond Reductions:
The following Function with conditions
undefined 
 | False
 = undefined

is transformed to
undefined  = undefined1

undefined0 True = undefined

undefined1  = undefined0 False



↳ HASKELL
  ↳ BR
    ↳ HASKELL
      ↳ COR
HASKELL
          ↳ NumRed

mainModule Main
  ((isAlphaNum :: Char  ->  Bool) :: Char  ->  Bool)

module Main where
  import qualified Prelude



Num Reduction: All numbers are transformed to thier corresponding representation with Pos, Neg, Succ and Zero.

↳ HASKELL
  ↳ BR
    ↳ HASKELL
      ↳ COR
        ↳ HASKELL
          ↳ NumRed
HASKELL
              ↳ Narrow

mainModule Main
  (isAlphaNum :: Char  ->  Bool)

module Main where
  import qualified Prelude



Haskell To QDPs


↳ HASKELL
  ↳ BR
    ↳ HASKELL
      ↳ COR
        ↳ HASKELL
          ↳ NumRed
            ↳ HASKELL
              ↳ Narrow
                ↳ AND
QDP
                    ↳ QDPSizeChangeProof
                  ↳ QDP
                  ↳ QDP
                  ↳ QDP
                  ↳ QDP
                  ↳ QDP
                  ↳ QDP
                  ↳ QDP
                  ↳ QDP
                  ↳ QDP
                  ↳ QDP
                  ↳ QDP
                  ↳ QDP
                  ↳ QDP

Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:

new_not(Succ(vx3160), Succ(vx3180)) → new_not(vx3160, vx3180)

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:



↳ HASKELL
  ↳ BR
    ↳ HASKELL
      ↳ COR
        ↳ HASKELL
          ↳ NumRed
            ↳ HASKELL
              ↳ Narrow
                ↳ AND
                  ↳ QDP
QDP
                    ↳ QDPSizeChangeProof
                  ↳ QDP
                  ↳ QDP
                  ↳ QDP
                  ↳ QDP
                  ↳ QDP
                  ↳ QDP
                  ↳ QDP
                  ↳ QDP
                  ↳ QDP
                  ↳ QDP
                  ↳ QDP
                  ↳ QDP

Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:

new_asAs(Succ(vx3160000), Succ(vx3170000), vx320) → new_asAs(vx3160000, vx3170000, vx320)

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:



↳ HASKELL
  ↳ BR
    ↳ HASKELL
      ↳ COR
        ↳ HASKELL
          ↳ NumRed
            ↳ HASKELL
              ↳ Narrow
                ↳ AND
                  ↳ QDP
                  ↳ QDP
QDP
                    ↳ QDPSizeChangeProof
                  ↳ QDP
                  ↳ QDP
                  ↳ QDP
                  ↳ QDP
                  ↳ QDP
                  ↳ QDP
                  ↳ QDP
                  ↳ QDP
                  ↳ QDP
                  ↳ QDP
                  ↳ QDP

Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:

new_pePe(Succ(vx3090), Succ(vx3100), vx311) → new_pePe(vx3090, vx3100, vx311)

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:



↳ HASKELL
  ↳ BR
    ↳ HASKELL
      ↳ COR
        ↳ HASKELL
          ↳ NumRed
            ↳ HASKELL
              ↳ Narrow
                ↳ AND
                  ↳ QDP
                  ↳ QDP
                  ↳ QDP
QDP
                    ↳ QDPSizeChangeProof
                  ↳ QDP
                  ↳ QDP
                  ↳ QDP
                  ↳ QDP
                  ↳ QDP
                  ↳ QDP
                  ↳ QDP
                  ↳ QDP
                  ↳ QDP
                  ↳ QDP

Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:

new_pePe0(Succ(vx3070), Succ(vx3080), vx309, vx310) → new_pePe0(vx3070, vx3080, vx309, vx310)

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:



↳ HASKELL
  ↳ BR
    ↳ HASKELL
      ↳ COR
        ↳ HASKELL
          ↳ NumRed
            ↳ HASKELL
              ↳ Narrow
                ↳ AND
                  ↳ QDP
                  ↳ QDP
                  ↳ QDP
                  ↳ QDP
QDP
                    ↳ QDPSizeChangeProof
                  ↳ QDP
                  ↳ QDP
                  ↳ QDP
                  ↳ QDP
                  ↳ QDP
                  ↳ QDP
                  ↳ QDP
                  ↳ QDP
                  ↳ QDP

Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:

new_pePe1(Succ(vx2990), Succ(vx3000), vx301, vx302, vx303) → new_pePe1(vx2990, vx3000, vx301, vx302, vx303)

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:



↳ HASKELL
  ↳ BR
    ↳ HASKELL
      ↳ COR
        ↳ HASKELL
          ↳ NumRed
            ↳ HASKELL
              ↳ Narrow
                ↳ AND
                  ↳ QDP
                  ↳ QDP
                  ↳ QDP
                  ↳ QDP
                  ↳ QDP
QDP
                    ↳ QDPSizeChangeProof
                  ↳ QDP
                  ↳ QDP
                  ↳ QDP
                  ↳ QDP
                  ↳ QDP
                  ↳ QDP
                  ↳ QDP
                  ↳ QDP

Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:

new_pePe2(Succ(vx2810), Succ(vx2820), vx283, vx284, vx285, vx286) → new_pePe2(vx2810, vx2820, vx283, vx284, vx285, vx286)

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:



↳ HASKELL
  ↳ BR
    ↳ HASKELL
      ↳ COR
        ↳ HASKELL
          ↳ NumRed
            ↳ HASKELL
              ↳ Narrow
                ↳ AND
                  ↳ QDP
                  ↳ QDP
                  ↳ QDP
                  ↳ QDP
                  ↳ QDP
                  ↳ QDP
QDP
                    ↳ QDPSizeChangeProof
                  ↳ QDP
                  ↳ QDP
                  ↳ QDP
                  ↳ QDP
                  ↳ QDP
                  ↳ QDP
                  ↳ QDP

Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:

new_pePe3(Succ(vx2730), Succ(vx2740), vx275, vx276, vx277, vx278, vx279) → new_pePe3(vx2730, vx2740, vx275, vx276, vx277, vx278, vx279)

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:



↳ HASKELL
  ↳ BR
    ↳ HASKELL
      ↳ COR
        ↳ HASKELL
          ↳ NumRed
            ↳ HASKELL
              ↳ Narrow
                ↳ AND
                  ↳ QDP
                  ↳ QDP
                  ↳ QDP
                  ↳ QDP
                  ↳ QDP
                  ↳ QDP
                  ↳ QDP
QDP
                    ↳ QDPSizeChangeProof
                  ↳ QDP
                  ↳ QDP
                  ↳ QDP
                  ↳ QDP
                  ↳ QDP
                  ↳ QDP

Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:

new_pePe4(Succ(vx2640), Succ(vx2650), vx266, vx267, vx268, vx269, vx270, vx271) → new_pePe4(vx2640, vx2650, vx266, vx267, vx268, vx269, vx270, vx271)

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:



↳ HASKELL
  ↳ BR
    ↳ HASKELL
      ↳ COR
        ↳ HASKELL
          ↳ NumRed
            ↳ HASKELL
              ↳ Narrow
                ↳ AND
                  ↳ QDP
                  ↳ QDP
                  ↳ QDP
                  ↳ QDP
                  ↳ QDP
                  ↳ QDP
                  ↳ QDP
                  ↳ QDP
QDP
                    ↳ QDPSizeChangeProof
                  ↳ QDP
                  ↳ QDP
                  ↳ QDP
                  ↳ QDP
                  ↳ QDP

Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:

new_pePe5(Succ(vx2530), Succ(vx2540), vx255) → new_pePe5(vx2530, vx2540, vx255)

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:



↳ HASKELL
  ↳ BR
    ↳ HASKELL
      ↳ COR
        ↳ HASKELL
          ↳ NumRed
            ↳ HASKELL
              ↳ Narrow
                ↳ AND
                  ↳ QDP
                  ↳ QDP
                  ↳ QDP
                  ↳ QDP
                  ↳ QDP
                  ↳ QDP
                  ↳ QDP
                  ↳ QDP
                  ↳ QDP
QDP
                    ↳ QDPSizeChangeProof
                  ↳ QDP
                  ↳ QDP
                  ↳ QDP
                  ↳ QDP

Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:

new_pePe6(Succ(vx1980), Succ(vx1990), vx200, vx201) → new_pePe6(vx1980, vx1990, vx200, vx201)

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:



↳ HASKELL
  ↳ BR
    ↳ HASKELL
      ↳ COR
        ↳ HASKELL
          ↳ NumRed
            ↳ HASKELL
              ↳ Narrow
                ↳ AND
                  ↳ QDP
                  ↳ QDP
                  ↳ QDP
                  ↳ QDP
                  ↳ QDP
                  ↳ QDP
                  ↳ QDP
                  ↳ QDP
                  ↳ QDP
                  ↳ QDP
QDP
                    ↳ QDPSizeChangeProof
                  ↳ QDP
                  ↳ QDP
                  ↳ QDP

Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:

new_pePe7(Succ(vx2030), Succ(vx2040), vx205, vx206, vx207) → new_pePe7(vx2030, vx2040, vx205, vx206, vx207)

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:



↳ HASKELL
  ↳ BR
    ↳ HASKELL
      ↳ COR
        ↳ HASKELL
          ↳ NumRed
            ↳ HASKELL
              ↳ Narrow
                ↳ AND
                  ↳ QDP
                  ↳ QDP
                  ↳ QDP
                  ↳ QDP
                  ↳ QDP
                  ↳ QDP
                  ↳ QDP
                  ↳ QDP
                  ↳ QDP
                  ↳ QDP
                  ↳ QDP
QDP
                    ↳ QDPSizeChangeProof
                  ↳ QDP
                  ↳ QDP

Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:

new_pePe8(Succ(vx1220), Succ(vx1230), vx124, vx125, vx126, vx127) → new_pePe8(vx1220, vx1230, vx124, vx125, vx126, vx127)

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:



↳ HASKELL
  ↳ BR
    ↳ HASKELL
      ↳ COR
        ↳ HASKELL
          ↳ NumRed
            ↳ HASKELL
              ↳ Narrow
                ↳ AND
                  ↳ QDP
                  ↳ QDP
                  ↳ QDP
                  ↳ QDP
                  ↳ QDP
                  ↳ QDP
                  ↳ QDP
                  ↳ QDP
                  ↳ QDP
                  ↳ QDP
                  ↳ QDP
                  ↳ QDP
QDP
                    ↳ QDPSizeChangeProof
                  ↳ QDP

Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:

new_pePe9(Succ(vx1120), Succ(vx1130), vx114, vx115, vx116, vx117, vx118) → new_pePe9(vx1120, vx1130, vx114, vx115, vx116, vx117, vx118)

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:



↳ HASKELL
  ↳ BR
    ↳ HASKELL
      ↳ COR
        ↳ HASKELL
          ↳ NumRed
            ↳ HASKELL
              ↳ Narrow
                ↳ AND
                  ↳ QDP
                  ↳ QDP
                  ↳ QDP
                  ↳ QDP
                  ↳ QDP
                  ↳ QDP
                  ↳ QDP
                  ↳ QDP
                  ↳ QDP
                  ↳ QDP
                  ↳ QDP
                  ↳ QDP
                  ↳ QDP
QDP
                    ↳ QDPSizeChangeProof

Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:

new_pePe10(Succ(vx600), Succ(vx610), vx62, vx63, vx64, vx65, vx66, vx67) → new_pePe10(vx600, vx610, vx62, vx63, vx64, vx65, vx66, vx67)

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: