MAYBE 1.6340000000000001
H-Termination proof of /home/matraf/haskell/eval_FullyBlown_Fast/empty.hs
H-Termination of the given Haskell-Program with start terms could not be shown:
↳ HASKELL
↳ LR
mainModule Main
| ((mapM :: Monad b => (a -> b c) -> [a] -> b [c]) :: Monad b => (a -> b c) -> [a] -> b [c]) |
module Main where
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 Main
| ((mapM :: Monad c => (b -> c a) -> [b] -> c [a]) :: Monad c => (b -> c a) -> [b] -> c [a]) |
module Main where
Replaced joker patterns by fresh variables and removed binding patterns.
↳ HASKELL
↳ LR
↳ HASKELL
↳ BR
↳ HASKELL
↳ COR
mainModule Main
| ((mapM :: Monad c => (b -> c a) -> [b] -> c [a]) :: Monad c => (b -> c a) -> [b] -> c [a]) |
module Main where
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 Main
| (mapM :: Monad a => (b -> a c) -> [b] -> a [c]) |
module Main where
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(:(vx130, vx131), vx7, ba) → new_psPs(vx131, vx7, 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_psPs(:(vx130, vx131), vx7, ba) → new_psPs(vx131, vx7, ba)
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(:(vx1010, vx1011), vx60, ba) → new_gtGtEs(vx1011, vx60, 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(:(vx1010, vx1011), vx60, ba) → new_gtGtEs(vx1011, vx60, ba)
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_sequence1(vx3, vx41, vx8, ba, bb) → new_sequence(vx3, vx41, ty_IO, ba, bb)
new_gtGtEs0(vx3, vx41, ba, bb) → new_sequence(vx3, vx41, ty_Maybe, ba, bb)
new_gtGtEs1(vx3, vx41, ba, bb) → new_psPs0(vx3, vx41, ba, bb)
new_sequence(vx3, :(vx40, vx41), ty_IO, ba, bb) → new_sequence(vx3, vx41, ty_IO, ba, bb)
new_psPs0(vx3, vx41, ba, bb) → new_sequence(vx3, vx41, ty_[], ba, bb)
new_sequence(vx3, :(vx40, vx41), ty_Maybe, ba, bb) → new_gtGtEs0(vx3, vx41, ba, bb)
new_sequence(vx3, :(vx40, vx41), ty_[], ba, bb) → new_gtGtEs1(vx3, vx41, ba, bb)
new_gtGtEs1(vx3, vx41, ba, bb) → new_gtGtEs1(vx3, vx41, ba, bb)
The TRS R consists of the following rules:
new_gtGtEs2(:(vx60, vx61), vx3, vx41, ba, bb) → new_psPs2(vx3, vx41, vx60, new_gtGtEs2(vx61, vx3, vx41, ba, bb), ba, bb)
new_gtGtEs3([], vx60, ba) → []
new_psPs1([], vx7, ba) → vx7
new_psPs2(vx3, vx41, vx60, vx7, ba, bb) → new_psPs3(new_sequence0(vx3, vx41, ty_[], ba, bb), vx60, vx7, ba)
new_gtGtEs2([], vx3, vx41, ba, bb) → []
new_psPs1(:(vx130, vx131), vx7, ba) → :(vx130, new_psPs1(vx131, vx7, ba))
new_psPs5(vx60, vx100, vx13, vx7, ba) → :(:(vx60, vx100), new_psPs1(vx13, vx7, ba))
new_psPs3([], vx60, vx7, ba) → new_psPs4(vx7, ba)
new_gtGtEs3(:(vx1010, vx1011), vx60, ba) → new_psPs1(:(:(vx60, vx1010), []), new_gtGtEs3(vx1011, vx60, ba), ba)
new_psPs4(vx7, ba) → vx7
new_psPs3(:(vx100, vx101), vx60, vx7, ba) → new_psPs5(vx60, vx100, new_psPs4(new_gtGtEs3(vx101, vx60, ba), ba), vx7, ba)
The set Q consists of the following terms:
new_gtGtEs3(:(x0, x1), x2, x3)
new_psPs4(x0, x1)
new_gtGtEs2(:(x0, x1), x2, x3, x4, x5)
new_psPs3(:(x0, x1), x2, x3, x4)
new_psPs5(x0, x1, x2, x3, x4)
new_psPs1(:(x0, x1), x2, x3)
new_psPs1([], x0, x1)
new_psPs2(x0, x1, x2, x3, x4, x5)
new_psPs3([], x0, x1, x2)
new_gtGtEs2([], x0, x1, x2, x3)
new_gtGtEs3([], x0, x1)
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(vx3, :(vx40, vx41), ty_IO, ba, bb) → new_sequence(vx3, vx41, ty_IO, ba, bb)
The TRS R consists of the following rules:
new_gtGtEs2(:(vx60, vx61), vx3, vx41, ba, bb) → new_psPs2(vx3, vx41, vx60, new_gtGtEs2(vx61, vx3, vx41, ba, bb), ba, bb)
new_gtGtEs3([], vx60, ba) → []
new_psPs1([], vx7, ba) → vx7
new_psPs2(vx3, vx41, vx60, vx7, ba, bb) → new_psPs3(new_sequence0(vx3, vx41, ty_[], ba, bb), vx60, vx7, ba)
new_gtGtEs2([], vx3, vx41, ba, bb) → []
new_psPs1(:(vx130, vx131), vx7, ba) → :(vx130, new_psPs1(vx131, vx7, ba))
new_psPs5(vx60, vx100, vx13, vx7, ba) → :(:(vx60, vx100), new_psPs1(vx13, vx7, ba))
new_psPs3([], vx60, vx7, ba) → new_psPs4(vx7, ba)
new_gtGtEs3(:(vx1010, vx1011), vx60, ba) → new_psPs1(:(:(vx60, vx1010), []), new_gtGtEs3(vx1011, vx60, ba), ba)
new_psPs4(vx7, ba) → vx7
new_psPs3(:(vx100, vx101), vx60, vx7, ba) → new_psPs5(vx60, vx100, new_psPs4(new_gtGtEs3(vx101, vx60, ba), ba), vx7, ba)
The set Q consists of the following terms:
new_gtGtEs3(:(x0, x1), x2, x3)
new_psPs4(x0, x1)
new_gtGtEs2(:(x0, x1), x2, x3, x4, x5)
new_psPs3(:(x0, x1), x2, x3, x4)
new_psPs5(x0, x1, x2, x3, x4)
new_psPs1(:(x0, x1), x2, x3)
new_psPs1([], x0, x1)
new_psPs2(x0, x1, x2, x3, x4, x5)
new_psPs3([], x0, x1, x2)
new_gtGtEs2([], x0, x1, x2, x3)
new_gtGtEs3([], x0, x1)
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(vx3, :(vx40, vx41), ty_IO, ba, bb) → new_sequence(vx3, vx41, ty_IO, ba, bb)
R is empty.
The set Q consists of the following terms:
new_gtGtEs3(:(x0, x1), x2, x3)
new_psPs4(x0, x1)
new_gtGtEs2(:(x0, x1), x2, x3, x4, x5)
new_psPs3(:(x0, x1), x2, x3, x4)
new_psPs5(x0, x1, x2, x3, x4)
new_psPs1(:(x0, x1), x2, x3)
new_psPs1([], x0, x1)
new_psPs2(x0, x1, x2, x3, x4, x5)
new_psPs3([], x0, x1, x2)
new_gtGtEs2([], x0, x1, x2, x3)
new_gtGtEs3([], x0, x1)
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), x2, x3)
new_psPs4(x0, x1)
new_gtGtEs2(:(x0, x1), x2, x3, x4, x5)
new_psPs3(:(x0, x1), x2, x3, x4)
new_psPs5(x0, x1, x2, x3, x4)
new_psPs1(:(x0, x1), x2, x3)
new_psPs1([], x0, x1)
new_psPs2(x0, x1, x2, x3, x4, x5)
new_psPs3([], x0, x1, x2)
new_gtGtEs2([], x0, x1, x2, x3)
new_gtGtEs3([], x0, x1)
↳ 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(vx3, :(vx40, vx41), ty_IO, ba, bb) → new_sequence(vx3, vx41, ty_IO, 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(vx3, :(vx40, vx41), ty_IO, ba, bb) → new_sequence(vx3, vx41, ty_IO, ba, bb)
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
↳ QDP
↳ DependencyGraphProof
↳ AND
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ UsableRulesProof
↳ QDP
↳ Narrow
Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:
new_gtGtEs0(vx3, vx41, ba, bb) → new_sequence(vx3, vx41, ty_Maybe, ba, bb)
new_sequence(vx3, :(vx40, vx41), ty_Maybe, ba, bb) → new_gtGtEs0(vx3, vx41, ba, bb)
The TRS R consists of the following rules:
new_gtGtEs2(:(vx60, vx61), vx3, vx41, ba, bb) → new_psPs2(vx3, vx41, vx60, new_gtGtEs2(vx61, vx3, vx41, ba, bb), ba, bb)
new_gtGtEs3([], vx60, ba) → []
new_psPs1([], vx7, ba) → vx7
new_psPs2(vx3, vx41, vx60, vx7, ba, bb) → new_psPs3(new_sequence0(vx3, vx41, ty_[], ba, bb), vx60, vx7, ba)
new_gtGtEs2([], vx3, vx41, ba, bb) → []
new_psPs1(:(vx130, vx131), vx7, ba) → :(vx130, new_psPs1(vx131, vx7, ba))
new_psPs5(vx60, vx100, vx13, vx7, ba) → :(:(vx60, vx100), new_psPs1(vx13, vx7, ba))
new_psPs3([], vx60, vx7, ba) → new_psPs4(vx7, ba)
new_gtGtEs3(:(vx1010, vx1011), vx60, ba) → new_psPs1(:(:(vx60, vx1010), []), new_gtGtEs3(vx1011, vx60, ba), ba)
new_psPs4(vx7, ba) → vx7
new_psPs3(:(vx100, vx101), vx60, vx7, ba) → new_psPs5(vx60, vx100, new_psPs4(new_gtGtEs3(vx101, vx60, ba), ba), vx7, ba)
The set Q consists of the following terms:
new_gtGtEs3(:(x0, x1), x2, x3)
new_psPs4(x0, x1)
new_gtGtEs2(:(x0, x1), x2, x3, x4, x5)
new_psPs3(:(x0, x1), x2, x3, x4)
new_psPs5(x0, x1, x2, x3, x4)
new_psPs1(:(x0, x1), x2, x3)
new_psPs1([], x0, x1)
new_psPs2(x0, x1, x2, x3, x4, x5)
new_psPs3([], x0, x1, x2)
new_gtGtEs2([], x0, x1, x2, x3)
new_gtGtEs3([], x0, x1)
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_gtGtEs0(vx3, vx41, ba, bb) → new_sequence(vx3, vx41, ty_Maybe, ba, bb)
new_sequence(vx3, :(vx40, vx41), ty_Maybe, ba, bb) → new_gtGtEs0(vx3, vx41, ba, bb)
R is empty.
The set Q consists of the following terms:
new_gtGtEs3(:(x0, x1), x2, x3)
new_psPs4(x0, x1)
new_gtGtEs2(:(x0, x1), x2, x3, x4, x5)
new_psPs3(:(x0, x1), x2, x3, x4)
new_psPs5(x0, x1, x2, x3, x4)
new_psPs1(:(x0, x1), x2, x3)
new_psPs1([], x0, x1)
new_psPs2(x0, x1, x2, x3, x4, x5)
new_psPs3([], x0, x1, x2)
new_gtGtEs2([], x0, x1, x2, x3)
new_gtGtEs3([], x0, x1)
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), x2, x3)
new_psPs4(x0, x1)
new_gtGtEs2(:(x0, x1), x2, x3, x4, x5)
new_psPs3(:(x0, x1), x2, x3, x4)
new_psPs5(x0, x1, x2, x3, x4)
new_psPs1(:(x0, x1), x2, x3)
new_psPs1([], x0, x1)
new_psPs2(x0, x1, x2, x3, x4, x5)
new_psPs3([], x0, x1, x2)
new_gtGtEs2([], x0, x1, x2, x3)
new_gtGtEs3([], x0, x1)
↳ HASKELL
↳ LR
↳ 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_gtGtEs0(vx3, vx41, ba, bb) → new_sequence(vx3, vx41, ty_Maybe, ba, bb)
new_sequence(vx3, :(vx40, vx41), ty_Maybe, ba, bb) → new_gtGtEs0(vx3, vx41, 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(vx3, :(vx40, vx41), ty_Maybe, ba, bb) → new_gtGtEs0(vx3, vx41, ba, bb)
The graph contains the following edges 1 >= 1, 2 > 2, 4 >= 3, 5 >= 4
- new_gtGtEs0(vx3, vx41, ba, bb) → new_sequence(vx3, vx41, ty_Maybe, ba, bb)
The graph contains the following edges 1 >= 1, 2 >= 2, 3 >= 4, 4 >= 5
↳ 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_gtGtEs1(vx3, vx41, ba, bb) → new_psPs0(vx3, vx41, ba, bb)
new_psPs0(vx3, vx41, ba, bb) → new_sequence(vx3, vx41, ty_[], ba, bb)
new_gtGtEs1(vx3, vx41, ba, bb) → new_gtGtEs1(vx3, vx41, ba, bb)
new_sequence(vx3, :(vx40, vx41), ty_[], ba, bb) → new_gtGtEs1(vx3, vx41, ba, bb)
The TRS R consists of the following rules:
new_gtGtEs2(:(vx60, vx61), vx3, vx41, ba, bb) → new_psPs2(vx3, vx41, vx60, new_gtGtEs2(vx61, vx3, vx41, ba, bb), ba, bb)
new_gtGtEs3([], vx60, ba) → []
new_psPs1([], vx7, ba) → vx7
new_psPs2(vx3, vx41, vx60, vx7, ba, bb) → new_psPs3(new_sequence0(vx3, vx41, ty_[], ba, bb), vx60, vx7, ba)
new_gtGtEs2([], vx3, vx41, ba, bb) → []
new_psPs1(:(vx130, vx131), vx7, ba) → :(vx130, new_psPs1(vx131, vx7, ba))
new_psPs5(vx60, vx100, vx13, vx7, ba) → :(:(vx60, vx100), new_psPs1(vx13, vx7, ba))
new_psPs3([], vx60, vx7, ba) → new_psPs4(vx7, ba)
new_gtGtEs3(:(vx1010, vx1011), vx60, ba) → new_psPs1(:(:(vx60, vx1010), []), new_gtGtEs3(vx1011, vx60, ba), ba)
new_psPs4(vx7, ba) → vx7
new_psPs3(:(vx100, vx101), vx60, vx7, ba) → new_psPs5(vx60, vx100, new_psPs4(new_gtGtEs3(vx101, vx60, ba), ba), vx7, ba)
The set Q consists of the following terms:
new_gtGtEs3(:(x0, x1), x2, x3)
new_psPs4(x0, x1)
new_gtGtEs2(:(x0, x1), x2, x3, x4, x5)
new_psPs3(:(x0, x1), x2, x3, x4)
new_psPs5(x0, x1, x2, x3, x4)
new_psPs1(:(x0, x1), x2, x3)
new_psPs1([], x0, x1)
new_psPs2(x0, x1, x2, x3, x4, x5)
new_psPs3([], x0, x1, x2)
new_gtGtEs2([], x0, x1, x2, x3)
new_gtGtEs3([], x0, x1)
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_gtGtEs1(vx3, vx41, ba, bb) → new_psPs0(vx3, vx41, ba, bb)
new_psPs0(vx3, vx41, ba, bb) → new_sequence(vx3, vx41, ty_[], ba, bb)
new_gtGtEs1(vx3, vx41, ba, bb) → new_gtGtEs1(vx3, vx41, ba, bb)
new_sequence(vx3, :(vx40, vx41), ty_[], ba, bb) → new_gtGtEs1(vx3, vx41, ba, bb)
R is empty.
The set Q consists of the following terms:
new_gtGtEs3(:(x0, x1), x2, x3)
new_psPs4(x0, x1)
new_gtGtEs2(:(x0, x1), x2, x3, x4, x5)
new_psPs3(:(x0, x1), x2, x3, x4)
new_psPs5(x0, x1, x2, x3, x4)
new_psPs1(:(x0, x1), x2, x3)
new_psPs1([], x0, x1)
new_psPs2(x0, x1, x2, x3, x4, x5)
new_psPs3([], x0, x1, x2)
new_gtGtEs2([], x0, x1, x2, x3)
new_gtGtEs3([], x0, x1)
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), x2, x3)
new_psPs4(x0, x1)
new_gtGtEs2(:(x0, x1), x2, x3, x4, x5)
new_psPs3(:(x0, x1), x2, x3, x4)
new_psPs5(x0, x1, x2, x3, x4)
new_psPs1(:(x0, x1), x2, x3)
new_psPs1([], x0, x1)
new_psPs2(x0, x1, x2, x3, x4, x5)
new_psPs3([], x0, x1, x2)
new_gtGtEs2([], x0, x1, x2, x3)
new_gtGtEs3([], x0, x1)
↳ HASKELL
↳ LR
↳ 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_gtGtEs1(vx3, vx41, ba, bb) → new_psPs0(vx3, vx41, ba, bb)
new_psPs0(vx3, vx41, ba, bb) → new_sequence(vx3, vx41, ty_[], ba, bb)
new_sequence(vx3, :(vx40, vx41), ty_[], ba, bb) → new_gtGtEs1(vx3, vx41, ba, bb)
new_gtGtEs1(vx3, vx41, ba, bb) → new_gtGtEs1(vx3, vx41, 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(vx3, :(vx40, vx41), ty_[], ba, bb) → new_gtGtEs1(vx3, vx41, ba, bb)
No rules are removed from R.
Used ordering: POLO with Polynomial interpretation [25]:
POL(:(x1, x2)) = x1 + 2·x2
POL(new_gtGtEs1(x1, x2, x3, x4)) = x1 + x2 + x3 + x4
POL(new_psPs0(x1, x2, x3, x4)) = x1 + x2 + x3 + x4
POL(new_sequence(x1, x2, x3, x4, x5)) = x1 + x2 + 2·x3 + x4 + x5
POL(ty_[]) = 0
↳ HASKELL
↳ LR
↳ 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(vx3, vx41, ba, bb) → new_psPs0(vx3, vx41, ba, bb)
new_psPs0(vx3, vx41, ba, bb) → new_sequence(vx3, vx41, ty_[], ba, bb)
new_gtGtEs1(vx3, vx41, ba, bb) → new_gtGtEs1(vx3, vx41, 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
↳ QDP
↳ UsableRulesProof
↳ QDP
↳ QReductionProof
↳ QDP
↳ UsableRulesReductionPairsProof
↳ QDP
↳ DependencyGraphProof
↳ QDP
↳ NonTerminationProof
↳ Narrow
Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:
new_gtGtEs1(vx3, vx41, ba, bb) → new_gtGtEs1(vx3, vx41, 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(vx3, vx41, ba, bb) → new_gtGtEs1(vx3, vx41, ba, bb)
The TRS R consists of the following rules:none
s = new_gtGtEs1(vx3, vx41, ba, bb) evaluates to t =new_gtGtEs1(vx3, vx41, 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(vx3, vx41, ba, bb) to new_gtGtEs1(vx3, vx41, ba, bb).
Haskell To QDPs