YES 1.181
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
| ((minimum :: [Int] -> Int) :: [Int] -> Int) |
module Main where
Replaced joker patterns by fresh variables and removed binding patterns.
↳ HASKELL
↳ BR
↳ HASKELL
↳ COR
mainModule Main
| ((minimum :: [Int] -> Int) :: [Int] -> Int) |
module Main where
Cond Reductions:
The following Function with conditions
is transformed to
min1 | x y True | = x |
min1 | x y False | = min0 x y otherwise |
min2 | x y | = min1 x y (x <= y) |
The following Function with conditions
is transformed to
undefined0 | True | = undefined |
undefined1 | | = undefined0 False |
↳ HASKELL
↳ BR
↳ HASKELL
↳ COR
↳ HASKELL
↳ Narrow
mainModule Main
| (minimum :: [Int] -> Int) |
module Main where
Haskell To QDPs
↳ HASKELL
↳ BR
↳ HASKELL
↳ COR
↳ HASKELL
↳ Narrow
↳ AND
↳ QDP
↳ QDPSizeChangeProof
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:
new_min1(vx49, vx50, Succ(vx510), Succ(vx520)) → new_min1(vx49, vx50, vx510, vx520)
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_min1(vx49, vx50, Succ(vx510), Succ(vx520)) → new_min1(vx49, vx50, vx510, vx520)
The graph contains the following edges 1 >= 1, 2 >= 2, 3 > 3, 4 > 4
↳ HASKELL
↳ BR
↳ HASKELL
↳ COR
↳ HASKELL
↳ Narrow
↳ AND
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ QDPSizeChangeProof
↳ QDP
Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:
new_min10(vx40, vx41, Succ(vx420), Succ(vx430)) → new_min10(vx40, vx41, vx420, vx430)
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_min10(vx40, vx41, Succ(vx420), Succ(vx430)) → new_min10(vx40, vx41, vx420, vx430)
The graph contains the following edges 1 >= 1, 2 >= 2, 3 > 3, 4 > 4
↳ HASKELL
↳ BR
↳ HASKELL
↳ COR
↳ HASKELL
↳ Narrow
↳ AND
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ QDPSizeChangeProof
Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:
new_foldl(vx30, :(vx310, vx311)) → new_foldl(new_min11(vx30, vx310), vx311)
The TRS R consists of the following rules:
new_min11(Pos(Zero), Pos(Succ(vx31000))) → Pos(Zero)
new_min11(Pos(Succ(vx3000)), Pos(Zero)) → Pos(Zero)
new_min11(Neg(Succ(vx3000)), Pos(vx3100)) → Neg(Succ(vx3000))
new_min11(Neg(Zero), Pos(Succ(vx31000))) → Neg(Zero)
new_min11(Pos(Zero), Neg(Zero)) → Pos(Zero)
new_min15(vx40, vx41, Zero, Zero) → new_min13(vx40, vx41)
new_min14(vx49, vx50, Succ(vx510), Succ(vx520)) → new_min14(vx49, vx50, vx510, vx520)
new_min11(Neg(Zero), Neg(Zero)) → Neg(Zero)
new_min11(Neg(Zero), Pos(Zero)) → Neg(Zero)
new_min11(Pos(Succ(vx3000)), Neg(vx3100)) → Neg(vx3100)
new_min11(Neg(Succ(vx3000)), Neg(Succ(vx31000))) → new_min14(vx3000, vx31000, vx31000, vx3000)
new_min15(vx40, vx41, Succ(vx420), Succ(vx430)) → new_min15(vx40, vx41, vx420, vx430)
new_min15(vx40, vx41, Succ(vx420), Zero) → Pos(Succ(vx41))
new_min14(vx49, vx50, Zero, Succ(vx520)) → new_min12(vx49, vx50)
new_min13(vx40, vx41) → Pos(Succ(vx40))
new_min11(Pos(Zero), Neg(Succ(vx31000))) → Neg(Succ(vx31000))
new_min14(vx49, vx50, Zero, Zero) → new_min12(vx49, vx50)
new_min11(Pos(Zero), Pos(Zero)) → Pos(Zero)
new_min12(vx49, vx50) → Neg(Succ(vx49))
new_min14(vx49, vx50, Succ(vx510), Zero) → Neg(Succ(vx50))
new_min15(vx40, vx41, Zero, Succ(vx430)) → new_min13(vx40, vx41)
new_min11(Pos(Succ(vx3000)), Pos(Succ(vx31000))) → new_min15(vx3000, vx31000, vx3000, vx31000)
new_min11(Neg(Succ(vx3000)), Neg(Zero)) → Neg(Succ(vx3000))
new_min11(Neg(Zero), Neg(Succ(vx31000))) → Neg(Succ(vx31000))
The set Q consists of the following terms:
new_min11(Neg(Succ(x0)), Neg(Succ(x1)))
new_min14(x0, x1, Succ(x2), Succ(x3))
new_min11(Pos(Zero), Pos(Zero))
new_min11(Pos(Zero), Pos(Succ(x0)))
new_min11(Pos(Succ(x0)), Pos(Succ(x1)))
new_min11(Neg(Zero), Neg(Zero))
new_min11(Neg(Zero), Pos(Zero))
new_min11(Pos(Zero), Neg(Zero))
new_min11(Neg(Succ(x0)), Neg(Zero))
new_min15(x0, x1, Zero, Succ(x2))
new_min15(x0, x1, Succ(x2), Succ(x3))
new_min14(x0, x1, Zero, Succ(x2))
new_min13(x0, x1)
new_min14(x0, x1, Succ(x2), Zero)
new_min15(x0, x1, Zero, Zero)
new_min11(Pos(Succ(x0)), Neg(x1))
new_min11(Neg(Succ(x0)), Pos(x1))
new_min11(Pos(Succ(x0)), Pos(Zero))
new_min11(Neg(Zero), Pos(Succ(x0)))
new_min11(Pos(Zero), Neg(Succ(x0)))
new_min14(x0, x1, Zero, Zero)
new_min15(x0, x1, Succ(x2), Zero)
new_min12(x0, x1)
new_min11(Neg(Zero), Neg(Succ(x0)))
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_foldl(vx30, :(vx310, vx311)) → new_foldl(new_min11(vx30, vx310), vx311)
The graph contains the following edges 2 > 2