YES 2.38
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
↳ LR
mainModule Main
| ((properFraction :: RealFrac a => a -> (Int,a)) :: RealFrac a => a -> (Int,a)) |
module Main where
Lambda Reductions:
The following Lambda expression
\(_,r)→r
is transformed to
The following Lambda expression
\(q,_)→q
is transformed to
↳ HASKELL
↳ LR
↳ HASKELL
↳ IFR
mainModule Main
| ((properFraction :: RealFrac a => a -> (Int,a)) :: RealFrac a => a -> (Int,a)) |
module Main where
If Reductions:
The following If expression
if primGEqNatS x y then Succ (primDivNatS (primMinusNatS x y) (Succ y)) else Zero
is transformed to
primDivNatS0 | x y True | = Succ (primDivNatS (primMinusNatS x y) (Succ y)) |
primDivNatS0 | x y False | = Zero |
The following If expression
if primGEqNatS x y then primModNatS (primMinusNatS x y) (Succ y) else Succ x
is transformed to
primModNatS0 | x y True | = primModNatS (primMinusNatS x y) (Succ y) |
primModNatS0 | x y False | = Succ x |
↳ HASKELL
↳ LR
↳ HASKELL
↳ IFR
↳ HASKELL
↳ BR
mainModule Main
| ((properFraction :: RealFrac a => a -> (Int,a)) :: RealFrac a => a -> (Int,a)) |
module Main where
Replaced joker patterns by fresh variables and removed binding patterns.
Binding Reductions:
The bind variable of the following binding Pattern
frac@(Double vx vy)
is replaced by the following term
Double vx vy
The bind variable of the following binding Pattern
frac@(Float wv ww)
is replaced by the following term
Float wv ww
↳ HASKELL
↳ LR
↳ HASKELL
↳ IFR
↳ HASKELL
↳ BR
↳ HASKELL
↳ COR
mainModule Main
| ((properFraction :: RealFrac a => a -> (Int,a)) :: RealFrac a => a -> (Int,a)) |
module Main where
Cond Reductions:
The following Function with conditions
is transformed to
undefined0 | True | = undefined |
undefined1 | | = undefined0 False |
↳ HASKELL
↳ LR
↳ HASKELL
↳ IFR
↳ HASKELL
↳ BR
↳ HASKELL
↳ COR
↳ HASKELL
↳ LetRed
mainModule Main
| ((properFraction :: RealFrac a => a -> (Int,a)) :: RealFrac a => a -> (Int,a)) |
module Main where
Let/Where Reductions:
The bindings of the following Let/Where expression
(fromIntegral q,r :% y) |
where | |
| |
| |
| |
| |
are unpacked to the following functions on top level
properFractionQ | xv xw | = properFractionQ1 xv xw (properFractionVu30 xv xw) |
properFractionQ1 | xv xw (q,wy) | = q |
properFractionR | xv xw | = properFractionR0 xv xw (properFractionVu30 xv xw) |
properFractionR0 | xv xw (wz,r) | = r |
properFractionVu30 | xv xw | = quotRem xv xw |
↳ HASKELL
↳ LR
↳ HASKELL
↳ IFR
↳ HASKELL
↳ BR
↳ HASKELL
↳ COR
↳ HASKELL
↳ LetRed
↳ HASKELL
↳ NumRed
mainModule Main
| ((properFraction :: RealFrac a => a -> (Int,a)) :: RealFrac a => a -> (Int,a)) |
module Main where
Num Reduction: All numbers are transformed to thier corresponding representation with Pos, Neg, Succ and Zero.
↳ HASKELL
↳ LR
↳ HASKELL
↳ IFR
↳ HASKELL
↳ BR
↳ HASKELL
↳ COR
↳ HASKELL
↳ LetRed
↳ HASKELL
↳ NumRed
↳ HASKELL
↳ Narrow
mainModule Main
| (properFraction :: RealFrac a => a -> (Int,a)) |
module Main where
Haskell To QDPs
↳ HASKELL
↳ LR
↳ HASKELL
↳ IFR
↳ HASKELL
↳ BR
↳ HASKELL
↳ COR
↳ HASKELL
↳ LetRed
↳ HASKELL
↳ NumRed
↳ HASKELL
↳ Narrow
↳ AND
↳ QDP
↳ QDPSizeChangeProof
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:
new_primPlusNat(Succ(xx3000), Succ(xx400)) → new_primPlusNat(xx3000, xx400)
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_primPlusNat(Succ(xx3000), Succ(xx400)) → new_primPlusNat(xx3000, xx400)
The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1, 2 > 2
↳ HASKELL
↳ LR
↳ HASKELL
↳ IFR
↳ HASKELL
↳ BR
↳ HASKELL
↳ COR
↳ HASKELL
↳ LetRed
↳ HASKELL
↳ NumRed
↳ HASKELL
↳ Narrow
↳ AND
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ QDPSizeChangeProof
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:
new_primMulNat(Succ(xx3100)) → new_primMulNat(xx3100)
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_primMulNat(Succ(xx3100)) → new_primMulNat(xx3100)
The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1
↳ HASKELL
↳ LR
↳ HASKELL
↳ IFR
↳ HASKELL
↳ BR
↳ HASKELL
↳ COR
↳ HASKELL
↳ LetRed
↳ HASKELL
↳ NumRed
↳ HASKELL
↳ Narrow
↳ AND
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ QDPSizeChangeProof
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:
new_primMinusNat(Succ(xx3000), Succ(xx400)) → new_primMinusNat(xx3000, xx400)
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_primMinusNat(Succ(xx3000), Succ(xx400)) → new_primMinusNat(xx3000, xx400)
The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1, 2 > 2
↳ HASKELL
↳ LR
↳ HASKELL
↳ IFR
↳ HASKELL
↳ BR
↳ HASKELL
↳ COR
↳ HASKELL
↳ LetRed
↳ HASKELL
↳ NumRed
↳ HASKELL
↳ Narrow
↳ AND
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ QDPSizeChangeProof
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:
new_primMinusNatS(Succ(xx330), Succ(xx340)) → new_primMinusNatS(xx330, xx340)
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_primMinusNatS(Succ(xx330), Succ(xx340)) → new_primMinusNatS(xx330, xx340)
The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1, 2 > 2
↳ HASKELL
↳ LR
↳ HASKELL
↳ IFR
↳ HASKELL
↳ BR
↳ HASKELL
↳ COR
↳ HASKELL
↳ LetRed
↳ HASKELL
↳ NumRed
↳ HASKELL
↳ Narrow
↳ AND
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ DependencyGraphProof
↳ QDP
Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:
new_primModNatS0(xx57, xx58, Succ(xx590), Zero) → new_primModNatS(new_primMinusNatS2(Succ(xx57), Succ(xx58)), Succ(xx58))
new_primModNatS(Succ(Zero), Zero) → new_primModNatS(new_primMinusNatS1, Zero)
new_primModNatS(Succ(Succ(xx30000)), Succ(xx31000)) → new_primModNatS0(xx30000, xx31000, xx30000, xx31000)
new_primModNatS(Succ(Succ(xx30000)), Zero) → new_primModNatS(new_primMinusNatS0(xx30000), Zero)
new_primModNatS0(xx57, xx58, Succ(xx590), Succ(xx600)) → new_primModNatS0(xx57, xx58, xx590, xx600)
new_primModNatS0(xx57, xx58, Zero, Zero) → new_primModNatS00(xx57, xx58)
new_primModNatS00(xx57, xx58) → new_primModNatS(new_primMinusNatS2(Succ(xx57), Succ(xx58)), Succ(xx58))
The TRS R consists of the following rules:
new_primMinusNatS2(Succ(xx330), Succ(xx340)) → new_primMinusNatS2(xx330, xx340)
new_primMinusNatS2(Zero, Succ(xx340)) → Zero
new_primMinusNatS2(Zero, Zero) → Zero
new_primMinusNatS2(Succ(xx330), Zero) → Succ(xx330)
new_primMinusNatS1 → Zero
new_primMinusNatS0(xx30000) → Succ(xx30000)
The set Q consists of the following terms:
new_primMinusNatS2(Succ(x0), Zero)
new_primMinusNatS2(Succ(x0), Succ(x1))
new_primMinusNatS2(Zero, Zero)
new_primMinusNatS0(x0)
new_primMinusNatS1
new_primMinusNatS2(Zero, Succ(x0))
We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
The approximation of the Dependency Graph [15,17,22] contains 2 SCCs with 1 less node.
↳ HASKELL
↳ LR
↳ HASKELL
↳ IFR
↳ HASKELL
↳ BR
↳ HASKELL
↳ COR
↳ HASKELL
↳ LetRed
↳ HASKELL
↳ NumRed
↳ HASKELL
↳ Narrow
↳ AND
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ DependencyGraphProof
↳ AND
↳ QDP
↳ UsableRulesProof
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:
new_primModNatS(Succ(Succ(xx30000)), Zero) → new_primModNatS(new_primMinusNatS0(xx30000), Zero)
The TRS R consists of the following rules:
new_primMinusNatS2(Succ(xx330), Succ(xx340)) → new_primMinusNatS2(xx330, xx340)
new_primMinusNatS2(Zero, Succ(xx340)) → Zero
new_primMinusNatS2(Zero, Zero) → Zero
new_primMinusNatS2(Succ(xx330), Zero) → Succ(xx330)
new_primMinusNatS1 → Zero
new_primMinusNatS0(xx30000) → Succ(xx30000)
The set Q consists of the following terms:
new_primMinusNatS2(Succ(x0), Zero)
new_primMinusNatS2(Succ(x0), Succ(x1))
new_primMinusNatS2(Zero, Zero)
new_primMinusNatS0(x0)
new_primMinusNatS1
new_primMinusNatS2(Zero, Succ(x0))
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
↳ IFR
↳ HASKELL
↳ BR
↳ HASKELL
↳ COR
↳ HASKELL
↳ LetRed
↳ HASKELL
↳ NumRed
↳ HASKELL
↳ Narrow
↳ AND
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ DependencyGraphProof
↳ AND
↳ QDP
↳ UsableRulesProof
↳ QDP
↳ QReductionProof
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:
new_primModNatS(Succ(Succ(xx30000)), Zero) → new_primModNatS(new_primMinusNatS0(xx30000), Zero)
The TRS R consists of the following rules:
new_primMinusNatS0(xx30000) → Succ(xx30000)
The set Q consists of the following terms:
new_primMinusNatS2(Succ(x0), Zero)
new_primMinusNatS2(Succ(x0), Succ(x1))
new_primMinusNatS2(Zero, Zero)
new_primMinusNatS0(x0)
new_primMinusNatS1
new_primMinusNatS2(Zero, Succ(x0))
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_primMinusNatS2(Succ(x0), Zero)
new_primMinusNatS2(Succ(x0), Succ(x1))
new_primMinusNatS2(Zero, Zero)
new_primMinusNatS1
new_primMinusNatS2(Zero, Succ(x0))
↳ HASKELL
↳ LR
↳ HASKELL
↳ IFR
↳ HASKELL
↳ BR
↳ HASKELL
↳ COR
↳ HASKELL
↳ LetRed
↳ HASKELL
↳ NumRed
↳ HASKELL
↳ Narrow
↳ AND
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ DependencyGraphProof
↳ AND
↳ QDP
↳ UsableRulesProof
↳ QDP
↳ QReductionProof
↳ QDP
↳ RuleRemovalProof
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:
new_primModNatS(Succ(Succ(xx30000)), Zero) → new_primModNatS(new_primMinusNatS0(xx30000), Zero)
The TRS R consists of the following rules:
new_primMinusNatS0(xx30000) → Succ(xx30000)
The set Q consists of the following terms:
new_primMinusNatS0(x0)
We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
By using the rule removal processor [15] with the following polynomial ordering [25], at least one Dependency Pair or term rewrite system rule of this QDP problem can be strictly oriented.
Strictly oriented dependency pairs:
new_primModNatS(Succ(Succ(xx30000)), Zero) → new_primModNatS(new_primMinusNatS0(xx30000), Zero)
Strictly oriented rules of the TRS R:
new_primMinusNatS0(xx30000) → Succ(xx30000)
Used ordering: POLO with Polynomial interpretation [25]:
POL(Succ(x1)) = 1 + 2·x1
POL(Zero) = 0
POL(new_primMinusNatS0(x1)) = 2 + 2·x1
POL(new_primModNatS(x1, x2)) = x1 + x2
↳ HASKELL
↳ LR
↳ HASKELL
↳ IFR
↳ HASKELL
↳ BR
↳ HASKELL
↳ COR
↳ HASKELL
↳ LetRed
↳ HASKELL
↳ NumRed
↳ HASKELL
↳ Narrow
↳ AND
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ DependencyGraphProof
↳ AND
↳ QDP
↳ UsableRulesProof
↳ QDP
↳ QReductionProof
↳ QDP
↳ RuleRemovalProof
↳ QDP
↳ PisEmptyProof
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
Q DP problem:
P is empty.
R is empty.
The set Q consists of the following terms:
new_primMinusNatS0(x0)
We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
The TRS P is empty. Hence, there is no (P,Q,R) chain.
↳ HASKELL
↳ LR
↳ HASKELL
↳ IFR
↳ HASKELL
↳ BR
↳ HASKELL
↳ COR
↳ HASKELL
↳ LetRed
↳ HASKELL
↳ NumRed
↳ HASKELL
↳ Narrow
↳ AND
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ DependencyGraphProof
↳ AND
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ UsableRulesProof
↳ QDP
Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:
new_primModNatS0(xx57, xx58, Succ(xx590), Zero) → new_primModNatS(new_primMinusNatS2(Succ(xx57), Succ(xx58)), Succ(xx58))
new_primModNatS(Succ(Succ(xx30000)), Succ(xx31000)) → new_primModNatS0(xx30000, xx31000, xx30000, xx31000)
new_primModNatS0(xx57, xx58, Succ(xx590), Succ(xx600)) → new_primModNatS0(xx57, xx58, xx590, xx600)
new_primModNatS00(xx57, xx58) → new_primModNatS(new_primMinusNatS2(Succ(xx57), Succ(xx58)), Succ(xx58))
new_primModNatS0(xx57, xx58, Zero, Zero) → new_primModNatS00(xx57, xx58)
The TRS R consists of the following rules:
new_primMinusNatS2(Succ(xx330), Succ(xx340)) → new_primMinusNatS2(xx330, xx340)
new_primMinusNatS2(Zero, Succ(xx340)) → Zero
new_primMinusNatS2(Zero, Zero) → Zero
new_primMinusNatS2(Succ(xx330), Zero) → Succ(xx330)
new_primMinusNatS1 → Zero
new_primMinusNatS0(xx30000) → Succ(xx30000)
The set Q consists of the following terms:
new_primMinusNatS2(Succ(x0), Zero)
new_primMinusNatS2(Succ(x0), Succ(x1))
new_primMinusNatS2(Zero, Zero)
new_primMinusNatS0(x0)
new_primMinusNatS1
new_primMinusNatS2(Zero, Succ(x0))
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
↳ IFR
↳ HASKELL
↳ BR
↳ HASKELL
↳ COR
↳ HASKELL
↳ LetRed
↳ HASKELL
↳ NumRed
↳ HASKELL
↳ Narrow
↳ AND
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ DependencyGraphProof
↳ AND
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ UsableRulesProof
↳ QDP
↳ QReductionProof
↳ QDP
Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:
new_primModNatS0(xx57, xx58, Succ(xx590), Zero) → new_primModNatS(new_primMinusNatS2(Succ(xx57), Succ(xx58)), Succ(xx58))
new_primModNatS(Succ(Succ(xx30000)), Succ(xx31000)) → new_primModNatS0(xx30000, xx31000, xx30000, xx31000)
new_primModNatS0(xx57, xx58, Succ(xx590), Succ(xx600)) → new_primModNatS0(xx57, xx58, xx590, xx600)
new_primModNatS00(xx57, xx58) → new_primModNatS(new_primMinusNatS2(Succ(xx57), Succ(xx58)), Succ(xx58))
new_primModNatS0(xx57, xx58, Zero, Zero) → new_primModNatS00(xx57, xx58)
The TRS R consists of the following rules:
new_primMinusNatS2(Succ(xx330), Succ(xx340)) → new_primMinusNatS2(xx330, xx340)
new_primMinusNatS2(Zero, Succ(xx340)) → Zero
new_primMinusNatS2(Zero, Zero) → Zero
new_primMinusNatS2(Succ(xx330), Zero) → Succ(xx330)
The set Q consists of the following terms:
new_primMinusNatS2(Succ(x0), Zero)
new_primMinusNatS2(Succ(x0), Succ(x1))
new_primMinusNatS2(Zero, Zero)
new_primMinusNatS0(x0)
new_primMinusNatS1
new_primMinusNatS2(Zero, Succ(x0))
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_primMinusNatS0(x0)
new_primMinusNatS1
↳ HASKELL
↳ LR
↳ HASKELL
↳ IFR
↳ HASKELL
↳ BR
↳ HASKELL
↳ COR
↳ HASKELL
↳ LetRed
↳ HASKELL
↳ NumRed
↳ HASKELL
↳ Narrow
↳ AND
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ DependencyGraphProof
↳ AND
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ UsableRulesProof
↳ QDP
↳ QReductionProof
↳ QDP
↳ Rewriting
↳ QDP
Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:
new_primModNatS0(xx57, xx58, Succ(xx590), Zero) → new_primModNatS(new_primMinusNatS2(Succ(xx57), Succ(xx58)), Succ(xx58))
new_primModNatS(Succ(Succ(xx30000)), Succ(xx31000)) → new_primModNatS0(xx30000, xx31000, xx30000, xx31000)
new_primModNatS0(xx57, xx58, Zero, Zero) → new_primModNatS00(xx57, xx58)
new_primModNatS00(xx57, xx58) → new_primModNatS(new_primMinusNatS2(Succ(xx57), Succ(xx58)), Succ(xx58))
new_primModNatS0(xx57, xx58, Succ(xx590), Succ(xx600)) → new_primModNatS0(xx57, xx58, xx590, xx600)
The TRS R consists of the following rules:
new_primMinusNatS2(Succ(xx330), Succ(xx340)) → new_primMinusNatS2(xx330, xx340)
new_primMinusNatS2(Zero, Succ(xx340)) → Zero
new_primMinusNatS2(Zero, Zero) → Zero
new_primMinusNatS2(Succ(xx330), Zero) → Succ(xx330)
The set Q consists of the following terms:
new_primMinusNatS2(Succ(x0), Zero)
new_primMinusNatS2(Succ(x0), Succ(x1))
new_primMinusNatS2(Zero, Zero)
new_primMinusNatS2(Zero, Succ(x0))
We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
By rewriting [15] the rule new_primModNatS0(xx57, xx58, Succ(xx590), Zero) → new_primModNatS(new_primMinusNatS2(Succ(xx57), Succ(xx58)), Succ(xx58)) at position [0] we obtained the following new rules:
new_primModNatS0(xx57, xx58, Succ(xx590), Zero) → new_primModNatS(new_primMinusNatS2(xx57, xx58), Succ(xx58))
↳ HASKELL
↳ LR
↳ HASKELL
↳ IFR
↳ HASKELL
↳ BR
↳ HASKELL
↳ COR
↳ HASKELL
↳ LetRed
↳ HASKELL
↳ NumRed
↳ HASKELL
↳ Narrow
↳ AND
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ DependencyGraphProof
↳ AND
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ UsableRulesProof
↳ QDP
↳ QReductionProof
↳ QDP
↳ Rewriting
↳ QDP
↳ Rewriting
↳ QDP
Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:
new_primModNatS0(xx57, xx58, Succ(xx590), Zero) → new_primModNatS(new_primMinusNatS2(xx57, xx58), Succ(xx58))
new_primModNatS(Succ(Succ(xx30000)), Succ(xx31000)) → new_primModNatS0(xx30000, xx31000, xx30000, xx31000)
new_primModNatS0(xx57, xx58, Succ(xx590), Succ(xx600)) → new_primModNatS0(xx57, xx58, xx590, xx600)
new_primModNatS00(xx57, xx58) → new_primModNatS(new_primMinusNatS2(Succ(xx57), Succ(xx58)), Succ(xx58))
new_primModNatS0(xx57, xx58, Zero, Zero) → new_primModNatS00(xx57, xx58)
The TRS R consists of the following rules:
new_primMinusNatS2(Succ(xx330), Succ(xx340)) → new_primMinusNatS2(xx330, xx340)
new_primMinusNatS2(Zero, Succ(xx340)) → Zero
new_primMinusNatS2(Zero, Zero) → Zero
new_primMinusNatS2(Succ(xx330), Zero) → Succ(xx330)
The set Q consists of the following terms:
new_primMinusNatS2(Succ(x0), Zero)
new_primMinusNatS2(Succ(x0), Succ(x1))
new_primMinusNatS2(Zero, Zero)
new_primMinusNatS2(Zero, Succ(x0))
We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
By rewriting [15] the rule new_primModNatS00(xx57, xx58) → new_primModNatS(new_primMinusNatS2(Succ(xx57), Succ(xx58)), Succ(xx58)) at position [0] we obtained the following new rules:
new_primModNatS00(xx57, xx58) → new_primModNatS(new_primMinusNatS2(xx57, xx58), Succ(xx58))
↳ HASKELL
↳ LR
↳ HASKELL
↳ IFR
↳ HASKELL
↳ BR
↳ HASKELL
↳ COR
↳ HASKELL
↳ LetRed
↳ HASKELL
↳ NumRed
↳ HASKELL
↳ Narrow
↳ AND
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ DependencyGraphProof
↳ AND
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ UsableRulesProof
↳ QDP
↳ QReductionProof
↳ QDP
↳ Rewriting
↳ QDP
↳ Rewriting
↳ QDP
↳ QDPOrderProof
↳ QDP
Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:
new_primModNatS0(xx57, xx58, Succ(xx590), Zero) → new_primModNatS(new_primMinusNatS2(xx57, xx58), Succ(xx58))
new_primModNatS00(xx57, xx58) → new_primModNatS(new_primMinusNatS2(xx57, xx58), Succ(xx58))
new_primModNatS(Succ(Succ(xx30000)), Succ(xx31000)) → new_primModNatS0(xx30000, xx31000, xx30000, xx31000)
new_primModNatS0(xx57, xx58, Zero, Zero) → new_primModNatS00(xx57, xx58)
new_primModNatS0(xx57, xx58, Succ(xx590), Succ(xx600)) → new_primModNatS0(xx57, xx58, xx590, xx600)
The TRS R consists of the following rules:
new_primMinusNatS2(Succ(xx330), Succ(xx340)) → new_primMinusNatS2(xx330, xx340)
new_primMinusNatS2(Zero, Succ(xx340)) → Zero
new_primMinusNatS2(Zero, Zero) → Zero
new_primMinusNatS2(Succ(xx330), Zero) → Succ(xx330)
The set Q consists of the following terms:
new_primMinusNatS2(Succ(x0), Zero)
new_primMinusNatS2(Succ(x0), Succ(x1))
new_primMinusNatS2(Zero, Zero)
new_primMinusNatS2(Zero, Succ(x0))
We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
We use the reduction pair processor [15].
The following pairs can be oriented strictly and are deleted.
new_primModNatS0(xx57, xx58, Succ(xx590), Zero) → new_primModNatS(new_primMinusNatS2(xx57, xx58), Succ(xx58))
new_primModNatS(Succ(Succ(xx30000)), Succ(xx31000)) → new_primModNatS0(xx30000, xx31000, xx30000, xx31000)
new_primModNatS0(xx57, xx58, Zero, Zero) → new_primModNatS00(xx57, xx58)
The remaining pairs can at least be oriented weakly.
new_primModNatS00(xx57, xx58) → new_primModNatS(new_primMinusNatS2(xx57, xx58), Succ(xx58))
new_primModNatS0(xx57, xx58, Succ(xx590), Succ(xx600)) → new_primModNatS0(xx57, xx58, xx590, xx600)
Used ordering: Polynomial interpretation [25]:
POL(Succ(x1)) = 1 + x1
POL(Zero) = 0
POL(new_primMinusNatS2(x1, x2)) = x1
POL(new_primModNatS(x1, x2)) = x1
POL(new_primModNatS0(x1, x2, x3, x4)) = 1 + x1
POL(new_primModNatS00(x1, x2)) = x1
The following usable rules [17] were oriented:
new_primMinusNatS2(Zero, Succ(xx340)) → Zero
new_primMinusNatS2(Succ(xx330), Succ(xx340)) → new_primMinusNatS2(xx330, xx340)
new_primMinusNatS2(Zero, Zero) → Zero
new_primMinusNatS2(Succ(xx330), Zero) → Succ(xx330)
↳ HASKELL
↳ LR
↳ HASKELL
↳ IFR
↳ HASKELL
↳ BR
↳ HASKELL
↳ COR
↳ HASKELL
↳ LetRed
↳ HASKELL
↳ NumRed
↳ HASKELL
↳ Narrow
↳ AND
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ DependencyGraphProof
↳ AND
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ UsableRulesProof
↳ QDP
↳ QReductionProof
↳ QDP
↳ Rewriting
↳ QDP
↳ Rewriting
↳ QDP
↳ QDPOrderProof
↳ QDP
↳ DependencyGraphProof
↳ QDP
Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:
new_primModNatS00(xx57, xx58) → new_primModNatS(new_primMinusNatS2(xx57, xx58), Succ(xx58))
new_primModNatS0(xx57, xx58, Succ(xx590), Succ(xx600)) → new_primModNatS0(xx57, xx58, xx590, xx600)
The TRS R consists of the following rules:
new_primMinusNatS2(Succ(xx330), Succ(xx340)) → new_primMinusNatS2(xx330, xx340)
new_primMinusNatS2(Zero, Succ(xx340)) → Zero
new_primMinusNatS2(Zero, Zero) → Zero
new_primMinusNatS2(Succ(xx330), Zero) → Succ(xx330)
The set Q consists of the following terms:
new_primMinusNatS2(Succ(x0), Zero)
new_primMinusNatS2(Succ(x0), Succ(x1))
new_primMinusNatS2(Zero, Zero)
new_primMinusNatS2(Zero, Succ(x0))
We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
The approximation of the Dependency Graph [15,17,22] contains 1 SCC with 1 less node.
↳ HASKELL
↳ LR
↳ HASKELL
↳ IFR
↳ HASKELL
↳ BR
↳ HASKELL
↳ COR
↳ HASKELL
↳ LetRed
↳ HASKELL
↳ NumRed
↳ HASKELL
↳ Narrow
↳ AND
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ DependencyGraphProof
↳ AND
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ UsableRulesProof
↳ QDP
↳ QReductionProof
↳ QDP
↳ Rewriting
↳ QDP
↳ Rewriting
↳ QDP
↳ QDPOrderProof
↳ QDP
↳ DependencyGraphProof
↳ QDP
↳ UsableRulesProof
↳ QDP
Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:
new_primModNatS0(xx57, xx58, Succ(xx590), Succ(xx600)) → new_primModNatS0(xx57, xx58, xx590, xx600)
The TRS R consists of the following rules:
new_primMinusNatS2(Succ(xx330), Succ(xx340)) → new_primMinusNatS2(xx330, xx340)
new_primMinusNatS2(Zero, Succ(xx340)) → Zero
new_primMinusNatS2(Zero, Zero) → Zero
new_primMinusNatS2(Succ(xx330), Zero) → Succ(xx330)
The set Q consists of the following terms:
new_primMinusNatS2(Succ(x0), Zero)
new_primMinusNatS2(Succ(x0), Succ(x1))
new_primMinusNatS2(Zero, Zero)
new_primMinusNatS2(Zero, Succ(x0))
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
↳ IFR
↳ HASKELL
↳ BR
↳ HASKELL
↳ COR
↳ HASKELL
↳ LetRed
↳ HASKELL
↳ NumRed
↳ HASKELL
↳ Narrow
↳ AND
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ DependencyGraphProof
↳ AND
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ UsableRulesProof
↳ QDP
↳ QReductionProof
↳ QDP
↳ Rewriting
↳ QDP
↳ Rewriting
↳ QDP
↳ QDPOrderProof
↳ QDP
↳ DependencyGraphProof
↳ QDP
↳ UsableRulesProof
↳ QDP
↳ QReductionProof
↳ QDP
Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:
new_primModNatS0(xx57, xx58, Succ(xx590), Succ(xx600)) → new_primModNatS0(xx57, xx58, xx590, xx600)
R is empty.
The set Q consists of the following terms:
new_primMinusNatS2(Succ(x0), Zero)
new_primMinusNatS2(Succ(x0), Succ(x1))
new_primMinusNatS2(Zero, Zero)
new_primMinusNatS2(Zero, Succ(x0))
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_primMinusNatS2(Succ(x0), Zero)
new_primMinusNatS2(Succ(x0), Succ(x1))
new_primMinusNatS2(Zero, Zero)
new_primMinusNatS2(Zero, Succ(x0))
↳ HASKELL
↳ LR
↳ HASKELL
↳ IFR
↳ HASKELL
↳ BR
↳ HASKELL
↳ COR
↳ HASKELL
↳ LetRed
↳ HASKELL
↳ NumRed
↳ HASKELL
↳ Narrow
↳ AND
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ DependencyGraphProof
↳ AND
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ UsableRulesProof
↳ QDP
↳ QReductionProof
↳ QDP
↳ Rewriting
↳ QDP
↳ Rewriting
↳ QDP
↳ QDPOrderProof
↳ QDP
↳ DependencyGraphProof
↳ QDP
↳ UsableRulesProof
↳ QDP
↳ QReductionProof
↳ QDP
↳ QDPSizeChangeProof
↳ QDP
Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:
new_primModNatS0(xx57, xx58, Succ(xx590), Succ(xx600)) → new_primModNatS0(xx57, xx58, xx590, xx600)
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_primModNatS0(xx57, xx58, Succ(xx590), Succ(xx600)) → new_primModNatS0(xx57, xx58, xx590, xx600)
The graph contains the following edges 1 >= 1, 2 >= 2, 3 > 3, 4 > 4
↳ HASKELL
↳ LR
↳ HASKELL
↳ IFR
↳ HASKELL
↳ BR
↳ HASKELL
↳ COR
↳ HASKELL
↳ LetRed
↳ HASKELL
↳ NumRed
↳ HASKELL
↳ Narrow
↳ AND
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ DependencyGraphProof
Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:
new_primDivNatS0(xx33, xx34, Zero, Zero) → new_primDivNatS00(xx33, xx34)
new_primDivNatS0(xx33, xx34, Succ(xx350), Succ(xx360)) → new_primDivNatS0(xx33, xx34, xx350, xx360)
new_primDivNatS0(xx33, xx34, Succ(xx350), Zero) → new_primDivNatS(new_primMinusNatS2(xx33, xx34), Succ(xx34))
new_primDivNatS(Succ(Succ(xx30000)), Succ(xx31000)) → new_primDivNatS0(xx30000, xx31000, xx30000, xx31000)
new_primDivNatS00(xx33, xx34) → new_primDivNatS(new_primMinusNatS2(xx33, xx34), Succ(xx34))
new_primDivNatS(Succ(Succ(xx30000)), Zero) → new_primDivNatS(new_primMinusNatS0(xx30000), Zero)
new_primDivNatS(Succ(Zero), Zero) → new_primDivNatS(new_primMinusNatS1, Zero)
The TRS R consists of the following rules:
new_primMinusNatS2(Succ(xx330), Succ(xx340)) → new_primMinusNatS2(xx330, xx340)
new_primMinusNatS2(Zero, Succ(xx340)) → Zero
new_primMinusNatS2(Zero, Zero) → Zero
new_primMinusNatS2(Succ(xx330), Zero) → Succ(xx330)
new_primMinusNatS1 → Zero
new_primMinusNatS0(xx30000) → Succ(xx30000)
The set Q consists of the following terms:
new_primMinusNatS2(Succ(x0), Zero)
new_primMinusNatS2(Succ(x0), Succ(x1))
new_primMinusNatS2(Zero, Zero)
new_primMinusNatS0(x0)
new_primMinusNatS1
new_primMinusNatS2(Zero, Succ(x0))
We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
The approximation of the Dependency Graph [15,17,22] contains 2 SCCs with 1 less node.
↳ HASKELL
↳ LR
↳ HASKELL
↳ IFR
↳ HASKELL
↳ BR
↳ HASKELL
↳ COR
↳ HASKELL
↳ LetRed
↳ HASKELL
↳ NumRed
↳ HASKELL
↳ Narrow
↳ AND
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ DependencyGraphProof
↳ AND
↳ QDP
↳ UsableRulesProof
↳ QDP
Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:
new_primDivNatS(Succ(Succ(xx30000)), Zero) → new_primDivNatS(new_primMinusNatS0(xx30000), Zero)
The TRS R consists of the following rules:
new_primMinusNatS2(Succ(xx330), Succ(xx340)) → new_primMinusNatS2(xx330, xx340)
new_primMinusNatS2(Zero, Succ(xx340)) → Zero
new_primMinusNatS2(Zero, Zero) → Zero
new_primMinusNatS2(Succ(xx330), Zero) → Succ(xx330)
new_primMinusNatS1 → Zero
new_primMinusNatS0(xx30000) → Succ(xx30000)
The set Q consists of the following terms:
new_primMinusNatS2(Succ(x0), Zero)
new_primMinusNatS2(Succ(x0), Succ(x1))
new_primMinusNatS2(Zero, Zero)
new_primMinusNatS0(x0)
new_primMinusNatS1
new_primMinusNatS2(Zero, Succ(x0))
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
↳ IFR
↳ HASKELL
↳ BR
↳ HASKELL
↳ COR
↳ HASKELL
↳ LetRed
↳ HASKELL
↳ NumRed
↳ HASKELL
↳ Narrow
↳ AND
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ DependencyGraphProof
↳ AND
↳ QDP
↳ UsableRulesProof
↳ QDP
↳ QReductionProof
↳ QDP
Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:
new_primDivNatS(Succ(Succ(xx30000)), Zero) → new_primDivNatS(new_primMinusNatS0(xx30000), Zero)
The TRS R consists of the following rules:
new_primMinusNatS0(xx30000) → Succ(xx30000)
The set Q consists of the following terms:
new_primMinusNatS2(Succ(x0), Zero)
new_primMinusNatS2(Succ(x0), Succ(x1))
new_primMinusNatS2(Zero, Zero)
new_primMinusNatS0(x0)
new_primMinusNatS1
new_primMinusNatS2(Zero, Succ(x0))
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_primMinusNatS2(Succ(x0), Zero)
new_primMinusNatS2(Succ(x0), Succ(x1))
new_primMinusNatS2(Zero, Zero)
new_primMinusNatS1
new_primMinusNatS2(Zero, Succ(x0))
↳ HASKELL
↳ LR
↳ HASKELL
↳ IFR
↳ HASKELL
↳ BR
↳ HASKELL
↳ COR
↳ HASKELL
↳ LetRed
↳ HASKELL
↳ NumRed
↳ HASKELL
↳ Narrow
↳ AND
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ DependencyGraphProof
↳ AND
↳ QDP
↳ UsableRulesProof
↳ QDP
↳ QReductionProof
↳ QDP
↳ RuleRemovalProof
↳ QDP
Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:
new_primDivNatS(Succ(Succ(xx30000)), Zero) → new_primDivNatS(new_primMinusNatS0(xx30000), Zero)
The TRS R consists of the following rules:
new_primMinusNatS0(xx30000) → Succ(xx30000)
The set Q consists of the following terms:
new_primMinusNatS0(x0)
We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
By using the rule removal processor [15] with the following polynomial ordering [25], at least one Dependency Pair or term rewrite system rule of this QDP problem can be strictly oriented.
Strictly oriented dependency pairs:
new_primDivNatS(Succ(Succ(xx30000)), Zero) → new_primDivNatS(new_primMinusNatS0(xx30000), Zero)
Strictly oriented rules of the TRS R:
new_primMinusNatS0(xx30000) → Succ(xx30000)
Used ordering: POLO with Polynomial interpretation [25]:
POL(Succ(x1)) = 1 + 2·x1
POL(Zero) = 0
POL(new_primDivNatS(x1, x2)) = x1 + x2
POL(new_primMinusNatS0(x1)) = 2 + 2·x1
↳ HASKELL
↳ LR
↳ HASKELL
↳ IFR
↳ HASKELL
↳ BR
↳ HASKELL
↳ COR
↳ HASKELL
↳ LetRed
↳ HASKELL
↳ NumRed
↳ HASKELL
↳ Narrow
↳ AND
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ DependencyGraphProof
↳ AND
↳ QDP
↳ UsableRulesProof
↳ QDP
↳ QReductionProof
↳ QDP
↳ RuleRemovalProof
↳ QDP
↳ PisEmptyProof
↳ QDP
Q DP problem:
P is empty.
R is empty.
The set Q consists of the following terms:
new_primMinusNatS0(x0)
We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
The TRS P is empty. Hence, there is no (P,Q,R) chain.
↳ HASKELL
↳ LR
↳ HASKELL
↳ IFR
↳ HASKELL
↳ BR
↳ HASKELL
↳ COR
↳ HASKELL
↳ LetRed
↳ HASKELL
↳ NumRed
↳ HASKELL
↳ Narrow
↳ AND
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ DependencyGraphProof
↳ AND
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ UsableRulesProof
Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:
new_primDivNatS0(xx33, xx34, Zero, Zero) → new_primDivNatS00(xx33, xx34)
new_primDivNatS0(xx33, xx34, Succ(xx350), Succ(xx360)) → new_primDivNatS0(xx33, xx34, xx350, xx360)
new_primDivNatS0(xx33, xx34, Succ(xx350), Zero) → new_primDivNatS(new_primMinusNatS2(xx33, xx34), Succ(xx34))
new_primDivNatS(Succ(Succ(xx30000)), Succ(xx31000)) → new_primDivNatS0(xx30000, xx31000, xx30000, xx31000)
new_primDivNatS00(xx33, xx34) → new_primDivNatS(new_primMinusNatS2(xx33, xx34), Succ(xx34))
The TRS R consists of the following rules:
new_primMinusNatS2(Succ(xx330), Succ(xx340)) → new_primMinusNatS2(xx330, xx340)
new_primMinusNatS2(Zero, Succ(xx340)) → Zero
new_primMinusNatS2(Zero, Zero) → Zero
new_primMinusNatS2(Succ(xx330), Zero) → Succ(xx330)
new_primMinusNatS1 → Zero
new_primMinusNatS0(xx30000) → Succ(xx30000)
The set Q consists of the following terms:
new_primMinusNatS2(Succ(x0), Zero)
new_primMinusNatS2(Succ(x0), Succ(x1))
new_primMinusNatS2(Zero, Zero)
new_primMinusNatS0(x0)
new_primMinusNatS1
new_primMinusNatS2(Zero, Succ(x0))
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
↳ IFR
↳ HASKELL
↳ BR
↳ HASKELL
↳ COR
↳ HASKELL
↳ LetRed
↳ HASKELL
↳ NumRed
↳ HASKELL
↳ Narrow
↳ AND
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ DependencyGraphProof
↳ AND
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ UsableRulesProof
↳ QDP
↳ QReductionProof
Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:
new_primDivNatS0(xx33, xx34, Zero, Zero) → new_primDivNatS00(xx33, xx34)
new_primDivNatS0(xx33, xx34, Succ(xx350), Succ(xx360)) → new_primDivNatS0(xx33, xx34, xx350, xx360)
new_primDivNatS0(xx33, xx34, Succ(xx350), Zero) → new_primDivNatS(new_primMinusNatS2(xx33, xx34), Succ(xx34))
new_primDivNatS(Succ(Succ(xx30000)), Succ(xx31000)) → new_primDivNatS0(xx30000, xx31000, xx30000, xx31000)
new_primDivNatS00(xx33, xx34) → new_primDivNatS(new_primMinusNatS2(xx33, xx34), Succ(xx34))
The TRS R consists of the following rules:
new_primMinusNatS2(Succ(xx330), Succ(xx340)) → new_primMinusNatS2(xx330, xx340)
new_primMinusNatS2(Zero, Succ(xx340)) → Zero
new_primMinusNatS2(Zero, Zero) → Zero
new_primMinusNatS2(Succ(xx330), Zero) → Succ(xx330)
The set Q consists of the following terms:
new_primMinusNatS2(Succ(x0), Zero)
new_primMinusNatS2(Succ(x0), Succ(x1))
new_primMinusNatS2(Zero, Zero)
new_primMinusNatS0(x0)
new_primMinusNatS1
new_primMinusNatS2(Zero, Succ(x0))
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_primMinusNatS0(x0)
new_primMinusNatS1
↳ HASKELL
↳ LR
↳ HASKELL
↳ IFR
↳ HASKELL
↳ BR
↳ HASKELL
↳ COR
↳ HASKELL
↳ LetRed
↳ HASKELL
↳ NumRed
↳ HASKELL
↳ Narrow
↳ AND
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ DependencyGraphProof
↳ AND
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ UsableRulesProof
↳ QDP
↳ QReductionProof
↳ QDP
↳ QDPOrderProof
Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:
new_primDivNatS0(xx33, xx34, Zero, Zero) → new_primDivNatS00(xx33, xx34)
new_primDivNatS(Succ(Succ(xx30000)), Succ(xx31000)) → new_primDivNatS0(xx30000, xx31000, xx30000, xx31000)
new_primDivNatS0(xx33, xx34, Succ(xx350), Zero) → new_primDivNatS(new_primMinusNatS2(xx33, xx34), Succ(xx34))
new_primDivNatS0(xx33, xx34, Succ(xx350), Succ(xx360)) → new_primDivNatS0(xx33, xx34, xx350, xx360)
new_primDivNatS00(xx33, xx34) → new_primDivNatS(new_primMinusNatS2(xx33, xx34), Succ(xx34))
The TRS R consists of the following rules:
new_primMinusNatS2(Succ(xx330), Succ(xx340)) → new_primMinusNatS2(xx330, xx340)
new_primMinusNatS2(Zero, Succ(xx340)) → Zero
new_primMinusNatS2(Zero, Zero) → Zero
new_primMinusNatS2(Succ(xx330), Zero) → Succ(xx330)
The set Q consists of the following terms:
new_primMinusNatS2(Succ(x0), Zero)
new_primMinusNatS2(Succ(x0), Succ(x1))
new_primMinusNatS2(Zero, Zero)
new_primMinusNatS2(Zero, Succ(x0))
We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
We use the reduction pair processor [15].
The following pairs can be oriented strictly and are deleted.
new_primDivNatS(Succ(Succ(xx30000)), Succ(xx31000)) → new_primDivNatS0(xx30000, xx31000, xx30000, xx31000)
The remaining pairs can at least be oriented weakly.
new_primDivNatS0(xx33, xx34, Zero, Zero) → new_primDivNatS00(xx33, xx34)
new_primDivNatS0(xx33, xx34, Succ(xx350), Zero) → new_primDivNatS(new_primMinusNatS2(xx33, xx34), Succ(xx34))
new_primDivNatS0(xx33, xx34, Succ(xx350), Succ(xx360)) → new_primDivNatS0(xx33, xx34, xx350, xx360)
new_primDivNatS00(xx33, xx34) → new_primDivNatS(new_primMinusNatS2(xx33, xx34), Succ(xx34))
Used ordering: Polynomial interpretation [25]:
POL(Succ(x1)) = 1 + x1
POL(Zero) = 0
POL(new_primDivNatS(x1, x2)) = x1 + x2
POL(new_primDivNatS0(x1, x2, x3, x4)) = 1 + x1 + x2
POL(new_primDivNatS00(x1, x2)) = 1 + x1 + x2
POL(new_primMinusNatS2(x1, x2)) = x1
The following usable rules [17] were oriented:
new_primMinusNatS2(Succ(xx330), Zero) → Succ(xx330)
new_primMinusNatS2(Zero, Succ(xx340)) → Zero
new_primMinusNatS2(Succ(xx330), Succ(xx340)) → new_primMinusNatS2(xx330, xx340)
new_primMinusNatS2(Zero, Zero) → Zero
↳ HASKELL
↳ LR
↳ HASKELL
↳ IFR
↳ HASKELL
↳ BR
↳ HASKELL
↳ COR
↳ HASKELL
↳ LetRed
↳ HASKELL
↳ NumRed
↳ HASKELL
↳ Narrow
↳ AND
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ DependencyGraphProof
↳ AND
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ UsableRulesProof
↳ QDP
↳ QReductionProof
↳ QDP
↳ QDPOrderProof
↳ QDP
↳ DependencyGraphProof
Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:
new_primDivNatS0(xx33, xx34, Zero, Zero) → new_primDivNatS00(xx33, xx34)
new_primDivNatS0(xx33, xx34, Succ(xx350), Succ(xx360)) → new_primDivNatS0(xx33, xx34, xx350, xx360)
new_primDivNatS0(xx33, xx34, Succ(xx350), Zero) → new_primDivNatS(new_primMinusNatS2(xx33, xx34), Succ(xx34))
new_primDivNatS00(xx33, xx34) → new_primDivNatS(new_primMinusNatS2(xx33, xx34), Succ(xx34))
The TRS R consists of the following rules:
new_primMinusNatS2(Succ(xx330), Succ(xx340)) → new_primMinusNatS2(xx330, xx340)
new_primMinusNatS2(Zero, Succ(xx340)) → Zero
new_primMinusNatS2(Zero, Zero) → Zero
new_primMinusNatS2(Succ(xx330), Zero) → Succ(xx330)
The set Q consists of the following terms:
new_primMinusNatS2(Succ(x0), Zero)
new_primMinusNatS2(Succ(x0), Succ(x1))
new_primMinusNatS2(Zero, Zero)
new_primMinusNatS2(Zero, Succ(x0))
We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
The approximation of the Dependency Graph [15,17,22] contains 1 SCC with 3 less nodes.
↳ HASKELL
↳ LR
↳ HASKELL
↳ IFR
↳ HASKELL
↳ BR
↳ HASKELL
↳ COR
↳ HASKELL
↳ LetRed
↳ HASKELL
↳ NumRed
↳ HASKELL
↳ Narrow
↳ AND
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ DependencyGraphProof
↳ AND
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ UsableRulesProof
↳ QDP
↳ QReductionProof
↳ QDP
↳ QDPOrderProof
↳ QDP
↳ DependencyGraphProof
↳ QDP
↳ UsableRulesProof
Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:
new_primDivNatS0(xx33, xx34, Succ(xx350), Succ(xx360)) → new_primDivNatS0(xx33, xx34, xx350, xx360)
The TRS R consists of the following rules:
new_primMinusNatS2(Succ(xx330), Succ(xx340)) → new_primMinusNatS2(xx330, xx340)
new_primMinusNatS2(Zero, Succ(xx340)) → Zero
new_primMinusNatS2(Zero, Zero) → Zero
new_primMinusNatS2(Succ(xx330), Zero) → Succ(xx330)
The set Q consists of the following terms:
new_primMinusNatS2(Succ(x0), Zero)
new_primMinusNatS2(Succ(x0), Succ(x1))
new_primMinusNatS2(Zero, Zero)
new_primMinusNatS2(Zero, Succ(x0))
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
↳ IFR
↳ HASKELL
↳ BR
↳ HASKELL
↳ COR
↳ HASKELL
↳ LetRed
↳ HASKELL
↳ NumRed
↳ HASKELL
↳ Narrow
↳ AND
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ DependencyGraphProof
↳ AND
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ UsableRulesProof
↳ QDP
↳ QReductionProof
↳ QDP
↳ QDPOrderProof
↳ QDP
↳ DependencyGraphProof
↳ QDP
↳ UsableRulesProof
↳ QDP
↳ QReductionProof
Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:
new_primDivNatS0(xx33, xx34, Succ(xx350), Succ(xx360)) → new_primDivNatS0(xx33, xx34, xx350, xx360)
R is empty.
The set Q consists of the following terms:
new_primMinusNatS2(Succ(x0), Zero)
new_primMinusNatS2(Succ(x0), Succ(x1))
new_primMinusNatS2(Zero, Zero)
new_primMinusNatS2(Zero, Succ(x0))
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_primMinusNatS2(Succ(x0), Zero)
new_primMinusNatS2(Succ(x0), Succ(x1))
new_primMinusNatS2(Zero, Zero)
new_primMinusNatS2(Zero, Succ(x0))
↳ HASKELL
↳ LR
↳ HASKELL
↳ IFR
↳ HASKELL
↳ BR
↳ HASKELL
↳ COR
↳ HASKELL
↳ LetRed
↳ HASKELL
↳ NumRed
↳ HASKELL
↳ Narrow
↳ AND
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ DependencyGraphProof
↳ AND
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ UsableRulesProof
↳ QDP
↳ QReductionProof
↳ QDP
↳ QDPOrderProof
↳ QDP
↳ DependencyGraphProof
↳ QDP
↳ UsableRulesProof
↳ QDP
↳ QReductionProof
↳ QDP
↳ QDPSizeChangeProof
Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:
new_primDivNatS0(xx33, xx34, Succ(xx350), Succ(xx360)) → new_primDivNatS0(xx33, xx34, xx350, xx360)
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_primDivNatS0(xx33, xx34, Succ(xx350), Succ(xx360)) → new_primDivNatS0(xx33, xx34, xx350, xx360)
The graph contains the following edges 1 >= 1, 2 >= 2, 3 > 3, 4 > 4