Termination Proof using AProVE

Term Rewriting System R:
[x, y, n, u, v, w, z]
minus(x, 0) -> x
minus(s(x), s(y)) -> minus(x, y)
quot(0, s(y)) -> 0
quot(s(x), s(y)) -> s(quot(minus(x, y), s(y)))
app(nil, y) -> y
app(add(n, x), y) -> add(n, app(x, y))
reverse(nil) -> nil
reverse(add(n, x)) -> app(reverse(x), add(n, nil))
shuffle(nil) -> nil
shuffle(add(n, x)) -> add(n, shuffle(reverse(x)))
concat(leaf, y) -> y
concat(cons(u, v), y) -> cons(u, concat(v, y))
less_leaves(x, leaf) -> false
less_leaves(leaf, cons(w, z)) -> true
less_leaves(cons(u, v), cons(w, z)) -> less_leaves(concat(u, v), concat(w, z))

Innermost Termination of R to be shown.

     ↳Dependency Pair Analysis

R contains the following Dependency Pairs:

MINUS(s(x), s(y)) -> MINUS(x, y)
QUOT(s(x), s(y)) -> QUOT(minus(x, y), s(y))
QUOT(s(x), s(y)) -> MINUS(x, y)
APP(add(n, x), y) -> APP(x, y)
REVERSE(add(n, x)) -> APP(reverse(x), add(n, nil))
REVERSE(add(n, x)) -> REVERSE(x)
SHUFFLE(add(n, x)) -> SHUFFLE(reverse(x))
SHUFFLE(add(n, x)) -> REVERSE(x)
CONCAT(cons(u, v), y) -> CONCAT(v, y)
LESS_LEAVES(cons(u, v), cons(w, z)) -> LESS_LEAVES(concat(u, v), concat(w, z))
LESS_LEAVES(cons(u, v), cons(w, z)) -> CONCAT(u, v)
LESS_LEAVES(cons(u, v), cons(w, z)) -> CONCAT(w, z)

Furthermore, R contains seven SCCs.

     ↳DPs

       →DP Problem 1

         ↳Usable Rules (Innermost)

       →DP Problem 2

         ↳UsableRules

       →DP Problem 3

         ↳UsableRules

       →DP Problem 4

         ↳UsableRules

       →DP Problem 5

         ↳UsableRules

       →DP Problem 6

         ↳UsableRules

       →DP Problem 7

         ↳UsableRules

Dependency Pair:

MINUS(s(x), s(y)) -> MINUS(x, y)

Rules:

minus(x, 0) -> x
minus(s(x), s(y)) -> minus(x, y)
quot(0, s(y)) -> 0
quot(s(x), s(y)) -> s(quot(minus(x, y), s(y)))
app(nil, y) -> y
app(add(n, x), y) -> add(n, app(x, y))
reverse(nil) -> nil
reverse(add(n, x)) -> app(reverse(x), add(n, nil))
shuffle(nil) -> nil
shuffle(add(n, x)) -> add(n, shuffle(reverse(x)))
concat(leaf, y) -> y
concat(cons(u, v), y) -> cons(u, concat(v, y))
less_leaves(x, leaf) -> false
less_leaves(leaf, cons(w, z)) -> true
less_leaves(cons(u, v), cons(w, z)) -> less_leaves(concat(u, v), concat(w, z))

Strategy:

innermost

As we are in the innermost case, we can delete all 15 non-usable-rules.

     ↳DPs

       →DP Problem 1

         ↳UsableRules

           →DP Problem 8

             ↳Size-Change Principle

       →DP Problem 2

         ↳UsableRules

       →DP Problem 3

         ↳UsableRules

       →DP Problem 4

         ↳UsableRules

       →DP Problem 5

         ↳UsableRules

       →DP Problem 6

         ↳UsableRules

       →DP Problem 7

         ↳UsableRules

Dependency Pair:

MINUS(s(x), s(y)) -> MINUS(x, y)

Rule:

none

Strategy:

innermost

We number the DPs as follows:

MINUS(s(x), s(y)) -> MINUS(x, y)

and get the following Size-Change Graph(s):

{1}	,	{1}
1	>	1
2	>	2

which lead(s) to this/these maximal multigraph(s):

{1}	,	{1}
1	>	1
2	>	2

D_P: empty set
Oriented Rules: none

We used the order Homeomorphic Embedding Order with Non-Strict Precedence.

trivial

with Argument Filtering System:

s(x₁) -> s(x₁)

We obtain no new DP problems.

     ↳DPs

       →DP Problem 1

         ↳UsableRules

       →DP Problem 2

         ↳Usable Rules (Innermost)

       →DP Problem 3

         ↳UsableRules

       →DP Problem 4

         ↳UsableRules

       →DP Problem 5

         ↳UsableRules

       →DP Problem 6

         ↳UsableRules

       →DP Problem 7

         ↳UsableRules

Dependency Pair:

APP(add(n, x), y) -> APP(x, y)

Rules:

minus(x, 0) -> x
minus(s(x), s(y)) -> minus(x, y)
quot(0, s(y)) -> 0
quot(s(x), s(y)) -> s(quot(minus(x, y), s(y)))
app(nil, y) -> y
app(add(n, x), y) -> add(n, app(x, y))
reverse(nil) -> nil
reverse(add(n, x)) -> app(reverse(x), add(n, nil))
shuffle(nil) -> nil
shuffle(add(n, x)) -> add(n, shuffle(reverse(x)))
concat(leaf, y) -> y
concat(cons(u, v), y) -> cons(u, concat(v, y))
less_leaves(x, leaf) -> false
less_leaves(leaf, cons(w, z)) -> true
less_leaves(cons(u, v), cons(w, z)) -> less_leaves(concat(u, v), concat(w, z))

Strategy:

innermost

As we are in the innermost case, we can delete all 15 non-usable-rules.

     ↳DPs

       →DP Problem 1

         ↳UsableRules

       →DP Problem 2

         ↳UsableRules

           →DP Problem 9

             ↳Size-Change Principle

       →DP Problem 3

         ↳UsableRules

       →DP Problem 4

         ↳UsableRules

       →DP Problem 5

         ↳UsableRules

       →DP Problem 6

         ↳UsableRules

       →DP Problem 7

         ↳UsableRules

Dependency Pair:

APP(add(n, x), y) -> APP(x, y)

Rule:

none

Strategy:

innermost

We number the DPs as follows:

APP(add(n, x), y) -> APP(x, y)

and get the following Size-Change Graph(s):

{1}	,	{1}
1	>	1
2	=	2

which lead(s) to this/these maximal multigraph(s):

{1}	,	{1}
1	>	1
2	=	2

D_P: empty set
Oriented Rules: none

We used the order Homeomorphic Embedding Order with Non-Strict Precedence.

trivial

with Argument Filtering System:

add(x₁, x₂) -> add(x₁, x₂)

We obtain no new DP problems.

     ↳DPs

       →DP Problem 1

         ↳UsableRules

       →DP Problem 2

         ↳UsableRules

       →DP Problem 3

         ↳Usable Rules (Innermost)

       →DP Problem 4

         ↳UsableRules

       →DP Problem 5

         ↳UsableRules

       →DP Problem 6

         ↳UsableRules

       →DP Problem 7

         ↳UsableRules

Dependency Pair:

CONCAT(cons(u, v), y) -> CONCAT(v, y)

Rules:

minus(x, 0) -> x
minus(s(x), s(y)) -> minus(x, y)
quot(0, s(y)) -> 0
quot(s(x), s(y)) -> s(quot(minus(x, y), s(y)))
app(nil, y) -> y
app(add(n, x), y) -> add(n, app(x, y))
reverse(nil) -> nil
reverse(add(n, x)) -> app(reverse(x), add(n, nil))
shuffle(nil) -> nil
shuffle(add(n, x)) -> add(n, shuffle(reverse(x)))
concat(leaf, y) -> y
concat(cons(u, v), y) -> cons(u, concat(v, y))
less_leaves(x, leaf) -> false
less_leaves(leaf, cons(w, z)) -> true
less_leaves(cons(u, v), cons(w, z)) -> less_leaves(concat(u, v), concat(w, z))

Strategy:

innermost

As we are in the innermost case, we can delete all 15 non-usable-rules.

     ↳DPs

       →DP Problem 1

         ↳UsableRules

       →DP Problem 2

         ↳UsableRules

       →DP Problem 3

         ↳UsableRules

           →DP Problem 10

             ↳Size-Change Principle

       →DP Problem 4

         ↳UsableRules

       →DP Problem 5

         ↳UsableRules

       →DP Problem 6

         ↳UsableRules

       →DP Problem 7

         ↳UsableRules

Dependency Pair:

CONCAT(cons(u, v), y) -> CONCAT(v, y)

Rule:

none

Strategy:

innermost

We number the DPs as follows:

CONCAT(cons(u, v), y) -> CONCAT(v, y)

and get the following Size-Change Graph(s):

{1}	,	{1}
1	>	1
2	=	2

which lead(s) to this/these maximal multigraph(s):

{1}	,	{1}
1	>	1
2	=	2

D_P: empty set
Oriented Rules: none

We used the order Homeomorphic Embedding Order with Non-Strict Precedence.

trivial

with Argument Filtering System:

cons(x₁, x₂) -> cons(x₁, x₂)

We obtain no new DP problems.

     ↳DPs

       →DP Problem 1

         ↳UsableRules

       →DP Problem 2

         ↳UsableRules

       →DP Problem 3

         ↳UsableRules

       →DP Problem 4

         ↳Usable Rules (Innermost)

       →DP Problem 5

         ↳UsableRules

       →DP Problem 6

         ↳UsableRules

       →DP Problem 7

         ↳UsableRules

Dependency Pair:

QUOT(s(x), s(y)) -> QUOT(minus(x, y), s(y))

Rules:

minus(x, 0) -> x
minus(s(x), s(y)) -> minus(x, y)
quot(0, s(y)) -> 0
quot(s(x), s(y)) -> s(quot(minus(x, y), s(y)))
app(nil, y) -> y
app(add(n, x), y) -> add(n, app(x, y))
reverse(nil) -> nil
reverse(add(n, x)) -> app(reverse(x), add(n, nil))
shuffle(nil) -> nil
shuffle(add(n, x)) -> add(n, shuffle(reverse(x)))
concat(leaf, y) -> y
concat(cons(u, v), y) -> cons(u, concat(v, y))
less_leaves(x, leaf) -> false
less_leaves(leaf, cons(w, z)) -> true
less_leaves(cons(u, v), cons(w, z)) -> less_leaves(concat(u, v), concat(w, z))

Strategy:

innermost

As we are in the innermost case, we can delete all 13 non-usable-rules.

     ↳DPs

       →DP Problem 1

         ↳UsableRules

       →DP Problem 2

         ↳UsableRules

       →DP Problem 3

         ↳UsableRules

       →DP Problem 4

         ↳UsableRules

           →DP Problem 11

             ↳Negative Polynomial Order

       →DP Problem 5

         ↳UsableRules

       →DP Problem 6

         ↳UsableRules

       →DP Problem 7

         ↳UsableRules

Dependency Pair:

QUOT(s(x), s(y)) -> QUOT(minus(x, y), s(y))

Rules:

minus(s(x), s(y)) -> minus(x, y)
minus(x, 0) -> x

Strategy:

innermost

The following Dependency Pair can be strictly oriented using the given order.

QUOT(s(x), s(y)) -> QUOT(minus(x, y), s(y))

Moreover, the following usable rules (regarding the implicit AFS) are oriented.

minus(s(x), s(y)) -> minus(x, y)
minus(x, 0) -> x

Used ordering:
Polynomial Order with Interpretation:

POL( QUOT(x₁, x₂) ) = x₁

POL( s(x₁) ) = x₁ + 1

POL( minus(x₁, x₂) ) = x₁

This results in one new DP problem.

     ↳DPs

       →DP Problem 1

         ↳UsableRules

       →DP Problem 2

         ↳UsableRules

       →DP Problem 3

         ↳UsableRules

       →DP Problem 4

         ↳UsableRules

           →DP Problem 11

             ↳Neg POLO

...

               →DP Problem 12

                 ↳Dependency Graph

       →DP Problem 5

         ↳UsableRules

       →DP Problem 6

         ↳UsableRules

       →DP Problem 7

         ↳UsableRules

Dependency Pair:

Rules:

minus(s(x), s(y)) -> minus(x, y)
minus(x, 0) -> x

Strategy:

innermost

Using the Dependency Graph resulted in no new DP problems.

     ↳DPs

       →DP Problem 1

         ↳UsableRules

       →DP Problem 2

         ↳UsableRules

       →DP Problem 3

         ↳UsableRules

       →DP Problem 4

         ↳UsableRules

       →DP Problem 5

         ↳Usable Rules (Innermost)

       →DP Problem 6

         ↳UsableRules

       →DP Problem 7

         ↳UsableRules

Dependency Pair:

REVERSE(add(n, x)) -> REVERSE(x)

Rules:

minus(x, 0) -> x
minus(s(x), s(y)) -> minus(x, y)
quot(0, s(y)) -> 0
quot(s(x), s(y)) -> s(quot(minus(x, y), s(y)))
app(nil, y) -> y
app(add(n, x), y) -> add(n, app(x, y))
reverse(nil) -> nil
reverse(add(n, x)) -> app(reverse(x), add(n, nil))
shuffle(nil) -> nil
shuffle(add(n, x)) -> add(n, shuffle(reverse(x)))
concat(leaf, y) -> y
concat(cons(u, v), y) -> cons(u, concat(v, y))
less_leaves(x, leaf) -> false
less_leaves(leaf, cons(w, z)) -> true
less_leaves(cons(u, v), cons(w, z)) -> less_leaves(concat(u, v), concat(w, z))

Strategy:

innermost

As we are in the innermost case, we can delete all 15 non-usable-rules.

     ↳DPs

       →DP Problem 1

         ↳UsableRules

       →DP Problem 2

         ↳UsableRules

       →DP Problem 3

         ↳UsableRules

       →DP Problem 4

         ↳UsableRules

       →DP Problem 5

         ↳UsableRules

           →DP Problem 13

             ↳Size-Change Principle

       →DP Problem 6

         ↳UsableRules

       →DP Problem 7

         ↳UsableRules

Dependency Pair:

REVERSE(add(n, x)) -> REVERSE(x)

Rule:

none

Strategy:

innermost

We number the DPs as follows:

REVERSE(add(n, x)) -> REVERSE(x)

and get the following Size-Change Graph(s):

{1}	,	{1}
1	>	1

which lead(s) to this/these maximal multigraph(s):

{1}	,	{1}
1	>	1

D_P: empty set
Oriented Rules: none

We used the order Homeomorphic Embedding Order with Non-Strict Precedence.

trivial

with Argument Filtering System:

add(x₁, x₂) -> add(x₁, x₂)

We obtain no new DP problems.

     ↳DPs

       →DP Problem 1

         ↳UsableRules

       →DP Problem 2

         ↳UsableRules

       →DP Problem 3

         ↳UsableRules

       →DP Problem 4

         ↳UsableRules

       →DP Problem 5

         ↳UsableRules

       →DP Problem 6

         ↳Usable Rules (Innermost)

       →DP Problem 7

         ↳UsableRules

Dependency Pair:

LESS_LEAVES(cons(u, v), cons(w, z)) -> LESS_LEAVES(concat(u, v), concat(w, z))

Rules:

minus(x, 0) -> x
minus(s(x), s(y)) -> minus(x, y)
quot(0, s(y)) -> 0
quot(s(x), s(y)) -> s(quot(minus(x, y), s(y)))
app(nil, y) -> y
app(add(n, x), y) -> add(n, app(x, y))
reverse(nil) -> nil
reverse(add(n, x)) -> app(reverse(x), add(n, nil))
shuffle(nil) -> nil
shuffle(add(n, x)) -> add(n, shuffle(reverse(x)))
concat(leaf, y) -> y
concat(cons(u, v), y) -> cons(u, concat(v, y))
less_leaves(x, leaf) -> false
less_leaves(leaf, cons(w, z)) -> true
less_leaves(cons(u, v), cons(w, z)) -> less_leaves(concat(u, v), concat(w, z))

Strategy:

innermost

As we are in the innermost case, we can delete all 13 non-usable-rules.

     ↳DPs

       →DP Problem 1

         ↳UsableRules

       →DP Problem 2

         ↳UsableRules

       →DP Problem 3

         ↳UsableRules

       →DP Problem 4

         ↳UsableRules

       →DP Problem 5

         ↳UsableRules

       →DP Problem 6

         ↳UsableRules

           →DP Problem 14

             ↳Modular Removal of Rules

       →DP Problem 7

         ↳UsableRules

Dependency Pair:

LESS_LEAVES(cons(u, v), cons(w, z)) -> LESS_LEAVES(concat(u, v), concat(w, z))

Rules:

concat(cons(u, v), y) -> cons(u, concat(v, y))
concat(leaf, y) -> y

Strategy:

innermost

We have the following set of usable rules:

concat(cons(u, v), y) -> cons(u, concat(v, y))
concat(leaf, y) -> y

To remove rules and DPs from this DP problem we used the following monotonic and C_E-compatible order: Polynomial ordering.
Polynomial interpretation:

POL(cons(x₁, x₂)) = x₁ + x₂

POL(LESS_LEAVES(x₁, x₂)) = x₁ + x₂

POL(leaf) = 0

POL(concat(x₁, x₂)) = x₁ + x₂

We have the following set D of usable symbols: {cons, LESS_LEAVES, concat}
No Dependency Pairs can be deleted.
The following rules can be deleted as they contain symbols in their lhs which do not occur in D:

concat(leaf, y) -> y

The result of this processor delivers one new DP problem.

     ↳DPs

       →DP Problem 1

         ↳UsableRules

       →DP Problem 2

         ↳UsableRules

       →DP Problem 3

         ↳UsableRules

       →DP Problem 4

         ↳UsableRules

       →DP Problem 5

         ↳UsableRules

       →DP Problem 6

         ↳UsableRules

           →DP Problem 14

             ↳MRR

...

               →DP Problem 15

                 ↳Modular Removal of Rules

       →DP Problem 7

         ↳UsableRules

Dependency Pair:

LESS_LEAVES(cons(u, v), cons(w, z)) -> LESS_LEAVES(concat(u, v), concat(w, z))

Rule:

concat(cons(u, v), y) -> cons(u, concat(v, y))

Strategy:

innermost

We have the following set of usable rules:

concat(cons(u, v), y) -> cons(u, concat(v, y))

To remove rules and DPs from this DP problem we used the following monotonic and C_E-compatible order: Polynomial ordering.
Polynomial interpretation:

POL(cons(x₁, x₂)) = 1 + x₁ + x₂

POL(LESS_LEAVES(x₁, x₂)) = 1 + x₁ + x₂

POL(concat(x₁, x₂)) = x₁ + x₂

We have the following set D of usable symbols: {cons, LESS_LEAVES, concat}
The following Dependency Pairs can be deleted as the lhs is strictly greater than the corresponding rhs:

LESS_LEAVES(cons(u, v), cons(w, z)) -> LESS_LEAVES(concat(u, v), concat(w, z))

No Rules can be deleted.

After the removal, there are no SCCs in the dependency graph which results in no DP problems which have to be solved.

     ↳DPs

       →DP Problem 1

         ↳UsableRules

       →DP Problem 2

         ↳UsableRules

       →DP Problem 3

         ↳UsableRules

       →DP Problem 4

         ↳UsableRules

       →DP Problem 5

         ↳UsableRules

       →DP Problem 6

         ↳UsableRules

       →DP Problem 7

         ↳Usable Rules (Innermost)

Dependency Pair:

SHUFFLE(add(n, x)) -> SHUFFLE(reverse(x))

Rules:

minus(x, 0) -> x
minus(s(x), s(y)) -> minus(x, y)
quot(0, s(y)) -> 0
quot(s(x), s(y)) -> s(quot(minus(x, y), s(y)))
app(nil, y) -> y
app(add(n, x), y) -> add(n, app(x, y))
reverse(nil) -> nil
reverse(add(n, x)) -> app(reverse(x), add(n, nil))
shuffle(nil) -> nil
shuffle(add(n, x)) -> add(n, shuffle(reverse(x)))
concat(leaf, y) -> y
concat(cons(u, v), y) -> cons(u, concat(v, y))
less_leaves(x, leaf) -> false
less_leaves(leaf, cons(w, z)) -> true
less_leaves(cons(u, v), cons(w, z)) -> less_leaves(concat(u, v), concat(w, z))

Strategy:

innermost

As we are in the innermost case, we can delete all 11 non-usable-rules.

     ↳DPs

       →DP Problem 1

         ↳UsableRules

       →DP Problem 2

         ↳UsableRules

       →DP Problem 3

         ↳UsableRules

       →DP Problem 4

         ↳UsableRules

       →DP Problem 5

         ↳UsableRules

       →DP Problem 6

         ↳UsableRules

       →DP Problem 7

         ↳UsableRules

           →DP Problem 16

             ↳Modular Removal of Rules

Dependency Pair:

SHUFFLE(add(n, x)) -> SHUFFLE(reverse(x))

Rules:

app(nil, y) -> y
app(add(n, x), y) -> add(n, app(x, y))
reverse(nil) -> nil
reverse(add(n, x)) -> app(reverse(x), add(n, nil))

Strategy:

innermost

We have the following set of usable rules:

app(nil, y) -> y
app(add(n, x), y) -> add(n, app(x, y))
reverse(nil) -> nil
reverse(add(n, x)) -> app(reverse(x), add(n, nil))

To remove rules and DPs from this DP problem we used the following monotonic and C_E-compatible order: Polynomial ordering.
Polynomial interpretation:

POL(reverse(x₁)) = x₁

POL(SHUFFLE(x₁)) = 1 + x₁

POL(nil) = 0

POL(app(x₁, x₂)) = x₁ + x₂

POL(add(x₁, x₂)) = 1 + x₁ + x₂

We have the following set D of usable symbols: {reverse, SHUFFLE, nil, app, add}
The following Dependency Pairs can be deleted as the lhs is strictly greater than the corresponding rhs:

SHUFFLE(add(n, x)) -> SHUFFLE(reverse(x))

No Rules can be deleted.

After the removal, there are no SCCs in the dependency graph which results in no DP problems which have to be solved.

Innermost Termination of R successfully shown.
Duration:
0:01 minutes

POL(cons(x₁, x₂))	= x₁ + x₂
POL(LESS_LEAVES(x₁, x₂))	= x₁ + x₂
POL(leaf)	= 0
POL(concat(x₁, x₂))	= x₁ + x₂

POL(cons(x₁, x₂))	= 1 + x₁ + x₂
POL(LESS_LEAVES(x₁, x₂))	= 1 + x₁ + x₂
POL(concat(x₁, x₂))	= x₁ + x₂

POL(reverse(x₁))	= x₁
POL(SHUFFLE(x₁))	= 1 + x₁
POL(nil)	= 0
POL(app(x₁, x₂))	= x₁ + x₂
POL(add(x₁, x₂))	= 1 + x₁ + x₂