Termination Proof using AProVE

Term Rewriting System R:
[x₀, y, l1₂, l2₁, x, l, a₄, l₃, l', l1, l2, l₅, a]
test(x₀, y) -> True
test(x₀, y) -> False
append(l1₂, l2₁) -> match₀(l1₂, l2₁, l1₂)
match₀(l1₂, l2₁, Nil) -> l2₁
match₀(l1₂, l2₁, Cons(x, l)) -> Cons(x, append(l, l2₁))
part(a₄, l₃) -> match₁(a₄, l₃, l₃)
match₁(a₄, l₃, Nil) -> Pair(Nil, Nil)
match₁(a₄, l₃, Cons(x, l')) -> match₂(x, l', a₄, l₃, part(a₄, l'))
match₂(x, l', a₄, l₃, Pair(l1, l2)) -> match₃(l1, l2, x, l', a₄, l₃, test(a₄, x))
match₃(l1, l2, x, l', a₄, l₃, False) -> Pair(Cons(x, l1), l2)
match₃(l1, l2, x, l', a₄, l₃, True) -> Pair(l1, Cons(x, l2))
quick(l₅) -> match₄(l₅, l₅)
match₄(l₅, Nil) -> Nil
match₄(l₅, Cons(a, l')) -> match₅(a, l', l₅, part(a, l'))
match₅(a, l', l₅, Pair(l1, l2)) -> append(quick(l1), Cons(a, quick(l2)))

Innermost Termination of R to be shown.

     ↳Dependency Pair Analysis

R contains the following Dependency Pairs:

APPEND(l1₂, l2₁) -> MATCH₀(l1₂, l2₁, l1₂)
MATCH₀(l1₂, l2₁, Cons(x, l)) -> APPEND(l, l2₁)
PART(a₄, l₃) -> MATCH₁(a₄, l₃, l₃)
MATCH₁(a₄, l₃, Cons(x, l')) -> MATCH₂(x, l', a₄, l₃, part(a₄, l'))
MATCH₁(a₄, l₃, Cons(x, l')) -> PART(a₄, l')
MATCH₂(x, l', a₄, l₃, Pair(l1, l2)) -> MATCH₃(l1, l2, x, l', a₄, l₃, test(a₄, x))
MATCH₂(x, l', a₄, l₃, Pair(l1, l2)) -> TEST(a₄, x)
QUICK(l₅) -> MATCH₄(l₅, l₅)
MATCH₄(l₅, Cons(a, l')) -> MATCH₅(a, l', l₅, part(a, l'))
MATCH₄(l₅, Cons(a, l')) -> PART(a, l')
MATCH₅(a, l', l₅, Pair(l1, l2)) -> APPEND(quick(l1), Cons(a, quick(l2)))
MATCH₅(a, l', l₅, Pair(l1, l2)) -> QUICK(l1)
MATCH₅(a, l', l₅, Pair(l1, l2)) -> QUICK(l2)

Furthermore, R contains three SCCs.

     ↳DPs

       →DP Problem 1

         ↳Usable Rules (Innermost)

       →DP Problem 2

         ↳UsableRules

       →DP Problem 3

         ↳UsableRules

Dependency Pairs:

MATCH₀(l1₂, l2₁, Cons(x, l)) -> APPEND(l, l2₁)
APPEND(l1₂, l2₁) -> MATCH₀(l1₂, l2₁, l1₂)

Rules:

test(x₀, y) -> True
test(x₀, y) -> False
append(l1₂, l2₁) -> match₀(l1₂, l2₁, l1₂)
match₀(l1₂, l2₁, Nil) -> l2₁
match₀(l1₂, l2₁, Cons(x, l)) -> Cons(x, append(l, l2₁))
part(a₄, l₃) -> match₁(a₄, l₃, l₃)
match₁(a₄, l₃, Nil) -> Pair(Nil, Nil)
match₁(a₄, l₃, Cons(x, l')) -> match₂(x, l', a₄, l₃, part(a₄, l'))
match₂(x, l', a₄, l₃, Pair(l1, l2)) -> match₃(l1, l2, x, l', a₄, l₃, test(a₄, x))
match₃(l1, l2, x, l', a₄, l₃, False) -> Pair(Cons(x, l1), l2)
match₃(l1, l2, x, l', a₄, l₃, True) -> Pair(l1, Cons(x, l2))
quick(l₅) -> match₄(l₅, l₅)
match₄(l₅, Nil) -> Nil
match₄(l₅, Cons(a, l')) -> match₅(a, l', l₅, part(a, l'))
match₅(a, l', l₅, Pair(l1, l2)) -> append(quick(l1), Cons(a, quick(l2)))

Strategy:

innermost

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

     ↳DPs

       →DP Problem 1

         ↳UsableRules

           →DP Problem 4

             ↳Size-Change Principle

       →DP Problem 2

         ↳UsableRules

       →DP Problem 3

         ↳UsableRules

Dependency Pairs:

MATCH₀(l1₂, l2₁, Cons(x, l)) -> APPEND(l, l2₁)
APPEND(l1₂, l2₁) -> MATCH₀(l1₂, l2₁, l1₂)

Rule:

none

Strategy:

innermost

We number the DPs as follows:

MATCH₀(l1₂, l2₁, Cons(x, l)) -> APPEND(l, l2₁)
APPEND(l1₂, l2₁) -> MATCH₀(l1₂, l2₁, l1₂)

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

{1}	,	{1}
2	=	2
3	>	1

{2}	,	{2}
1	=	1
1	=	3
2	=	2

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

{1}	,	{2}
2	=	2
3	>	1
3	>	3

{2}	,	{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

         ↳Usable Rules (Innermost)

       →DP Problem 3

         ↳UsableRules

Dependency Pairs:

MATCH₁(a₄, l₃, Cons(x, l')) -> PART(a₄, l')
PART(a₄, l₃) -> MATCH₁(a₄, l₃, l₃)

Rules:

test(x₀, y) -> True
test(x₀, y) -> False
append(l1₂, l2₁) -> match₀(l1₂, l2₁, l1₂)
match₀(l1₂, l2₁, Nil) -> l2₁
match₀(l1₂, l2₁, Cons(x, l)) -> Cons(x, append(l, l2₁))
part(a₄, l₃) -> match₁(a₄, l₃, l₃)
match₁(a₄, l₃, Nil) -> Pair(Nil, Nil)
match₁(a₄, l₃, Cons(x, l')) -> match₂(x, l', a₄, l₃, part(a₄, l'))
match₂(x, l', a₄, l₃, Pair(l1, l2)) -> match₃(l1, l2, x, l', a₄, l₃, test(a₄, x))
match₃(l1, l2, x, l', a₄, l₃, False) -> Pair(Cons(x, l1), l2)
match₃(l1, l2, x, l', a₄, l₃, True) -> Pair(l1, Cons(x, l2))
quick(l₅) -> match₄(l₅, l₅)
match₄(l₅, Nil) -> Nil
match₄(l₅, Cons(a, l')) -> match₅(a, l', l₅, part(a, l'))
match₅(a, l', l₅, Pair(l1, l2)) -> append(quick(l1), Cons(a, quick(l2)))

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 5

             ↳Size-Change Principle

       →DP Problem 3

         ↳UsableRules

Dependency Pairs:

MATCH₁(a₄, l₃, Cons(x, l')) -> PART(a₄, l')
PART(a₄, l₃) -> MATCH₁(a₄, l₃, l₃)

Rule:

none

Strategy:

innermost

We number the DPs as follows:

MATCH₁(a₄, l₃, Cons(x, l')) -> PART(a₄, l')
PART(a₄, l₃) -> MATCH₁(a₄, l₃, l₃)

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

{1}	,	{1}
1	=	1
3	>	2

{2}	,	{2}
1	=	1
2	=	2
2	=	3

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

{1}	,	{2}
1	=	1
3	>	2
3	>	3

{2}	,	{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

         ↳Usable Rules (Innermost)

Dependency Pairs:

MATCH₅(a, l', l₅, Pair(l1, l2)) -> QUICK(l2)
MATCH₅(a, l', l₅, Pair(l1, l2)) -> QUICK(l1)
MATCH₄(l₅, Cons(a, l')) -> MATCH₅(a, l', l₅, part(a, l'))
QUICK(l₅) -> MATCH₄(l₅, l₅)

Rules:

test(x₀, y) -> True
test(x₀, y) -> False
append(l1₂, l2₁) -> match₀(l1₂, l2₁, l1₂)
match₀(l1₂, l2₁, Nil) -> l2₁
match₀(l1₂, l2₁, Cons(x, l)) -> Cons(x, append(l, l2₁))
part(a₄, l₃) -> match₁(a₄, l₃, l₃)
match₁(a₄, l₃, Nil) -> Pair(Nil, Nil)
match₁(a₄, l₃, Cons(x, l')) -> match₂(x, l', a₄, l₃, part(a₄, l'))
match₂(x, l', a₄, l₃, Pair(l1, l2)) -> match₃(l1, l2, x, l', a₄, l₃, test(a₄, x))
match₃(l1, l2, x, l', a₄, l₃, False) -> Pair(Cons(x, l1), l2)
match₃(l1, l2, x, l', a₄, l₃, True) -> Pair(l1, Cons(x, l2))
quick(l₅) -> match₄(l₅, l₅)
match₄(l₅, Nil) -> Nil
match₄(l₅, Cons(a, l')) -> match₅(a, l', l₅, part(a, l'))
match₅(a, l', l₅, Pair(l1, l2)) -> append(quick(l1), Cons(a, quick(l2)))

Strategy:

innermost

As we are in the innermost case, we can delete all 7 non-usable-rules.

     ↳DPs

       →DP Problem 1

         ↳UsableRules

       →DP Problem 2

         ↳UsableRules

       →DP Problem 3

         ↳UsableRules

           →DP Problem 6

             ↳Negative Polynomial Order

Dependency Pairs:

Rules:

test(x₀, y) -> False
test(x₀, y) -> True
match₁(a₄, l₃, Cons(x, l')) -> match₂(x, l', a₄, l₃, part(a₄, l'))
match₁(a₄, l₃, Nil) -> Pair(Nil, Nil)
match₂(x, l', a₄, l₃, Pair(l1, l2)) -> match₃(l1, l2, x, l', a₄, l₃, test(a₄, x))
part(a₄, l₃) -> match₁(a₄, l₃, l₃)
match₃(l1, l2, x, l', a₄, l₃, True) -> Pair(l1, Cons(x, l2))
match₃(l1, l2, x, l', a₄, l₃, False) -> Pair(Cons(x, l1), l2)

Strategy:

innermost

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

MATCH₅(a, l', l₅, Pair(l1, l2)) -> QUICK(l2)
MATCH₅(a, l', l₅, Pair(l1, l2)) -> QUICK(l1)

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

test(x₀, y) -> False
test(x₀, y) -> True
match₁(a₄, l₃, Cons(x, l')) -> match₂(x, l', a₄, l₃, part(a₄, l'))
match₁(a₄, l₃, Nil) -> Pair(Nil, Nil)
match₂(x, l', a₄, l₃, Pair(l1, l2)) -> match₃(l1, l2, x, l', a₄, l₃, test(a₄, x))
part(a₄, l₃) -> match₁(a₄, l₃, l₃)
match₃(l1, l2, x, l', a₄, l₃, True) -> Pair(l1, Cons(x, l2))
match₃(l1, l2, x, l', a₄, l₃, False) -> Pair(Cons(x, l1), l2)

Used ordering:
Polynomial Order with Interpretation:

POL( MATCH₅(x₁, ..., x₄) ) = x₄

POL( Pair(x₁, x₂) ) = x₁ + x₂ + 1

POL( QUICK(x₁) ) = x₁

POL( MATCH₄(x₁, x₂) ) = x₂

POL( Cons(x₁, x₂) ) = x₂ + 1

POL( part(x₁, x₂) ) = x₂ + 1

POL( test(x₁, x₂) ) = 1

POL( False ) = 1

POL( True ) = 1

POL( match₁(x₁, ..., x₃) ) = x₃ + 1

POL( match₂(x₁, ..., x₅) ) = x₅ + 1

POL( Nil ) = 0

POL( match₃(x₁, ..., x₇) ) = x₁ + x₂ + x₇ + 1

This results in one new DP problem.

     ↳DPs

       →DP Problem 1

         ↳UsableRules

       →DP Problem 2

         ↳UsableRules

       →DP Problem 3

         ↳UsableRules

           →DP Problem 6

             ↳Neg POLO

...

               →DP Problem 7

                 ↳Dependency Graph

Dependency Pairs:

MATCH₄(l₅, Cons(a, l')) -> MATCH₅(a, l', l₅, part(a, l'))
QUICK(l₅) -> MATCH₄(l₅, l₅)

Rules:

test(x₀, y) -> False
test(x₀, y) -> True
match₁(a₄, l₃, Cons(x, l')) -> match₂(x, l', a₄, l₃, part(a₄, l'))
match₁(a₄, l₃, Nil) -> Pair(Nil, Nil)
match₂(x, l', a₄, l₃, Pair(l1, l2)) -> match₃(l1, l2, x, l', a₄, l₃, test(a₄, x))
part(a₄, l₃) -> match₁(a₄, l₃, l₃)
match₃(l1, l2, x, l', a₄, l₃, True) -> Pair(l1, Cons(x, l2))
match₃(l1, l2, x, l', a₄, l₃, False) -> Pair(Cons(x, l1), l2)

Strategy:

innermost

Using the Dependency Graph resulted in no new DP problems.

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