Termination Proof using AProVE

Term Rewriting System R:
[X, XS, N, Y, YS, X1, X2]
from(X) -> cons(X, n_{_from}(s(X)))
from(X) -> n_{_from}(X)
sel(0, cons(X, XS)) -> X
sel(s(N), cons(X, XS)) -> sel(N, activate(XS))
minus(X, 0) -> 0
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)))
zWquot(XS, nil) -> nil
zWquot(nil, XS) -> nil
zWquot(cons(X, XS), cons(Y, YS)) -> cons(quot(X, Y), n_{_zWquot}(activate(XS), activate(YS)))
zWquot(X1, X2) -> n_{_zWquot}(X1, X2)
activate(n_{_from}(X)) -> from(X)
activate(n_{_zWquot}(X1, X2)) -> zWquot(X1, X2)
activate(X) -> X

Innermost Termination of R to be shown.

     ↳Dependency Pair Analysis

R contains the following Dependency Pairs:

SEL(s(N), cons(X, XS)) -> SEL(N, activate(XS))
SEL(s(N), cons(X, XS)) -> ACTIVATE(XS)
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)
ZWQUOT(cons(X, XS), cons(Y, YS)) -> QUOT(X, Y)
ZWQUOT(cons(X, XS), cons(Y, YS)) -> ACTIVATE(XS)
ZWQUOT(cons(X, XS), cons(Y, YS)) -> ACTIVATE(YS)
ACTIVATE(n_{_from}(X)) -> FROM(X)
ACTIVATE(n_{_zWquot}(X1, X2)) -> ZWQUOT(X1, X2)

Furthermore, R contains four SCCs.

     ↳DPs

       →DP Problem 1

         ↳Polynomial Ordering

       →DP Problem 2

         ↳FwdInst

       →DP Problem 3

         ↳Polo

       →DP Problem 4

         ↳Polo

Dependency Pair:

MINUS(s(X), s(Y)) -> MINUS(X, Y)

Rules:

from(X) -> cons(X, n_{_from}(s(X)))
from(X) -> n_{_from}(X)
sel(0, cons(X, XS)) -> X
sel(s(N), cons(X, XS)) -> sel(N, activate(XS))
minus(X, 0) -> 0
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)))
zWquot(XS, nil) -> nil
zWquot(nil, XS) -> nil
zWquot(cons(X, XS), cons(Y, YS)) -> cons(quot(X, Y), n_{_zWquot}(activate(XS), activate(YS)))
zWquot(X1, X2) -> n_{_zWquot}(X1, X2)
activate(n_{_from}(X)) -> from(X)
activate(n_{_zWquot}(X1, X2)) -> zWquot(X1, X2)
activate(X) -> X

Strategy:

innermost

The following dependency pair can be strictly oriented:

MINUS(s(X), s(Y)) -> MINUS(X, Y)

There are no usable rules for innermost w.r.t. to the implicit AFS that need to be oriented.

Used ordering: Polynomial ordering with Polynomial interpretation:

POL(MINUS(x₁, x₂)) = x₁

POL(s(x₁)) = 1 + x₁

resulting in one new DP problem.

     ↳DPs

       →DP Problem 1

         ↳Polo

           →DP Problem 5

             ↳Dependency Graph

       →DP Problem 2

         ↳FwdInst

       →DP Problem 3

         ↳Polo

       →DP Problem 4

         ↳Polo

Dependency Pair:

Rules:

from(X) -> cons(X, n_{_from}(s(X)))
from(X) -> n_{_from}(X)
sel(0, cons(X, XS)) -> X
sel(s(N), cons(X, XS)) -> sel(N, activate(XS))
minus(X, 0) -> 0
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)))
zWquot(XS, nil) -> nil
zWquot(nil, XS) -> nil
zWquot(cons(X, XS), cons(Y, YS)) -> cons(quot(X, Y), n_{_zWquot}(activate(XS), activate(YS)))
zWquot(X1, X2) -> n_{_zWquot}(X1, X2)
activate(n_{_from}(X)) -> from(X)
activate(n_{_zWquot}(X1, X2)) -> zWquot(X1, X2)
activate(X) -> X

Strategy:

innermost

Using the Dependency Graph resulted in no new DP problems.

     ↳DPs

       →DP Problem 1

         ↳Polo

       →DP Problem 2

         ↳Forward Instantiation Transformation

       →DP Problem 3

         ↳Polo

       →DP Problem 4

         ↳Polo

Dependency Pair:

QUOT(s(X), s(Y)) -> QUOT(minus(X, Y), s(Y))

Rules:

from(X) -> cons(X, n_{_from}(s(X)))
from(X) -> n_{_from}(X)
sel(0, cons(X, XS)) -> X
sel(s(N), cons(X, XS)) -> sel(N, activate(XS))
minus(X, 0) -> 0
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)))
zWquot(XS, nil) -> nil
zWquot(nil, XS) -> nil
zWquot(cons(X, XS), cons(Y, YS)) -> cons(quot(X, Y), n_{_zWquot}(activate(XS), activate(YS)))
zWquot(X1, X2) -> n_{_zWquot}(X1, X2)
activate(n_{_from}(X)) -> from(X)
activate(n_{_zWquot}(X1, X2)) -> zWquot(X1, X2)
activate(X) -> X

Strategy:

innermost

On this DP problem, a Forward Instantiation SCC transformation can be performed.
As a result of transforming the rule

QUOT(s(X), s(Y)) -> QUOT(minus(X, Y), s(Y))

no new Dependency Pairs are created.
The transformation is resulting in no new DP problems.

     ↳DPs

       →DP Problem 1

         ↳Polo

       →DP Problem 2

         ↳FwdInst

       →DP Problem 3

         ↳Polynomial Ordering

       →DP Problem 4

         ↳Polo

Dependency Pairs:

ZWQUOT(cons(X, XS), cons(Y, YS)) -> ACTIVATE(YS)
ZWQUOT(cons(X, XS), cons(Y, YS)) -> ACTIVATE(XS)
ACTIVATE(n_{_zWquot}(X1, X2)) -> ZWQUOT(X1, X2)

Rules:

from(X) -> cons(X, n_{_from}(s(X)))
from(X) -> n_{_from}(X)
sel(0, cons(X, XS)) -> X
sel(s(N), cons(X, XS)) -> sel(N, activate(XS))
minus(X, 0) -> 0
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)))
zWquot(XS, nil) -> nil
zWquot(nil, XS) -> nil
zWquot(cons(X, XS), cons(Y, YS)) -> cons(quot(X, Y), n_{_zWquot}(activate(XS), activate(YS)))
zWquot(X1, X2) -> n_{_zWquot}(X1, X2)
activate(n_{_from}(X)) -> from(X)
activate(n_{_zWquot}(X1, X2)) -> zWquot(X1, X2)
activate(X) -> X

Strategy:

innermost

The following dependency pair can be strictly oriented:

ACTIVATE(n_{_zWquot}(X1, X2)) -> ZWQUOT(X1, X2)

There are no usable rules for innermost w.r.t. to the implicit AFS that need to be oriented.

Used ordering: Polynomial ordering with Polynomial interpretation:

POL(cons(x₁, x₂)) = x₂

POL(n__zWquot(x₁, x₂)) = 1 + x₁ + x₂

POL(ZWQUOT(x₁, x₂)) = x₁ + x₂

POL(ACTIVATE(x₁)) = x₁

resulting in one new DP problem.

     ↳DPs

       →DP Problem 1

         ↳Polo

       →DP Problem 2

         ↳FwdInst

       →DP Problem 3

         ↳Polo

           →DP Problem 6

             ↳Dependency Graph

       →DP Problem 4

         ↳Polo

Dependency Pairs:

ZWQUOT(cons(X, XS), cons(Y, YS)) -> ACTIVATE(YS)
ZWQUOT(cons(X, XS), cons(Y, YS)) -> ACTIVATE(XS)

Rules:

from(X) -> cons(X, n_{_from}(s(X)))
from(X) -> n_{_from}(X)
sel(0, cons(X, XS)) -> X
sel(s(N), cons(X, XS)) -> sel(N, activate(XS))
minus(X, 0) -> 0
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)))
zWquot(XS, nil) -> nil
zWquot(nil, XS) -> nil
zWquot(cons(X, XS), cons(Y, YS)) -> cons(quot(X, Y), n_{_zWquot}(activate(XS), activate(YS)))
zWquot(X1, X2) -> n_{_zWquot}(X1, X2)
activate(n_{_from}(X)) -> from(X)
activate(n_{_zWquot}(X1, X2)) -> zWquot(X1, X2)
activate(X) -> X

Strategy:

innermost

Using the Dependency Graph resulted in no new DP problems.

     ↳DPs

       →DP Problem 1

         ↳Polo

       →DP Problem 2

         ↳FwdInst

       →DP Problem 3

         ↳Polo

       →DP Problem 4

         ↳Polynomial Ordering

Dependency Pair:

SEL(s(N), cons(X, XS)) -> SEL(N, activate(XS))

Rules:

from(X) -> cons(X, n_{_from}(s(X)))
from(X) -> n_{_from}(X)
sel(0, cons(X, XS)) -> X
sel(s(N), cons(X, XS)) -> sel(N, activate(XS))
minus(X, 0) -> 0
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)))
zWquot(XS, nil) -> nil
zWquot(nil, XS) -> nil
zWquot(cons(X, XS), cons(Y, YS)) -> cons(quot(X, Y), n_{_zWquot}(activate(XS), activate(YS)))
zWquot(X1, X2) -> n_{_zWquot}(X1, X2)
activate(n_{_from}(X)) -> from(X)
activate(n_{_zWquot}(X1, X2)) -> zWquot(X1, X2)
activate(X) -> X

Strategy:

innermost

The following dependency pair can be strictly oriented:

SEL(s(N), cons(X, XS)) -> SEL(N, activate(XS))

There are no usable rules for innermost w.r.t. to the implicit AFS that need to be oriented.

Used ordering: Polynomial ordering with Polynomial interpretation:

POL(n__from(x₁)) = 0

POL(from(x₁)) = 0

POL(activate(x₁)) = 0

POL(0) = 0

POL(n__zWquot(x₁, x₂)) = 0

POL(zWquot(x₁, x₂)) = 0

POL(cons(x₁, x₂)) = 0

POL(SEL(x₁, x₂)) = x₁

POL(minus(x₁, x₂)) = 0

POL(nil) = 0

POL(quot(x₁, x₂)) = 0

POL(s(x₁)) = 1 + x₁

resulting in one new DP problem.

     ↳DPs

       →DP Problem 1

         ↳Polo

       →DP Problem 2

         ↳FwdInst

       →DP Problem 3

         ↳Polo

       →DP Problem 4

         ↳Polo

           →DP Problem 7

             ↳Dependency Graph

Dependency Pair:

Rules:

from(X) -> cons(X, n_{_from}(s(X)))
from(X) -> n_{_from}(X)
sel(0, cons(X, XS)) -> X
sel(s(N), cons(X, XS)) -> sel(N, activate(XS))
minus(X, 0) -> 0
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)))
zWquot(XS, nil) -> nil
zWquot(nil, XS) -> nil
zWquot(cons(X, XS), cons(Y, YS)) -> cons(quot(X, Y), n_{_zWquot}(activate(XS), activate(YS)))
zWquot(X1, X2) -> n_{_zWquot}(X1, X2)
activate(n_{_from}(X)) -> from(X)
activate(n_{_zWquot}(X1, X2)) -> zWquot(X1, X2)
activate(X) -> X

Strategy:

innermost

Using the Dependency Graph resulted in no new DP problems.

Innermost Termination of R successfully shown.
Duration:
0:00 minutes

POL(cons(x₁, x₂))	= x₂
POL(n__zWquot(x₁, x₂))	= 1 + x₁ + x₂
POL(ZWQUOT(x₁, x₂))	= x₁ + x₂
POL(ACTIVATE(x₁))	= x₁

POL(n__from(x₁))	= 0
POL(from(x₁))	= 0
POL(activate(x₁))	= 0
POL(0)	= 0
POL(n__zWquot(x₁, x₂))	= 0
POL(zWquot(x₁, x₂))	= 0
POL(cons(x₁, x₂))	= 0
POL(SEL(x₁, x₂))	= x₁
POL(minus(x₁, x₂))	= 0
POL(nil)	= 0
POL(quot(x₁, x₂))	= 0
POL(s(x₁))	= 1 + x₁