Termination Proof using AProVE

Term Rewriting System R:
[X, Y, L]
eq(0, 0) -> true
eq(s(X), s(Y)) -> eq(X, Y)
eq(X, Y) -> false
inf(X) -> cons(X, inf(s(X)))
take(0, X) -> nil
take(s(X), cons(Y, L)) -> cons(Y, take(X, L))
length(nil) -> 0
length(cons(X, L)) -> s(length(L))

Innermost Termination of R to be shown.

     ↳Dependency Pair Analysis

R contains the following Dependency Pairs:

EQ(s(X), s(Y)) -> EQ(X, Y)
INF(X) -> INF(s(X))
TAKE(s(X), cons(Y, L)) -> TAKE(X, L)
LENGTH(cons(X, L)) -> LENGTH(L)

Furthermore, R contains four SCCs.

     ↳DPs

       →DP Problem 1

         ↳Polynomial Ordering

       →DP Problem 2

         ↳Inst

       →DP Problem 3

         ↳Remaining

       →DP Problem 4

         ↳Remaining

Dependency Pair:

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

Rules:

eq(0, 0) -> true
eq(s(X), s(Y)) -> eq(X, Y)
eq(X, Y) -> false
inf(X) -> cons(X, inf(s(X)))
take(0, X) -> nil
take(s(X), cons(Y, L)) -> cons(Y, take(X, L))
length(nil) -> 0
length(cons(X, L)) -> s(length(L))

Strategy:

innermost

The following dependency pair can be strictly oriented:

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

There are no usable rules for innermost that need to be oriented.

Used ordering: Polynomial ordering with Polynomial interpretation:

POL(EQ(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

         ↳Inst

       →DP Problem 3

         ↳Remaining

       →DP Problem 4

         ↳Remaining

Dependency Pair:

Rules:

eq(0, 0) -> true
eq(s(X), s(Y)) -> eq(X, Y)
eq(X, Y) -> false
inf(X) -> cons(X, inf(s(X)))
take(0, X) -> nil
take(s(X), cons(Y, L)) -> cons(Y, take(X, L))
length(nil) -> 0
length(cons(X, L)) -> s(length(L))

Strategy:

innermost

Using the Dependency Graph resulted in no new DP problems.

     ↳DPs

       →DP Problem 1

         ↳Polo

       →DP Problem 2

         ↳Instantiation Transformation

       →DP Problem 3

         ↳Remaining

       →DP Problem 4

         ↳Remaining

Dependency Pair:

INF(X) -> INF(s(X))

Rules:

eq(0, 0) -> true
eq(s(X), s(Y)) -> eq(X, Y)
eq(X, Y) -> false
inf(X) -> cons(X, inf(s(X)))
take(0, X) -> nil
take(s(X), cons(Y, L)) -> cons(Y, take(X, L))
length(nil) -> 0
length(cons(X, L)) -> s(length(L))

Strategy:

innermost

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

INF(X) -> INF(s(X))

one new Dependency Pair is created:

INF(s(X'')) -> INF(s(s(X'')))

The transformation is resulting in one new DP problem:

     ↳DPs

       →DP Problem 1

         ↳Polo

       →DP Problem 2

         ↳Inst

       →DP Problem 3

         ↳Remaining Obligation(s)

       →DP Problem 4

         ↳Remaining Obligation(s)

The following remains to be proven:

Dependency Pair:
INF(s(X'')) -> INF(s(s(X'')))

Rules:

eq(0, 0) -> true
eq(s(X), s(Y)) -> eq(X, Y)
eq(X, Y) -> false
inf(X) -> cons(X, inf(s(X)))
take(0, X) -> nil
take(s(X), cons(Y, L)) -> cons(Y, take(X, L))
length(nil) -> 0
length(cons(X, L)) -> s(length(L))

Strategy:
innermost
Dependency Pair:
TAKE(s(X), cons(Y, L)) -> TAKE(X, L)

Rules:

eq(0, 0) -> true
eq(s(X), s(Y)) -> eq(X, Y)
eq(X, Y) -> false
inf(X) -> cons(X, inf(s(X)))
take(0, X) -> nil
take(s(X), cons(Y, L)) -> cons(Y, take(X, L))
length(nil) -> 0
length(cons(X, L)) -> s(length(L))

Strategy:
innermost
Dependency Pair:
LENGTH(cons(X, L)) -> LENGTH(L)

Rules:

eq(0, 0) -> true
eq(s(X), s(Y)) -> eq(X, Y)
eq(X, Y) -> false
inf(X) -> cons(X, inf(s(X)))
take(0, X) -> nil
take(s(X), cons(Y, L)) -> cons(Y, take(X, L))
length(nil) -> 0
length(cons(X, L)) -> s(length(L))

Strategy:
innermost

     ↳DPs

       →DP Problem 1

         ↳Polo

       →DP Problem 2

         ↳Inst

       →DP Problem 3

         ↳Remaining Obligation(s)

       →DP Problem 4

         ↳Remaining Obligation(s)

The following remains to be proven:

Dependency Pair:
INF(s(X'')) -> INF(s(s(X'')))

Rules:

eq(0, 0) -> true
eq(s(X), s(Y)) -> eq(X, Y)
eq(X, Y) -> false
inf(X) -> cons(X, inf(s(X)))
take(0, X) -> nil
take(s(X), cons(Y, L)) -> cons(Y, take(X, L))
length(nil) -> 0
length(cons(X, L)) -> s(length(L))

Strategy:
innermost
Dependency Pair:
TAKE(s(X), cons(Y, L)) -> TAKE(X, L)

Rules:

eq(0, 0) -> true
eq(s(X), s(Y)) -> eq(X, Y)
eq(X, Y) -> false
inf(X) -> cons(X, inf(s(X)))
take(0, X) -> nil
take(s(X), cons(Y, L)) -> cons(Y, take(X, L))
length(nil) -> 0
length(cons(X, L)) -> s(length(L))

Strategy:
innermost
Dependency Pair:
LENGTH(cons(X, L)) -> LENGTH(L)

Rules:

eq(0, 0) -> true
eq(s(X), s(Y)) -> eq(X, Y)
eq(X, Y) -> false
inf(X) -> cons(X, inf(s(X)))
take(0, X) -> nil
take(s(X), cons(Y, L)) -> cons(Y, take(X, L))
length(nil) -> 0
length(cons(X, L)) -> s(length(L))

Strategy:
innermost

     ↳DPs

       →DP Problem 1

         ↳Polo

       →DP Problem 2

         ↳Inst

       →DP Problem 3

         ↳Remaining Obligation(s)

       →DP Problem 4

         ↳Remaining Obligation(s)

The following remains to be proven:

Dependency Pair:
INF(s(X'')) -> INF(s(s(X'')))

Rules:

eq(0, 0) -> true
eq(s(X), s(Y)) -> eq(X, Y)
eq(X, Y) -> false
inf(X) -> cons(X, inf(s(X)))
take(0, X) -> nil
take(s(X), cons(Y, L)) -> cons(Y, take(X, L))
length(nil) -> 0
length(cons(X, L)) -> s(length(L))

Strategy:
innermost
Dependency Pair:
TAKE(s(X), cons(Y, L)) -> TAKE(X, L)

Rules:

eq(0, 0) -> true
eq(s(X), s(Y)) -> eq(X, Y)
eq(X, Y) -> false
inf(X) -> cons(X, inf(s(X)))
take(0, X) -> nil
take(s(X), cons(Y, L)) -> cons(Y, take(X, L))
length(nil) -> 0
length(cons(X, L)) -> s(length(L))

Strategy:
innermost
Dependency Pair:
LENGTH(cons(X, L)) -> LENGTH(L)

Rules:

eq(0, 0) -> true
eq(s(X), s(Y)) -> eq(X, Y)
eq(X, Y) -> false
inf(X) -> cons(X, inf(s(X)))
take(0, X) -> nil
take(s(X), cons(Y, L)) -> cons(Y, take(X, L))
length(nil) -> 0
length(cons(X, L)) -> s(length(L))

Strategy:
innermost

Innermost Termination of R could not be shown.
Duration:
0:00 minutes