Term Rewriting System R:
[l, x, k, a, b, c]
f(empty, l) -> l
f(cons(x, k), l) -> g(k, l, cons(x, k))
g(a, b, c) -> f(a, cons(b, c))

Termination of R to be shown. 



   R
     ↳Overlay and local confluence Check



The TRS is overlay and locally confluent (all critical pairs are trivially joinable).Hence, we can switch to innermost. 


   R
     ↳OC
       →TRS2
         ↳Dependency Pair Analysis



R contains the following Dependency Pairs:

F(cons(x, k), l) -> G(k, l, cons(x, k))
G(a, b, c) -> F(a, cons(b, c))

Furthermore, R contains one SCC. 


   R
     ↳OC
       →TRS2
         ↳DPs
           →DP Problem 1
             ↳Usable Rules (Innermost)


Dependency Pairs:

G(a, b, c) -> F(a, cons(b, c))
F(cons(x, k), l) -> G(k, l, cons(x, k))


Rules:


f(empty, l) -> l
f(cons(x, k), l) -> g(k, l, cons(x, k))
g(a, b, c) -> f(a, cons(b, c))


Strategy:

innermost




As we are in the innermost case, we can delete all 3 non-usable-rules.


   R
     ↳OC
       →TRS2
         ↳DPs
           →DP Problem 1
             ↳UsableRules
             ...
               →DP Problem 2
                 ↳Size-Change Principle


Dependency Pairs:

G(a, b, c) -> F(a, cons(b, c))
F(cons(x, k), l) -> G(k, l, cons(x, k))


Rule:

none


Strategy:

innermost




We number the DPs as follows:
  1. G(a, b, c) -> F(a, cons(b, c))
  2. F(cons(x, k), l) -> G(k, l, cons(x, k))
and get the following Size-Change Graph(s):
{1} , {1}
1=1
{2} , {2}
1>1
1=3
2=2

which lead(s) to this/these maximal multigraph(s):
{2} , {1}
1>1
{1} , {2}
1>1
1>3

DP: 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.

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