Termination Proof using AProVE

Term Rewriting System R:
[Y, X, N, L, M]
le(0, Y) -> true
le(s(X), 0) -> false
le(s(X), s(Y)) -> le(X, Y)
app(nil, Y) -> Y
app(cons(N, L), Y) -> cons(N, app(L, Y))
low(N, nil) -> nil
low(N, cons(M, L)) -> iflow(le(M, N), N, cons(M, L))
iflow(true, N, cons(M, L)) -> cons(M, low(N, L))
iflow(false, N, cons(M, L)) -> low(N, L)
high(N, nil) -> nil
high(N, cons(M, L)) -> ifhigh(le(M, N), N, cons(M, L))
ifhigh(true, N, cons(M, L)) -> high(N, L)
ifhigh(false, N, cons(M, L)) -> cons(M, high(N, L))
quicksort(nil) -> nil
quicksort(cons(N, L)) -> app(quicksort(low(N, L)), cons(N, quicksort(high(N, L))))

Termination of R to be shown.

     ↳Overlay and local confluence Check

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

     ↳OC

       →TRS2

         ↳Dependency Pair Analysis

R contains the following Dependency Pairs:

LE(s(X), s(Y)) -> LE(X, Y)
APP(cons(N, L), Y) -> APP(L, Y)
LOW(N, cons(M, L)) -> IFLOW(le(M, N), N, cons(M, L))
LOW(N, cons(M, L)) -> LE(M, N)
IFLOW(true, N, cons(M, L)) -> LOW(N, L)
IFLOW(false, N, cons(M, L)) -> LOW(N, L)
HIGH(N, cons(M, L)) -> IFHIGH(le(M, N), N, cons(M, L))
HIGH(N, cons(M, L)) -> LE(M, N)
IFHIGH(true, N, cons(M, L)) -> HIGH(N, L)
IFHIGH(false, N, cons(M, L)) -> HIGH(N, L)
QUICKSORT(cons(N, L)) -> APP(quicksort(low(N, L)), cons(N, quicksort(high(N, L))))
QUICKSORT(cons(N, L)) -> QUICKSORT(low(N, L))
QUICKSORT(cons(N, L)) -> LOW(N, L)
QUICKSORT(cons(N, L)) -> QUICKSORT(high(N, L))
QUICKSORT(cons(N, L)) -> HIGH(N, L)

Furthermore, R contains five SCCs.

     ↳OC

       →TRS2

         ↳DPs

           →DP Problem 1

             ↳Usable Rules (Innermost)

           →DP Problem 2

             ↳UsableRules

           →DP Problem 3

             ↳UsableRules

           →DP Problem 4

             ↳UsableRules

           →DP Problem 5

             ↳UsableRules

Dependency Pair:

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

Rules:

le(0, Y) -> true
le(s(X), 0) -> false
le(s(X), s(Y)) -> le(X, Y)
app(nil, Y) -> Y
app(cons(N, L), Y) -> cons(N, app(L, Y))
low(N, nil) -> nil
low(N, cons(M, L)) -> iflow(le(M, N), N, cons(M, L))
iflow(true, N, cons(M, L)) -> cons(M, low(N, L))
iflow(false, N, cons(M, L)) -> low(N, L)
high(N, nil) -> nil
high(N, cons(M, L)) -> ifhigh(le(M, N), N, cons(M, L))
ifhigh(true, N, cons(M, L)) -> high(N, L)
ifhigh(false, N, cons(M, L)) -> cons(M, high(N, L))
quicksort(nil) -> nil
quicksort(cons(N, L)) -> app(quicksort(low(N, L)), cons(N, quicksort(high(N, L))))

Strategy:

innermost

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

     ↳OC

       →TRS2

         ↳DPs

           →DP Problem 1

             ↳UsableRules

...

               →DP Problem 6

                 ↳Size-Change Principle

           →DP Problem 2

             ↳UsableRules

           →DP Problem 3

             ↳UsableRules

           →DP Problem 4

             ↳UsableRules

           →DP Problem 5

             ↳UsableRules

Dependency Pair:

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

Rule:

none

Strategy:

innermost

We number the DPs as follows:

LE(s(X), s(Y)) -> LE(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.

     ↳OC

       →TRS2

         ↳DPs

           →DP Problem 1

             ↳UsableRules

           →DP Problem 2

             ↳Usable Rules (Innermost)

           →DP Problem 3

             ↳UsableRules

           →DP Problem 4

             ↳UsableRules

           →DP Problem 5

             ↳UsableRules

Dependency Pair:

APP(cons(N, L), Y) -> APP(L, Y)

Rules:

le(0, Y) -> true
le(s(X), 0) -> false
le(s(X), s(Y)) -> le(X, Y)
app(nil, Y) -> Y
app(cons(N, L), Y) -> cons(N, app(L, Y))
low(N, nil) -> nil
low(N, cons(M, L)) -> iflow(le(M, N), N, cons(M, L))
iflow(true, N, cons(M, L)) -> cons(M, low(N, L))
iflow(false, N, cons(M, L)) -> low(N, L)
high(N, nil) -> nil
high(N, cons(M, L)) -> ifhigh(le(M, N), N, cons(M, L))
ifhigh(true, N, cons(M, L)) -> high(N, L)
ifhigh(false, N, cons(M, L)) -> cons(M, high(N, L))
quicksort(nil) -> nil
quicksort(cons(N, L)) -> app(quicksort(low(N, L)), cons(N, quicksort(high(N, L))))

Strategy:

innermost

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

     ↳OC

       →TRS2

         ↳DPs

           →DP Problem 1

             ↳UsableRules

           →DP Problem 2

             ↳UsableRules

...

               →DP Problem 7

                 ↳Size-Change Principle

           →DP Problem 3

             ↳UsableRules

           →DP Problem 4

             ↳UsableRules

           →DP Problem 5

             ↳UsableRules

Dependency Pair:

APP(cons(N, L), Y) -> APP(L, Y)

Rule:

none

Strategy:

innermost

We number the DPs as follows:

APP(cons(N, L), Y) -> APP(L, 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.

     ↳OC

       →TRS2

         ↳DPs

           →DP Problem 1

             ↳UsableRules

           →DP Problem 2

             ↳UsableRules

           →DP Problem 3

             ↳Usable Rules (Innermost)

           →DP Problem 4

             ↳UsableRules

           →DP Problem 5

             ↳UsableRules

Dependency Pairs:

IFLOW(false, N, cons(M, L)) -> LOW(N, L)
IFLOW(true, N, cons(M, L)) -> LOW(N, L)
LOW(N, cons(M, L)) -> IFLOW(le(M, N), N, cons(M, L))

Rules:

le(0, Y) -> true
le(s(X), 0) -> false
le(s(X), s(Y)) -> le(X, Y)
app(nil, Y) -> Y
app(cons(N, L), Y) -> cons(N, app(L, Y))
low(N, nil) -> nil
low(N, cons(M, L)) -> iflow(le(M, N), N, cons(M, L))
iflow(true, N, cons(M, L)) -> cons(M, low(N, L))
iflow(false, N, cons(M, L)) -> low(N, L)
high(N, nil) -> nil
high(N, cons(M, L)) -> ifhigh(le(M, N), N, cons(M, L))
ifhigh(true, N, cons(M, L)) -> high(N, L)
ifhigh(false, N, cons(M, L)) -> cons(M, high(N, L))
quicksort(nil) -> nil
quicksort(cons(N, L)) -> app(quicksort(low(N, L)), cons(N, quicksort(high(N, L))))

Strategy:

innermost

As we are in the innermost case, we can delete all 12 non-usable-rules.

     ↳OC

       →TRS2

         ↳DPs

           →DP Problem 1

             ↳UsableRules

           →DP Problem 2

             ↳UsableRules

           →DP Problem 3

             ↳UsableRules

...

               →DP Problem 8

                 ↳Size-Change Principle

           →DP Problem 4

             ↳UsableRules

           →DP Problem 5

             ↳UsableRules

Dependency Pairs:

IFLOW(false, N, cons(M, L)) -> LOW(N, L)
IFLOW(true, N, cons(M, L)) -> LOW(N, L)
LOW(N, cons(M, L)) -> IFLOW(le(M, N), N, cons(M, L))

Rules:

le(s(X), 0) -> false
le(0, Y) -> true
le(s(X), s(Y)) -> le(X, Y)

Strategy:

innermost

We number the DPs as follows:

IFLOW(false, N, cons(M, L)) -> LOW(N, L)
IFLOW(true, N, cons(M, L)) -> LOW(N, L)
LOW(N, cons(M, L)) -> IFLOW(le(M, N), N, cons(M, L))

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

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

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

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

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

{3}	,	{1, 2}
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.

     ↳OC

       →TRS2

         ↳DPs

           →DP Problem 1

             ↳UsableRules

           →DP Problem 2

             ↳UsableRules

           →DP Problem 3

             ↳UsableRules

           →DP Problem 4

             ↳Usable Rules (Innermost)

           →DP Problem 5

             ↳UsableRules

Dependency Pairs:

IFHIGH(false, N, cons(M, L)) -> HIGH(N, L)
IFHIGH(true, N, cons(M, L)) -> HIGH(N, L)
HIGH(N, cons(M, L)) -> IFHIGH(le(M, N), N, cons(M, L))

Rules:

le(0, Y) -> true
le(s(X), 0) -> false
le(s(X), s(Y)) -> le(X, Y)
app(nil, Y) -> Y
app(cons(N, L), Y) -> cons(N, app(L, Y))
low(N, nil) -> nil
low(N, cons(M, L)) -> iflow(le(M, N), N, cons(M, L))
iflow(true, N, cons(M, L)) -> cons(M, low(N, L))
iflow(false, N, cons(M, L)) -> low(N, L)
high(N, nil) -> nil
high(N, cons(M, L)) -> ifhigh(le(M, N), N, cons(M, L))
ifhigh(true, N, cons(M, L)) -> high(N, L)
ifhigh(false, N, cons(M, L)) -> cons(M, high(N, L))
quicksort(nil) -> nil
quicksort(cons(N, L)) -> app(quicksort(low(N, L)), cons(N, quicksort(high(N, L))))

Strategy:

innermost

As we are in the innermost case, we can delete all 12 non-usable-rules.

     ↳OC

       →TRS2

         ↳DPs

           →DP Problem 1

             ↳UsableRules

           →DP Problem 2

             ↳UsableRules

           →DP Problem 3

             ↳UsableRules

           →DP Problem 4

             ↳UsableRules

...

               →DP Problem 9

                 ↳Size-Change Principle

           →DP Problem 5

             ↳UsableRules

Dependency Pairs:

IFHIGH(false, N, cons(M, L)) -> HIGH(N, L)
IFHIGH(true, N, cons(M, L)) -> HIGH(N, L)
HIGH(N, cons(M, L)) -> IFHIGH(le(M, N), N, cons(M, L))

Rules:

le(s(X), 0) -> false
le(0, Y) -> true
le(s(X), s(Y)) -> le(X, Y)

Strategy:

innermost

We number the DPs as follows:

IFHIGH(false, N, cons(M, L)) -> HIGH(N, L)
IFHIGH(true, N, cons(M, L)) -> HIGH(N, L)
HIGH(N, cons(M, L)) -> IFHIGH(le(M, N), N, cons(M, L))

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

     ↳OC

       →TRS2

         ↳DPs

           →DP Problem 1

             ↳UsableRules

           →DP Problem 2

             ↳UsableRules

           →DP Problem 3

             ↳UsableRules

           →DP Problem 4

             ↳UsableRules

           →DP Problem 5

             ↳Usable Rules (Innermost)

Dependency Pairs:

QUICKSORT(cons(N, L)) -> QUICKSORT(high(N, L))
QUICKSORT(cons(N, L)) -> QUICKSORT(low(N, L))

Rules:

le(0, Y) -> true
le(s(X), 0) -> false
le(s(X), s(Y)) -> le(X, Y)
app(nil, Y) -> Y
app(cons(N, L), Y) -> cons(N, app(L, Y))
low(N, nil) -> nil
low(N, cons(M, L)) -> iflow(le(M, N), N, cons(M, L))
iflow(true, N, cons(M, L)) -> cons(M, low(N, L))
iflow(false, N, cons(M, L)) -> low(N, L)
high(N, nil) -> nil
high(N, cons(M, L)) -> ifhigh(le(M, N), N, cons(M, L))
ifhigh(true, N, cons(M, L)) -> high(N, L)
ifhigh(false, N, cons(M, L)) -> cons(M, high(N, L))
quicksort(nil) -> nil
quicksort(cons(N, L)) -> app(quicksort(low(N, L)), cons(N, quicksort(high(N, L))))

Strategy:

innermost

As we are in the innermost case, we can delete all 4 non-usable-rules.

     ↳OC

       →TRS2

         ↳DPs

           →DP Problem 1

             ↳UsableRules

           →DP Problem 2

             ↳UsableRules

           →DP Problem 3

             ↳UsableRules

           →DP Problem 4

             ↳UsableRules

           →DP Problem 5

             ↳UsableRules

...

               →DP Problem 10

                 ↳Negative Polynomial Order

Dependency Pairs:

QUICKSORT(cons(N, L)) -> QUICKSORT(high(N, L))
QUICKSORT(cons(N, L)) -> QUICKSORT(low(N, L))

Rules:

high(N, nil) -> nil
high(N, cons(M, L)) -> ifhigh(le(M, N), N, cons(M, L))
ifhigh(true, N, cons(M, L)) -> high(N, L)
ifhigh(false, N, cons(M, L)) -> cons(M, high(N, L))
le(s(X), 0) -> false
le(0, Y) -> true
le(s(X), s(Y)) -> le(X, Y)
iflow(false, N, cons(M, L)) -> low(N, L)
iflow(true, N, cons(M, L)) -> cons(M, low(N, L))
low(N, nil) -> nil
low(N, cons(M, L)) -> iflow(le(M, N), N, cons(M, L))

Strategy:

innermost

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

QUICKSORT(cons(N, L)) -> QUICKSORT(high(N, L))
QUICKSORT(cons(N, L)) -> QUICKSORT(low(N, L))

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

high(N, nil) -> nil
high(N, cons(M, L)) -> ifhigh(le(M, N), N, cons(M, L))
ifhigh(true, N, cons(M, L)) -> high(N, L)
ifhigh(false, N, cons(M, L)) -> cons(M, high(N, L))
le(s(X), 0) -> false
le(0, Y) -> true
le(s(X), s(Y)) -> le(X, Y)
iflow(false, N, cons(M, L)) -> low(N, L)
iflow(true, N, cons(M, L)) -> cons(M, low(N, L))
low(N, nil) -> nil
low(N, cons(M, L)) -> iflow(le(M, N), N, cons(M, L))

Used ordering:
Polynomial Order with Interpretation:

POL( QUICKSORT(x₁) ) = x₁

POL( cons(x₁, x₂) ) = x₂ + 1

POL( high(x₁, x₂) ) = x₂

POL( low(x₁, x₂) ) = x₂

POL( nil ) = 0

POL( ifhigh(x₁, ..., x₃) ) = x₃

POL( le(x₁, x₂) ) = 0

POL( false ) = 0

POL( true ) = 0

POL( iflow(x₁, ..., x₃) ) = x₃

This results in one new DP problem.

     ↳OC

       →TRS2

         ↳DPs

           →DP Problem 1

             ↳UsableRules

           →DP Problem 2

             ↳UsableRules

           →DP Problem 3

             ↳UsableRules

           →DP Problem 4

             ↳UsableRules

           →DP Problem 5

             ↳UsableRules

...

               →DP Problem 11

                 ↳Dependency Graph

Dependency Pair:

Rules:

high(N, nil) -> nil
high(N, cons(M, L)) -> ifhigh(le(M, N), N, cons(M, L))
ifhigh(true, N, cons(M, L)) -> high(N, L)
ifhigh(false, N, cons(M, L)) -> cons(M, high(N, L))
le(s(X), 0) -> false
le(0, Y) -> true
le(s(X), s(Y)) -> le(X, Y)
iflow(false, N, cons(M, L)) -> low(N, L)
iflow(true, N, cons(M, L)) -> cons(M, low(N, L))
low(N, nil) -> nil
low(N, cons(M, L)) -> iflow(le(M, N), N, cons(M, L))

Strategy:

innermost

Using the Dependency Graph resulted in no new DP problems.

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