(0) Obligation:
Clauses:
app([], Y, Z) :- ','(!, eq(Y, Z)).
app(X, Y, .(H, Z)) :- ','(head(X, H), ','(tail(X, T), app(T, Y, Z))).
head([], X1).
head(.(X, X2), X).
tail([], []).
tail(.(X3, Xs), Xs).
eq(X, X).
Query: app(g,a,a)
(1) PrologToPiTRSViaGraphTransformerProof (SOUND transformation)
Transformed Prolog program to (Pi-)TRS.
(2) Obligation:
Pi-finite rewrite system:
The TRS R consists of the following rules:
appA_in_gaa([], T12, T12) → appA_out_gaa([], T12, T12)
appA_in_gaa(.(T41, T42), T31, .(T41, T32)) → U1_gaa(T41, T42, T31, T32, appA_in_gaa(T42, T31, T32))
U1_gaa(T41, T42, T31, T32, appA_out_gaa(T42, T31, T32)) → appA_out_gaa(.(T41, T42), T31, .(T41, T32))
The argument filtering Pi contains the following mapping:
appA_in_gaa(
x1,
x2,
x3) =
appA_in_gaa(
x1)
[] =
[]
appA_out_gaa(
x1,
x2,
x3) =
appA_out_gaa(
x1)
.(
x1,
x2) =
.(
x1,
x2)
U1_gaa(
x1,
x2,
x3,
x4,
x5) =
U1_gaa(
x1,
x2,
x5)
(3) DependencyPairsProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)
Using Dependency Pairs [AG00,LOPSTR] we result in the following initial DP problem:
Pi DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:
APPA_IN_GAA(.(T41, T42), T31, .(T41, T32)) → U1_GAA(T41, T42, T31, T32, appA_in_gaa(T42, T31, T32))
APPA_IN_GAA(.(T41, T42), T31, .(T41, T32)) → APPA_IN_GAA(T42, T31, T32)
The TRS R consists of the following rules:
appA_in_gaa([], T12, T12) → appA_out_gaa([], T12, T12)
appA_in_gaa(.(T41, T42), T31, .(T41, T32)) → U1_gaa(T41, T42, T31, T32, appA_in_gaa(T42, T31, T32))
U1_gaa(T41, T42, T31, T32, appA_out_gaa(T42, T31, T32)) → appA_out_gaa(.(T41, T42), T31, .(T41, T32))
The argument filtering Pi contains the following mapping:
appA_in_gaa(
x1,
x2,
x3) =
appA_in_gaa(
x1)
[] =
[]
appA_out_gaa(
x1,
x2,
x3) =
appA_out_gaa(
x1)
.(
x1,
x2) =
.(
x1,
x2)
U1_gaa(
x1,
x2,
x3,
x4,
x5) =
U1_gaa(
x1,
x2,
x5)
APPA_IN_GAA(
x1,
x2,
x3) =
APPA_IN_GAA(
x1)
U1_GAA(
x1,
x2,
x3,
x4,
x5) =
U1_GAA(
x1,
x2,
x5)
We have to consider all (P,R,Pi)-chains
(4) Obligation:
Pi DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:
APPA_IN_GAA(.(T41, T42), T31, .(T41, T32)) → U1_GAA(T41, T42, T31, T32, appA_in_gaa(T42, T31, T32))
APPA_IN_GAA(.(T41, T42), T31, .(T41, T32)) → APPA_IN_GAA(T42, T31, T32)
The TRS R consists of the following rules:
appA_in_gaa([], T12, T12) → appA_out_gaa([], T12, T12)
appA_in_gaa(.(T41, T42), T31, .(T41, T32)) → U1_gaa(T41, T42, T31, T32, appA_in_gaa(T42, T31, T32))
U1_gaa(T41, T42, T31, T32, appA_out_gaa(T42, T31, T32)) → appA_out_gaa(.(T41, T42), T31, .(T41, T32))
The argument filtering Pi contains the following mapping:
appA_in_gaa(
x1,
x2,
x3) =
appA_in_gaa(
x1)
[] =
[]
appA_out_gaa(
x1,
x2,
x3) =
appA_out_gaa(
x1)
.(
x1,
x2) =
.(
x1,
x2)
U1_gaa(
x1,
x2,
x3,
x4,
x5) =
U1_gaa(
x1,
x2,
x5)
APPA_IN_GAA(
x1,
x2,
x3) =
APPA_IN_GAA(
x1)
U1_GAA(
x1,
x2,
x3,
x4,
x5) =
U1_GAA(
x1,
x2,
x5)
We have to consider all (P,R,Pi)-chains
(5) DependencyGraphProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)
The approximation of the Dependency Graph [LOPSTR] contains 1 SCC with 1 less node.
(6) Obligation:
Pi DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:
APPA_IN_GAA(.(T41, T42), T31, .(T41, T32)) → APPA_IN_GAA(T42, T31, T32)
The TRS R consists of the following rules:
appA_in_gaa([], T12, T12) → appA_out_gaa([], T12, T12)
appA_in_gaa(.(T41, T42), T31, .(T41, T32)) → U1_gaa(T41, T42, T31, T32, appA_in_gaa(T42, T31, T32))
U1_gaa(T41, T42, T31, T32, appA_out_gaa(T42, T31, T32)) → appA_out_gaa(.(T41, T42), T31, .(T41, T32))
The argument filtering Pi contains the following mapping:
appA_in_gaa(
x1,
x2,
x3) =
appA_in_gaa(
x1)
[] =
[]
appA_out_gaa(
x1,
x2,
x3) =
appA_out_gaa(
x1)
.(
x1,
x2) =
.(
x1,
x2)
U1_gaa(
x1,
x2,
x3,
x4,
x5) =
U1_gaa(
x1,
x2,
x5)
APPA_IN_GAA(
x1,
x2,
x3) =
APPA_IN_GAA(
x1)
We have to consider all (P,R,Pi)-chains
(7) UsableRulesProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)
For (infinitary) constructor rewriting [LOPSTR] we can delete all non-usable rules from R.
(8) Obligation:
Pi DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:
APPA_IN_GAA(.(T41, T42), T31, .(T41, T32)) → APPA_IN_GAA(T42, T31, T32)
R is empty.
The argument filtering Pi contains the following mapping:
.(
x1,
x2) =
.(
x1,
x2)
APPA_IN_GAA(
x1,
x2,
x3) =
APPA_IN_GAA(
x1)
We have to consider all (P,R,Pi)-chains
(9) PiDPToQDPProof (SOUND transformation)
Transforming (infinitary) constructor rewriting Pi-DP problem [LOPSTR] into ordinary QDP problem [LPAR04] by application of Pi.
(10) Obligation:
Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:
APPA_IN_GAA(.(T41, T42)) → APPA_IN_GAA(T42)
R is empty.
Q is empty.
We have to consider all (P,Q,R)-chains.
(11) QDPSizeChangeProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)
By using the subterm criterion [SUBTERM_CRITERION] together with the size-change analysis [AAECC05] we have proven that there are no infinite chains for this DP problem.
From the DPs we obtained the following set of size-change graphs:
- APPA_IN_GAA(.(T41, T42)) → APPA_IN_GAA(T42)
The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1
(12) YES