Left Termination of the query pattern
list(g)
w.r.t. the given Prolog program could successfully be proven:

(0) Obligation:

Clauses:

list([]) :- !.
list(X) :- ','(tail(X, T), list(T)).
tail([], []).
tail(.(X, Xs), Xs).

Query: list(g)

(1) PrologToDTProblemTransformerProof (SOUND transformation)

Built DT problem from termination graph DT10.

digraph dp_graph {
node [outthreshold=100, inthreshold=100];
1 [label="A: list(T1)\n\nT1 is ground", fontsize=16, style=filled, fillcolor=lightyellow, color=red];
2 [label="2: list(T1), SCOPE: 1, CLAUSE: 0 | list(T1), SCOPE: 1, CLAUSE: 1\n\nT1 is ground", fontsize=16, style=filled, fillcolor=lightyellow];
3 [label="3: !_1 | list([]), SCOPE: 1, CLAUSE: 1\n\n", fontsize=16, style=filled, fillcolor=lightyellow];
4 [label="4: list(T1), SCOPE: 1, CLAUSE: 1\n\nT1 is ground\nlist(T1) !=? list([])", fontsize=16, style=filled, fillcolor=lightyellow];
5 [label="5: true\n\n", fontsize=16, style=filled, fillcolor=lightyellow];
6 [label="6: \n\n", fontsize=16, style=filled, fillcolor=lightyellow];
7 [label="7: ','(tail(T3, X3), list(X3))\n\nT3 is ground\nX3 is free\nlist(T3) !=? list([])", fontsize=16, style=filled, fillcolor=lightyellow];
8 [label="8: ','(tail(T3, X3), list(X3)), SCOPE: 2, CLAUSE: 2 | ','(tail(T3, X3), list(X3)), SCOPE: 2, CLAUSE: 3\n\nT3 is ground\nX3 is free\nlist(T3) !=? list([])", fontsize=16, style=filled, fillcolor=lightyellow];
9 [label="9: ','(tail(T3, X3), list(X3)), SCOPE: 2, CLAUSE: 3\n\nT3 is ground\nX3 is free\nlist(T3) !=? list([])", fontsize=16, style=filled, fillcolor=lightyellow];
10 [label="10: list(T9)\n\nT9 is ground", fontsize=16, style=filled, fillcolor=lightyellow];
11 [label="11: \n\n", fontsize=16, style=filled, fillcolor=lightyellow];
12 [label="CASE", fontsize=14, style = filled, fillcolor = lightcyan];
1 -> 12 [arrowhead = none ];
12 -> 2;

13 [label="EVAL with clause\nlist([]) :- !_1.\nand substitutionT1 -> []", fontsize=14, style = filled, fillcolor = lightblue];
2 -> 13 [arrowhead = none ];
13 -> 3;

14 [label="EVAL-BACKTRACK", fontsize=14, style = filled, fillcolor = lightgreen];
2 -> 14 [arrowhead = none ];
14 -> 4;

15 [label="CUT", fontsize=14, style = filled, fillcolor = lightgreen];
3 -> 15 [arrowhead = none ];
15 -> 5;

16 [label="ONLY EVAL with clause\nlist(X2) :- ','(tail(X2, X3), list(X3)).\nand substitutionT1 -> T3,\nX2 -> T3", fontsize=14, style = filled, fillcolor = lightblue];
4 -> 16 [arrowhead = none ];
16 -> 7;

17 [label="SUCCESS", fontsize=14, style = filled, fillcolor = lightgreen];
5 -> 17 [arrowhead = none ];
17 -> 6;

18 [label="CASE", fontsize=14, style = filled, fillcolor = lightcyan];
7 -> 18 [arrowhead = none ];
18 -> 8;

19 [label="BACKTRACK\nfor clause: tail([], [])\nwith clash: (list(T3), list([]))", fontsize=14, style = filled, fillcolor = lightgreen];
8 -> 19 [arrowhead = none ];
19 -> 9;

20 [label="EVAL with clause\ntail(.(X8, X9), X9).\nand substitutionX8 -> T8,\nX9 -> T9,\nT3 -> .(T8, T9),\nX3 -> T9", fontsize=14, style = filled, fillcolor = lightblue];
9 -> 20 [arrowhead = none ];
20 -> 10;

21 [label="EVAL-BACKTRACK", fontsize=14, style = filled, fillcolor = lightgreen];
9 -> 21 [arrowhead = none ];
21 -> 11;

22 [label="INSTANCE with matching:\nT1 -> T9", fontsize=14, style = filled, fillcolor = lightgrey];
10 -> 22 [arrowhead = none , style=dashed];
22 -> 1[style=dashed];

}

(2) Obligation:

Triples:

listA(.(X1, X2)) :- listA(X2).

Clauses:

listcA([]).
listcA(.(X1, X2)) :- listcA(X2).

Afs:

listA(x1)  =  listA(x1)

(3) TriplesToPiDPProof (SOUND transformation)

We use the technique of [DT09]. With regard to the inferred argument filtering the predicates were used in the following modes:
listA_in: (b)
Transforming TRIPLES into the following Term Rewriting System:
Pi DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:

LISTA_IN_G(.(X1, X2)) → U1_G(X1, X2, listA_in_g(X2))
LISTA_IN_G(.(X1, X2)) → LISTA_IN_G(X2)

R is empty.
Pi is empty.
We have to consider all (P,R,Pi)-chains

Infinitary Constructor Rewriting Termination of PiDP implies Termination of TRIPLES

(4) Obligation:

Pi DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:

LISTA_IN_G(.(X1, X2)) → U1_G(X1, X2, listA_in_g(X2))
LISTA_IN_G(.(X1, X2)) → LISTA_IN_G(X2)

R is empty.
Pi is empty.
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:

LISTA_IN_G(.(X1, X2)) → LISTA_IN_G(X2)

R is empty.
Pi is empty.
We have to consider all (P,R,Pi)-chains

(7) PiDPToQDPProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

Transforming (infinitary) constructor rewriting Pi-DP problem [LOPSTR] into ordinary QDP problem [LPAR04] by application of Pi.

(8) Obligation:

Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:

LISTA_IN_G(.(X1, X2)) → LISTA_IN_G(X2)

R is empty.
Q is empty.
We have to consider all (P,Q,R)-chains.

(9) 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:

• LISTA_IN_G(.(X1, X2)) → LISTA_IN_G(X2)
  The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1

(10) YES