(0) Obligation:

Clauses:

len1([], 0).
len1(.(X1, Ts), N) :- ','(len1(Ts, M), eq(N, s(M))).
eq(X, X).

Query: len1(g,a)

(1) PrologToDTProblemTransformerProof (SOUND transformation)

Built DT problem from termination graph DT10.

(2) Obligation:

Triples:

len1A(.(X1, X2), X3) :- len1A(X2, X4).
len1B(.(X1, .(X2, X3)), X4) :- len1A(X3, X5).

Clauses:

len1cA([], 0).
len1cA(.(X1, X2), s(X3)) :- len1cA(X2, X3).

Afs:

len1B(x1, x2)  =  len1B(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:
len1B_in: (b,f)
len1A_in: (b,f)
Transforming TRIPLES into the following Term Rewriting System:
Pi DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:

LEN1B_IN_GA(.(X1, .(X2, X3)), X4) → U2_GA(X1, X2, X3, X4, len1A_in_ga(X3, X5))
LEN1B_IN_GA(.(X1, .(X2, X3)), X4) → LEN1A_IN_GA(X3, X5)
LEN1A_IN_GA(.(X1, X2), X3) → U1_GA(X1, X2, X3, len1A_in_ga(X2, X4))
LEN1A_IN_GA(.(X1, X2), X3) → LEN1A_IN_GA(X2, X4)

R is empty.
The argument filtering Pi contains the following mapping:
.(x1, x2)  =  .(x1, x2)
len1A_in_ga(x1, x2)  =  len1A_in_ga(x1)
LEN1B_IN_GA(x1, x2)  =  LEN1B_IN_GA(x1)
U2_GA(x1, x2, x3, x4, x5)  =  U2_GA(x1, x2, x3, x5)
LEN1A_IN_GA(x1, x2)  =  LEN1A_IN_GA(x1)
U1_GA(x1, x2, x3, x4)  =  U1_GA(x1, x2, x4)

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:

LEN1B_IN_GA(.(X1, .(X2, X3)), X4) → U2_GA(X1, X2, X3, X4, len1A_in_ga(X3, X5))
LEN1B_IN_GA(.(X1, .(X2, X3)), X4) → LEN1A_IN_GA(X3, X5)
LEN1A_IN_GA(.(X1, X2), X3) → U1_GA(X1, X2, X3, len1A_in_ga(X2, X4))
LEN1A_IN_GA(.(X1, X2), X3) → LEN1A_IN_GA(X2, X4)

R is empty.
The argument filtering Pi contains the following mapping:
.(x1, x2)  =  .(x1, x2)
len1A_in_ga(x1, x2)  =  len1A_in_ga(x1)
LEN1B_IN_GA(x1, x2)  =  LEN1B_IN_GA(x1)
U2_GA(x1, x2, x3, x4, x5)  =  U2_GA(x1, x2, x3, x5)
LEN1A_IN_GA(x1, x2)  =  LEN1A_IN_GA(x1)
U1_GA(x1, x2, x3, x4)  =  U1_GA(x1, x2, x4)

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

(5) DependencyGraphProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

The approximation of the Dependency Graph [LOPSTR] contains 1 SCC with 3 less nodes.

(6) Obligation:

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

LEN1A_IN_GA(.(X1, X2), X3) → LEN1A_IN_GA(X2, X4)

R is empty.
The argument filtering Pi contains the following mapping:
.(x1, x2)  =  .(x1, x2)
LEN1A_IN_GA(x1, x2)  =  LEN1A_IN_GA(x1)

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

(7) PiDPToQDPProof (SOUND 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:

LEN1A_IN_GA(.(X1, X2)) → LEN1A_IN_GA(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:

  • LEN1A_IN_GA(.(X1, X2)) → LEN1A_IN_GA(X2)
    The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1

(10) YES