(0) Obligation:

Clauses:

p(.(X, [])).
p(.(s(s(X)), .(Y, Xs))) :- ','(p(.(X, .(Y, Xs))), ','(mult(X, Y, Z), p(.(Z, Xs)))).
p(.(0, Xs)) :- p(Xs).
sum(X, 0, X).
sum(X, s(Y), s(Z)) :- sum(X, Y, Z).
mult(X1, 0, 0).
mult(X, s(Y), Z) :- ','(mult(X, Y, W), sum(W, X, Z)).

Query: p(g)

(1) PrologToTRSTransformerProof (SOUND transformation)

Transformed Prolog program to TRS.

(2) Obligation:

Q restricted rewrite system:
The TRS R consists of the following rules:

f1_in(.(T6, [])) → f1_out1
f1_in(.(s(s(T19)), .(T20, T21))) → U1(f46_in(T19, T20, T21), .(s(s(T19)), .(T20, T21)))
U1(f46_out1(X24), .(s(s(T19)), .(T20, T21))) → f1_out1
f1_in(.(0, T66)) → U2(f1_in(T66), .(0, T66))
U2(f1_out1, .(0, T66)) → f1_out1
f58_in(T35, 0) → f58_out1(0)
f58_in(T40, s(T41)) → U3(f82_in(T40, T41), T40, s(T41))
U3(f82_out1(X50, X51), T40, s(T41)) → f58_out1(X51)
f89_in(T53, 0) → f89_out1(T53)
f89_in(T58, s(T59)) → U4(f89_in(T58, T59), T58, s(T59))
U4(f89_out1(X74), T58, s(T59)) → f89_out1(s(X74))
f46_in(T19, T20, T21) → U5(f1_in(.(T19, .(T20, T21))), T19, T20, T21)
U5(f1_out1, T19, T20, T21) → U6(f53_in(T19, T20, T21), T19, T20, T21)
U6(f53_out1(X24), T19, T20, T21) → f46_out1(X24)
f53_in(T19, T20, T21) → U7(f58_in(T19, T20), T19, T20, T21)
U7(f58_out1(T28), T19, T20, T21) → U8(f1_in(.(T28, T21)), T19, T20, T21, T28)
U8(f1_out1, T19, T20, T21, T28) → f53_out1(T28)
f82_in(T40, T41) → U9(f58_in(T40, T41), T40, T41)
U9(f58_out1(T44), T40, T41) → U10(f89_in(T44, T40), T40, T41, T44)
U10(f89_out1(X51), T40, T41, T44) → f82_out1(T44, X51)

Q is empty.

(3) DependencyPairsProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

Using Dependency Pairs [AG00,LPAR04] we result in the following initial DP problem.

(4) Obligation:

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

F1_IN(.(s(s(T19)), .(T20, T21))) → U11(f46_in(T19, T20, T21), .(s(s(T19)), .(T20, T21)))
F1_IN(.(s(s(T19)), .(T20, T21))) → F46_IN(T19, T20, T21)
F1_IN(.(0, T66)) → U21(f1_in(T66), .(0, T66))
F1_IN(.(0, T66)) → F1_IN(T66)
F58_IN(T40, s(T41)) → U31(f82_in(T40, T41), T40, s(T41))
F58_IN(T40, s(T41)) → F82_IN(T40, T41)
F89_IN(T58, s(T59)) → U41(f89_in(T58, T59), T58, s(T59))
F89_IN(T58, s(T59)) → F89_IN(T58, T59)
F46_IN(T19, T20, T21) → U51(f1_in(.(T19, .(T20, T21))), T19, T20, T21)
F46_IN(T19, T20, T21) → F1_IN(.(T19, .(T20, T21)))
U51(f1_out1, T19, T20, T21) → U61(f53_in(T19, T20, T21), T19, T20, T21)
U51(f1_out1, T19, T20, T21) → F53_IN(T19, T20, T21)
F53_IN(T19, T20, T21) → U71(f58_in(T19, T20), T19, T20, T21)
F53_IN(T19, T20, T21) → F58_IN(T19, T20)
U71(f58_out1(T28), T19, T20, T21) → U81(f1_in(.(T28, T21)), T19, T20, T21, T28)
U71(f58_out1(T28), T19, T20, T21) → F1_IN(.(T28, T21))
F82_IN(T40, T41) → U91(f58_in(T40, T41), T40, T41)
F82_IN(T40, T41) → F58_IN(T40, T41)
U91(f58_out1(T44), T40, T41) → U101(f89_in(T44, T40), T40, T41, T44)
U91(f58_out1(T44), T40, T41) → F89_IN(T44, T40)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

f1_in(.(T6, [])) → f1_out1
f1_in(.(s(s(T19)), .(T20, T21))) → U1(f46_in(T19, T20, T21), .(s(s(T19)), .(T20, T21)))
U1(f46_out1(X24), .(s(s(T19)), .(T20, T21))) → f1_out1
f1_in(.(0, T66)) → U2(f1_in(T66), .(0, T66))
U2(f1_out1, .(0, T66)) → f1_out1
f58_in(T35, 0) → f58_out1(0)
f58_in(T40, s(T41)) → U3(f82_in(T40, T41), T40, s(T41))
U3(f82_out1(X50, X51), T40, s(T41)) → f58_out1(X51)
f89_in(T53, 0) → f89_out1(T53)
f89_in(T58, s(T59)) → U4(f89_in(T58, T59), T58, s(T59))
U4(f89_out1(X74), T58, s(T59)) → f89_out1(s(X74))
f46_in(T19, T20, T21) → U5(f1_in(.(T19, .(T20, T21))), T19, T20, T21)
U5(f1_out1, T19, T20, T21) → U6(f53_in(T19, T20, T21), T19, T20, T21)
U6(f53_out1(X24), T19, T20, T21) → f46_out1(X24)
f53_in(T19, T20, T21) → U7(f58_in(T19, T20), T19, T20, T21)
U7(f58_out1(T28), T19, T20, T21) → U8(f1_in(.(T28, T21)), T19, T20, T21, T28)
U8(f1_out1, T19, T20, T21, T28) → f53_out1(T28)
f82_in(T40, T41) → U9(f58_in(T40, T41), T40, T41)
U9(f58_out1(T44), T40, T41) → U10(f89_in(T44, T40), T40, T41, T44)
U10(f89_out1(X51), T40, T41, T44) → f82_out1(T44, X51)

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

(5) DependencyGraphProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

The approximation of the Dependency Graph [LPAR04,FROCOS05,EDGSTAR] contains 3 SCCs with 10 less nodes.

(6) Complex Obligation (AND)

(7) Obligation:

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

F89_IN(T58, s(T59)) → F89_IN(T58, T59)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

f1_in(.(T6, [])) → f1_out1
f1_in(.(s(s(T19)), .(T20, T21))) → U1(f46_in(T19, T20, T21), .(s(s(T19)), .(T20, T21)))
U1(f46_out1(X24), .(s(s(T19)), .(T20, T21))) → f1_out1
f1_in(.(0, T66)) → U2(f1_in(T66), .(0, T66))
U2(f1_out1, .(0, T66)) → f1_out1
f58_in(T35, 0) → f58_out1(0)
f58_in(T40, s(T41)) → U3(f82_in(T40, T41), T40, s(T41))
U3(f82_out1(X50, X51), T40, s(T41)) → f58_out1(X51)
f89_in(T53, 0) → f89_out1(T53)
f89_in(T58, s(T59)) → U4(f89_in(T58, T59), T58, s(T59))
U4(f89_out1(X74), T58, s(T59)) → f89_out1(s(X74))
f46_in(T19, T20, T21) → U5(f1_in(.(T19, .(T20, T21))), T19, T20, T21)
U5(f1_out1, T19, T20, T21) → U6(f53_in(T19, T20, T21), T19, T20, T21)
U6(f53_out1(X24), T19, T20, T21) → f46_out1(X24)
f53_in(T19, T20, T21) → U7(f58_in(T19, T20), T19, T20, T21)
U7(f58_out1(T28), T19, T20, T21) → U8(f1_in(.(T28, T21)), T19, T20, T21, T28)
U8(f1_out1, T19, T20, T21, T28) → f53_out1(T28)
f82_in(T40, T41) → U9(f58_in(T40, T41), T40, T41)
U9(f58_out1(T44), T40, T41) → U10(f89_in(T44, T40), T40, T41, T44)
U10(f89_out1(X51), T40, T41, T44) → f82_out1(T44, X51)

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

(8) UsableRulesProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

We can use the usable rules and reduction pair processor [LPAR04] with the Ce-compatible extension of the polynomial order that maps every function symbol to the sum of its arguments. Then, we can delete all non-usable rules [FROCOS05] from R.

(9) Obligation:

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

F89_IN(T58, s(T59)) → F89_IN(T58, T59)

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

(10) 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:

  • F89_IN(T58, s(T59)) → F89_IN(T58, T59)
    The graph contains the following edges 1 >= 1, 2 > 2

(11) YES

(12) Obligation:

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

F58_IN(T40, s(T41)) → F82_IN(T40, T41)
F82_IN(T40, T41) → F58_IN(T40, T41)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

f1_in(.(T6, [])) → f1_out1
f1_in(.(s(s(T19)), .(T20, T21))) → U1(f46_in(T19, T20, T21), .(s(s(T19)), .(T20, T21)))
U1(f46_out1(X24), .(s(s(T19)), .(T20, T21))) → f1_out1
f1_in(.(0, T66)) → U2(f1_in(T66), .(0, T66))
U2(f1_out1, .(0, T66)) → f1_out1
f58_in(T35, 0) → f58_out1(0)
f58_in(T40, s(T41)) → U3(f82_in(T40, T41), T40, s(T41))
U3(f82_out1(X50, X51), T40, s(T41)) → f58_out1(X51)
f89_in(T53, 0) → f89_out1(T53)
f89_in(T58, s(T59)) → U4(f89_in(T58, T59), T58, s(T59))
U4(f89_out1(X74), T58, s(T59)) → f89_out1(s(X74))
f46_in(T19, T20, T21) → U5(f1_in(.(T19, .(T20, T21))), T19, T20, T21)
U5(f1_out1, T19, T20, T21) → U6(f53_in(T19, T20, T21), T19, T20, T21)
U6(f53_out1(X24), T19, T20, T21) → f46_out1(X24)
f53_in(T19, T20, T21) → U7(f58_in(T19, T20), T19, T20, T21)
U7(f58_out1(T28), T19, T20, T21) → U8(f1_in(.(T28, T21)), T19, T20, T21, T28)
U8(f1_out1, T19, T20, T21, T28) → f53_out1(T28)
f82_in(T40, T41) → U9(f58_in(T40, T41), T40, T41)
U9(f58_out1(T44), T40, T41) → U10(f89_in(T44, T40), T40, T41, T44)
U10(f89_out1(X51), T40, T41, T44) → f82_out1(T44, X51)

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

(13) UsableRulesProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

We can use the usable rules and reduction pair processor [LPAR04] with the Ce-compatible extension of the polynomial order that maps every function symbol to the sum of its arguments. Then, we can delete all non-usable rules [FROCOS05] from R.

(14) Obligation:

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

F58_IN(T40, s(T41)) → F82_IN(T40, T41)
F82_IN(T40, T41) → F58_IN(T40, T41)

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

(15) 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:

  • F82_IN(T40, T41) → F58_IN(T40, T41)
    The graph contains the following edges 1 >= 1, 2 >= 2

  • F58_IN(T40, s(T41)) → F82_IN(T40, T41)
    The graph contains the following edges 1 >= 1, 2 > 2

(16) YES

(17) Obligation:

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

F1_IN(.(s(s(T19)), .(T20, T21))) → F46_IN(T19, T20, T21)
F46_IN(T19, T20, T21) → U51(f1_in(.(T19, .(T20, T21))), T19, T20, T21)
U51(f1_out1, T19, T20, T21) → F53_IN(T19, T20, T21)
F53_IN(T19, T20, T21) → U71(f58_in(T19, T20), T19, T20, T21)
U71(f58_out1(T28), T19, T20, T21) → F1_IN(.(T28, T21))
F1_IN(.(0, T66)) → F1_IN(T66)
F46_IN(T19, T20, T21) → F1_IN(.(T19, .(T20, T21)))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

f1_in(.(T6, [])) → f1_out1
f1_in(.(s(s(T19)), .(T20, T21))) → U1(f46_in(T19, T20, T21), .(s(s(T19)), .(T20, T21)))
U1(f46_out1(X24), .(s(s(T19)), .(T20, T21))) → f1_out1
f1_in(.(0, T66)) → U2(f1_in(T66), .(0, T66))
U2(f1_out1, .(0, T66)) → f1_out1
f58_in(T35, 0) → f58_out1(0)
f58_in(T40, s(T41)) → U3(f82_in(T40, T41), T40, s(T41))
U3(f82_out1(X50, X51), T40, s(T41)) → f58_out1(X51)
f89_in(T53, 0) → f89_out1(T53)
f89_in(T58, s(T59)) → U4(f89_in(T58, T59), T58, s(T59))
U4(f89_out1(X74), T58, s(T59)) → f89_out1(s(X74))
f46_in(T19, T20, T21) → U5(f1_in(.(T19, .(T20, T21))), T19, T20, T21)
U5(f1_out1, T19, T20, T21) → U6(f53_in(T19, T20, T21), T19, T20, T21)
U6(f53_out1(X24), T19, T20, T21) → f46_out1(X24)
f53_in(T19, T20, T21) → U7(f58_in(T19, T20), T19, T20, T21)
U7(f58_out1(T28), T19, T20, T21) → U8(f1_in(.(T28, T21)), T19, T20, T21, T28)
U8(f1_out1, T19, T20, T21, T28) → f53_out1(T28)
f82_in(T40, T41) → U9(f58_in(T40, T41), T40, T41)
U9(f58_out1(T44), T40, T41) → U10(f89_in(T44, T40), T40, T41, T44)
U10(f89_out1(X51), T40, T41, T44) → f82_out1(T44, X51)

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

(18) QDPOrderProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

We use the reduction pair processor [LPAR04,JAR06].


The following pairs can be oriented strictly and are deleted.


F1_IN(.(0, T66)) → F1_IN(T66)
The remaining pairs can at least be oriented weakly.
Used ordering: Polynomial interpretation [POLO]:

POL(.(x1, x2)) = x1 + x2   
POL(0) = 1   
POL(F1_IN(x1)) = x1   
POL(F46_IN(x1, x2, x3)) = x1 + x2 + x3   
POL(F53_IN(x1, x2, x3)) = x2 + x3   
POL(U1(x1, x2)) = 0   
POL(U10(x1, x2, x3, x4)) = x1   
POL(U2(x1, x2)) = 0   
POL(U3(x1, x2, x3)) = x1   
POL(U4(x1, x2, x3)) = x1   
POL(U5(x1, x2, x3, x4)) = 1   
POL(U51(x1, x2, x3, x4)) = x3 + x4   
POL(U6(x1, x2, x3, x4)) = 1   
POL(U7(x1, x2, x3, x4)) = 0   
POL(U71(x1, x2, x3, x4)) = x1 + x4   
POL(U8(x1, x2, x3, x4, x5)) = 0   
POL(U9(x1, x2, x3)) = x1   
POL([]) = 0   
POL(f1_in(x1)) = 0   
POL(f1_out1) = 0   
POL(f46_in(x1, x2, x3)) = 1 + x3   
POL(f46_out1(x1)) = 0   
POL(f53_in(x1, x2, x3)) = 1   
POL(f53_out1(x1)) = 0   
POL(f58_in(x1, x2)) = x2   
POL(f58_out1(x1)) = x1   
POL(f82_in(x1, x2)) = x2   
POL(f82_out1(x1, x2)) = x2   
POL(f89_in(x1, x2)) = x1   
POL(f89_out1(x1)) = x1   
POL(s(x1)) = x1   

The following usable rules [FROCOS05] with respect to the argument filtering of the ordering [JAR06] were oriented:

f58_in(T35, 0) → f58_out1(0)
f58_in(T40, s(T41)) → U3(f82_in(T40, T41), T40, s(T41))
U3(f82_out1(X50, X51), T40, s(T41)) → f58_out1(X51)
f82_in(T40, T41) → U9(f58_in(T40, T41), T40, T41)
U9(f58_out1(T44), T40, T41) → U10(f89_in(T44, T40), T40, T41, T44)
f89_in(T53, 0) → f89_out1(T53)
f89_in(T58, s(T59)) → U4(f89_in(T58, T59), T58, s(T59))
U10(f89_out1(X51), T40, T41, T44) → f82_out1(T44, X51)
U4(f89_out1(X74), T58, s(T59)) → f89_out1(s(X74))

(19) Obligation:

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

F1_IN(.(s(s(T19)), .(T20, T21))) → F46_IN(T19, T20, T21)
F46_IN(T19, T20, T21) → U51(f1_in(.(T19, .(T20, T21))), T19, T20, T21)
U51(f1_out1, T19, T20, T21) → F53_IN(T19, T20, T21)
F53_IN(T19, T20, T21) → U71(f58_in(T19, T20), T19, T20, T21)
U71(f58_out1(T28), T19, T20, T21) → F1_IN(.(T28, T21))
F46_IN(T19, T20, T21) → F1_IN(.(T19, .(T20, T21)))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

f1_in(.(T6, [])) → f1_out1
f1_in(.(s(s(T19)), .(T20, T21))) → U1(f46_in(T19, T20, T21), .(s(s(T19)), .(T20, T21)))
U1(f46_out1(X24), .(s(s(T19)), .(T20, T21))) → f1_out1
f1_in(.(0, T66)) → U2(f1_in(T66), .(0, T66))
U2(f1_out1, .(0, T66)) → f1_out1
f58_in(T35, 0) → f58_out1(0)
f58_in(T40, s(T41)) → U3(f82_in(T40, T41), T40, s(T41))
U3(f82_out1(X50, X51), T40, s(T41)) → f58_out1(X51)
f89_in(T53, 0) → f89_out1(T53)
f89_in(T58, s(T59)) → U4(f89_in(T58, T59), T58, s(T59))
U4(f89_out1(X74), T58, s(T59)) → f89_out1(s(X74))
f46_in(T19, T20, T21) → U5(f1_in(.(T19, .(T20, T21))), T19, T20, T21)
U5(f1_out1, T19, T20, T21) → U6(f53_in(T19, T20, T21), T19, T20, T21)
U6(f53_out1(X24), T19, T20, T21) → f46_out1(X24)
f53_in(T19, T20, T21) → U7(f58_in(T19, T20), T19, T20, T21)
U7(f58_out1(T28), T19, T20, T21) → U8(f1_in(.(T28, T21)), T19, T20, T21, T28)
U8(f1_out1, T19, T20, T21, T28) → f53_out1(T28)
f82_in(T40, T41) → U9(f58_in(T40, T41), T40, T41)
U9(f58_out1(T44), T40, T41) → U10(f89_in(T44, T40), T40, T41, T44)
U10(f89_out1(X51), T40, T41, T44) → f82_out1(T44, X51)

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

(20) QDPOrderProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

We use the reduction pair processor [LPAR04,JAR06].


The following pairs can be oriented strictly and are deleted.


U71(f58_out1(T28), T19, T20, T21) → F1_IN(.(T28, T21))
The remaining pairs can at least be oriented weakly.
Used ordering: Polynomial Order [NEGPOLO,POLO] with Interpretation:

POL( U51(x1, ..., x4) ) = 2x4 + 2


POL( f1_in(x1) ) = max{0, -2}


POL( .(x1, x2) ) = x2 + 1


POL( s(x1) ) = 0


POL( U1(x1, x2) ) = max{0, 2x1 - 1}


POL( f46_in(x1, ..., x3) ) = x2 + x3


POL( 0 ) = 2


POL( U2(x1, x2) ) = max{0, -1}


POL( U71(x1, ..., x4) ) = 2x4 + 2


POL( U7(x1, ..., x4) ) = 2x2 + x3 + x4 + 2


POL( f58_in(x1, x2) ) = 2x1


POL( f58_out1(x1) ) = max{0, 2x1 - 2}


POL( U3(x1, ..., x3) ) = max{0, x1 - 2}


POL( f82_in(x1, x2) ) = x1 + x2 + 1


POL( f46_out1(x1) ) = 2x1


POL( f1_out1 ) = 0


POL( U5(x1, ..., x4) ) = max{0, x1 + 2x3 + 2x4 - 2}


POL( U8(x1, ..., x5) ) = max{0, 2x1 - 2}


POL( [] ) = 2


POL( U6(x1, ..., x4) ) = 2x1 + x2 + 2x3 + x4


POL( f53_in(x1, ..., x3) ) = 2x1 + x2 + 2x3


POL( f53_out1(x1) ) = 2


POL( f82_out1(x1, x2) ) = 2x1 + x2 + 2


POL( U9(x1, ..., x3) ) = max{0, 2x1 + 2x2 + 2x3 - 1}


POL( U10(x1, ..., x4) ) = max{0, -2}


POL( f89_in(x1, x2) ) = 2x1 + x2


POL( f89_out1(x1) ) = max{0, 2x1 - 2}


POL( U4(x1, ..., x3) ) = max{0, 2x1 + x2 - 2}


POL( F1_IN(x1) ) = max{0, 2x1 - 2}


POL( F46_IN(x1, ..., x3) ) = 2x3 + 2


POL( F53_IN(x1, ..., x3) ) = 2x3 + 2



The following usable rules [FROCOS05] with respect to the argument filtering of the ordering [JAR06] were oriented:
none

(21) Obligation:

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

F1_IN(.(s(s(T19)), .(T20, T21))) → F46_IN(T19, T20, T21)
F46_IN(T19, T20, T21) → U51(f1_in(.(T19, .(T20, T21))), T19, T20, T21)
U51(f1_out1, T19, T20, T21) → F53_IN(T19, T20, T21)
F53_IN(T19, T20, T21) → U71(f58_in(T19, T20), T19, T20, T21)
F46_IN(T19, T20, T21) → F1_IN(.(T19, .(T20, T21)))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

f1_in(.(T6, [])) → f1_out1
f1_in(.(s(s(T19)), .(T20, T21))) → U1(f46_in(T19, T20, T21), .(s(s(T19)), .(T20, T21)))
U1(f46_out1(X24), .(s(s(T19)), .(T20, T21))) → f1_out1
f1_in(.(0, T66)) → U2(f1_in(T66), .(0, T66))
U2(f1_out1, .(0, T66)) → f1_out1
f58_in(T35, 0) → f58_out1(0)
f58_in(T40, s(T41)) → U3(f82_in(T40, T41), T40, s(T41))
U3(f82_out1(X50, X51), T40, s(T41)) → f58_out1(X51)
f89_in(T53, 0) → f89_out1(T53)
f89_in(T58, s(T59)) → U4(f89_in(T58, T59), T58, s(T59))
U4(f89_out1(X74), T58, s(T59)) → f89_out1(s(X74))
f46_in(T19, T20, T21) → U5(f1_in(.(T19, .(T20, T21))), T19, T20, T21)
U5(f1_out1, T19, T20, T21) → U6(f53_in(T19, T20, T21), T19, T20, T21)
U6(f53_out1(X24), T19, T20, T21) → f46_out1(X24)
f53_in(T19, T20, T21) → U7(f58_in(T19, T20), T19, T20, T21)
U7(f58_out1(T28), T19, T20, T21) → U8(f1_in(.(T28, T21)), T19, T20, T21, T28)
U8(f1_out1, T19, T20, T21, T28) → f53_out1(T28)
f82_in(T40, T41) → U9(f58_in(T40, T41), T40, T41)
U9(f58_out1(T44), T40, T41) → U10(f89_in(T44, T40), T40, T41, T44)
U10(f89_out1(X51), T40, T41, T44) → f82_out1(T44, X51)

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

(22) DependencyGraphProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

The approximation of the Dependency Graph [LPAR04,FROCOS05,EDGSTAR] contains 1 SCC with 3 less nodes.

(23) Obligation:

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

F46_IN(T19, T20, T21) → F1_IN(.(T19, .(T20, T21)))
F1_IN(.(s(s(T19)), .(T20, T21))) → F46_IN(T19, T20, T21)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

f1_in(.(T6, [])) → f1_out1
f1_in(.(s(s(T19)), .(T20, T21))) → U1(f46_in(T19, T20, T21), .(s(s(T19)), .(T20, T21)))
U1(f46_out1(X24), .(s(s(T19)), .(T20, T21))) → f1_out1
f1_in(.(0, T66)) → U2(f1_in(T66), .(0, T66))
U2(f1_out1, .(0, T66)) → f1_out1
f58_in(T35, 0) → f58_out1(0)
f58_in(T40, s(T41)) → U3(f82_in(T40, T41), T40, s(T41))
U3(f82_out1(X50, X51), T40, s(T41)) → f58_out1(X51)
f89_in(T53, 0) → f89_out1(T53)
f89_in(T58, s(T59)) → U4(f89_in(T58, T59), T58, s(T59))
U4(f89_out1(X74), T58, s(T59)) → f89_out1(s(X74))
f46_in(T19, T20, T21) → U5(f1_in(.(T19, .(T20, T21))), T19, T20, T21)
U5(f1_out1, T19, T20, T21) → U6(f53_in(T19, T20, T21), T19, T20, T21)
U6(f53_out1(X24), T19, T20, T21) → f46_out1(X24)
f53_in(T19, T20, T21) → U7(f58_in(T19, T20), T19, T20, T21)
U7(f58_out1(T28), T19, T20, T21) → U8(f1_in(.(T28, T21)), T19, T20, T21, T28)
U8(f1_out1, T19, T20, T21, T28) → f53_out1(T28)
f82_in(T40, T41) → U9(f58_in(T40, T41), T40, T41)
U9(f58_out1(T44), T40, T41) → U10(f89_in(T44, T40), T40, T41, T44)
U10(f89_out1(X51), T40, T41, T44) → f82_out1(T44, X51)

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

(24) UsableRulesProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

We can use the usable rules and reduction pair processor [LPAR04] with the Ce-compatible extension of the polynomial order that maps every function symbol to the sum of its arguments. Then, we can delete all non-usable rules [FROCOS05] from R.

(25) Obligation:

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

F46_IN(T19, T20, T21) → F1_IN(.(T19, .(T20, T21)))
F1_IN(.(s(s(T19)), .(T20, T21))) → F46_IN(T19, T20, T21)

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

(26) UsableRulesReductionPairsProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

By using the usable rules with reduction pair processor [LPAR04] with a polynomial ordering [POLO], all dependency pairs and the corresponding usable rules [FROCOS05] can be oriented non-strictly. All non-usable rules are removed, and those dependency pairs and usable rules that have been oriented strictly or contain non-usable symbols in their left-hand side are removed as well.

The following dependency pairs can be deleted:

F1_IN(.(s(s(T19)), .(T20, T21))) → F46_IN(T19, T20, T21)
No rules are removed from R.

Used ordering: POLO with Polynomial interpretation [POLO]:

POL(.(x1, x2)) = x1 + x2   
POL(F1_IN(x1)) = x1   
POL(F46_IN(x1, x2, x3)) = x1 + x2 + x3   
POL(s(x1)) = 2·x1   

(27) Obligation:

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

F46_IN(T19, T20, T21) → F1_IN(.(T19, .(T20, T21)))

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

(28) DependencyGraphProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

The approximation of the Dependency Graph [LPAR04,FROCOS05,EDGSTAR] contains 0 SCCs with 1 less node.

(29) TRUE