(0) Obligation:
Clauses:
sublist(Xs, Ys) :- ','(app(X1, Zs, Ys), app(Xs, X2, Zs)).
app([], X, X).
app(.(X, Xs), Ys, .(X, Zs)) :- app(Xs, Ys, Zs).
Query: sublist(a,g)
(1) PrologToDTProblemTransformerProof (SOUND transformation)
Built DT problem from termination graph DT10.
(2) Obligation:
Triples:
appA(.(X1, X2), X3, .(X1, X4)) :- appA(X2, X3, X4).
pB([], X1, X1, X2, X3) :- appA(X2, X3, X1).
pB(.(X1, X2), X3, .(X1, X4), X5, X6) :- pB(X2, X3, X4, X5, X6).
sublistC(X1, X2) :- pB(X3, X4, X2, X1, X5).
Clauses:
appcA([], X1, X1).
appcA(.(X1, X2), X3, .(X1, X4)) :- appcA(X2, X3, X4).
qcB([], X1, X1, X2, X3) :- appcA(X2, X3, X1).
qcB(.(X1, X2), X3, .(X1, X4), X5, X6) :- qcB(X2, X3, X4, X5, X6).
Afs:
sublistC(x1, x2) = sublistC(x2)
(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:
sublistC_in: (f,b)
pB_in: (f,f,b,f,f)
appA_in: (f,f,b)
Transforming
TRIPLES into the following
Term Rewriting System:
Pi DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:
SUBLISTC_IN_AG(X1, X2) → U4_AG(X1, X2, pB_in_aagaa(X3, X4, X2, X1, X5))
SUBLISTC_IN_AG(X1, X2) → PB_IN_AAGAA(X3, X4, X2, X1, X5)
PB_IN_AAGAA([], X1, X1, X2, X3) → U2_AAGAA(X1, X2, X3, appA_in_aag(X2, X3, X1))
PB_IN_AAGAA([], X1, X1, X2, X3) → APPA_IN_AAG(X2, X3, X1)
APPA_IN_AAG(.(X1, X2), X3, .(X1, X4)) → U1_AAG(X1, X2, X3, X4, appA_in_aag(X2, X3, X4))
APPA_IN_AAG(.(X1, X2), X3, .(X1, X4)) → APPA_IN_AAG(X2, X3, X4)
PB_IN_AAGAA(.(X1, X2), X3, .(X1, X4), X5, X6) → U3_AAGAA(X1, X2, X3, X4, X5, X6, pB_in_aagaa(X2, X3, X4, X5, X6))
PB_IN_AAGAA(.(X1, X2), X3, .(X1, X4), X5, X6) → PB_IN_AAGAA(X2, X3, X4, X5, X6)
R is empty.
The argument filtering Pi contains the following mapping:
pB_in_aagaa(
x1,
x2,
x3,
x4,
x5) =
pB_in_aagaa(
x3)
appA_in_aag(
x1,
x2,
x3) =
appA_in_aag(
x3)
.(
x1,
x2) =
.(
x1,
x2)
[] =
[]
SUBLISTC_IN_AG(
x1,
x2) =
SUBLISTC_IN_AG(
x2)
U4_AG(
x1,
x2,
x3) =
U4_AG(
x2,
x3)
PB_IN_AAGAA(
x1,
x2,
x3,
x4,
x5) =
PB_IN_AAGAA(
x3)
U2_AAGAA(
x1,
x2,
x3,
x4) =
U2_AAGAA(
x1,
x4)
APPA_IN_AAG(
x1,
x2,
x3) =
APPA_IN_AAG(
x3)
U1_AAG(
x1,
x2,
x3,
x4,
x5) =
U1_AAG(
x1,
x4,
x5)
U3_AAGAA(
x1,
x2,
x3,
x4,
x5,
x6,
x7) =
U3_AAGAA(
x1,
x4,
x7)
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:
SUBLISTC_IN_AG(X1, X2) → U4_AG(X1, X2, pB_in_aagaa(X3, X4, X2, X1, X5))
SUBLISTC_IN_AG(X1, X2) → PB_IN_AAGAA(X3, X4, X2, X1, X5)
PB_IN_AAGAA([], X1, X1, X2, X3) → U2_AAGAA(X1, X2, X3, appA_in_aag(X2, X3, X1))
PB_IN_AAGAA([], X1, X1, X2, X3) → APPA_IN_AAG(X2, X3, X1)
APPA_IN_AAG(.(X1, X2), X3, .(X1, X4)) → U1_AAG(X1, X2, X3, X4, appA_in_aag(X2, X3, X4))
APPA_IN_AAG(.(X1, X2), X3, .(X1, X4)) → APPA_IN_AAG(X2, X3, X4)
PB_IN_AAGAA(.(X1, X2), X3, .(X1, X4), X5, X6) → U3_AAGAA(X1, X2, X3, X4, X5, X6, pB_in_aagaa(X2, X3, X4, X5, X6))
PB_IN_AAGAA(.(X1, X2), X3, .(X1, X4), X5, X6) → PB_IN_AAGAA(X2, X3, X4, X5, X6)
R is empty.
The argument filtering Pi contains the following mapping:
pB_in_aagaa(
x1,
x2,
x3,
x4,
x5) =
pB_in_aagaa(
x3)
appA_in_aag(
x1,
x2,
x3) =
appA_in_aag(
x3)
.(
x1,
x2) =
.(
x1,
x2)
[] =
[]
SUBLISTC_IN_AG(
x1,
x2) =
SUBLISTC_IN_AG(
x2)
U4_AG(
x1,
x2,
x3) =
U4_AG(
x2,
x3)
PB_IN_AAGAA(
x1,
x2,
x3,
x4,
x5) =
PB_IN_AAGAA(
x3)
U2_AAGAA(
x1,
x2,
x3,
x4) =
U2_AAGAA(
x1,
x4)
APPA_IN_AAG(
x1,
x2,
x3) =
APPA_IN_AAG(
x3)
U1_AAG(
x1,
x2,
x3,
x4,
x5) =
U1_AAG(
x1,
x4,
x5)
U3_AAGAA(
x1,
x2,
x3,
x4,
x5,
x6,
x7) =
U3_AAGAA(
x1,
x4,
x7)
We have to consider all (P,R,Pi)-chains
(5) DependencyGraphProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)
The approximation of the Dependency Graph [LOPSTR] contains 2 SCCs with 6 less nodes.
(6) Complex Obligation (AND)
(7) Obligation:
Pi DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:
APPA_IN_AAG(.(X1, X2), X3, .(X1, X4)) → APPA_IN_AAG(X2, X3, X4)
R is empty.
The argument filtering Pi contains the following mapping:
.(
x1,
x2) =
.(
x1,
x2)
APPA_IN_AAG(
x1,
x2,
x3) =
APPA_IN_AAG(
x3)
We have to consider all (P,R,Pi)-chains
(8) PiDPToQDPProof (SOUND transformation)
Transforming (infinitary) constructor rewriting Pi-DP problem [LOPSTR] into ordinary QDP problem [LPAR04] by application of Pi.
(9) Obligation:
Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:
APPA_IN_AAG(.(X1, X4)) → APPA_IN_AAG(X4)
R is empty.
Q is empty.
We have to consider all (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:
- APPA_IN_AAG(.(X1, X4)) → APPA_IN_AAG(X4)
The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1
(11) YES
(12) Obligation:
Pi DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:
PB_IN_AAGAA(.(X1, X2), X3, .(X1, X4), X5, X6) → PB_IN_AAGAA(X2, X3, X4, X5, X6)
R is empty.
The argument filtering Pi contains the following mapping:
.(
x1,
x2) =
.(
x1,
x2)
PB_IN_AAGAA(
x1,
x2,
x3,
x4,
x5) =
PB_IN_AAGAA(
x3)
We have to consider all (P,R,Pi)-chains
(13) PiDPToQDPProof (SOUND transformation)
Transforming (infinitary) constructor rewriting Pi-DP problem [LOPSTR] into ordinary QDP problem [LPAR04] by application of Pi.
(14) Obligation:
Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:
PB_IN_AAGAA(.(X1, X4)) → PB_IN_AAGAA(X4)
R is empty.
Q is empty.
We have to consider all (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:
- PB_IN_AAGAA(.(X1, X4)) → PB_IN_AAGAA(X4)
The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1
(16) YES