(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