(0) Obligation:
Clauses:
list([]).
list(.(X, XS)) :- list(XS).
s2l(s(X), .(Y, Xs)) :- s2l(X, Xs).
s2l(0, []).
goal(X) :- ','(s2l(X, XS), list(XS)).
Query: goal(g)
(1) PrologToPrologProblemTransformerProof (SOUND transformation)
Built Prolog problem from termination graph ICLP10.
(2) Obligation:
Clauses:
s2lA(s(T16), .(X62, X63)) :- s2lA(T16, X63).
s2lA(0, []).
listB([]).
listB(.(T27, T29)) :- listB(T29).
goalC(s(T8)) :- s2lA(T8, X28).
goalC(s(T8)) :- ','(s2lA(T8, T22), listB(T22)).
goalC(0).
Query: goalC(g)
(3) PrologToPiTRSProof (SOUND transformation)
We use the technique of [TOCL09]. With regard to the inferred argument filtering the predicates were used in the following modes:
goalC_in: (b)
s2lA_in: (b,f)
listB_in: (b)
Transforming
Prolog into the following
Term Rewriting System:
Pi-finite rewrite system:
The TRS R consists of the following rules:
goalC_in_g(s(T8)) → U3_g(T8, s2lA_in_ga(T8, X28))
s2lA_in_ga(s(T16), .(X62, X63)) → U1_ga(T16, X62, X63, s2lA_in_ga(T16, X63))
s2lA_in_ga(0, []) → s2lA_out_ga(0, [])
U1_ga(T16, X62, X63, s2lA_out_ga(T16, X63)) → s2lA_out_ga(s(T16), .(X62, X63))
U3_g(T8, s2lA_out_ga(T8, X28)) → goalC_out_g(s(T8))
goalC_in_g(s(T8)) → U4_g(T8, s2lA_in_ga(T8, T22))
U4_g(T8, s2lA_out_ga(T8, T22)) → U5_g(T8, listB_in_g(T22))
listB_in_g([]) → listB_out_g([])
listB_in_g(.(T27, T29)) → U2_g(T27, T29, listB_in_g(T29))
U2_g(T27, T29, listB_out_g(T29)) → listB_out_g(.(T27, T29))
U5_g(T8, listB_out_g(T22)) → goalC_out_g(s(T8))
goalC_in_g(0) → goalC_out_g(0)
The argument filtering Pi contains the following mapping:
goalC_in_g(
x1) =
goalC_in_g(
x1)
s(
x1) =
s(
x1)
U3_g(
x1,
x2) =
U3_g(
x2)
s2lA_in_ga(
x1,
x2) =
s2lA_in_ga(
x1)
U1_ga(
x1,
x2,
x3,
x4) =
U1_ga(
x4)
0 =
0
s2lA_out_ga(
x1,
x2) =
s2lA_out_ga(
x2)
.(
x1,
x2) =
.(
x2)
goalC_out_g(
x1) =
goalC_out_g
U4_g(
x1,
x2) =
U4_g(
x2)
U5_g(
x1,
x2) =
U5_g(
x2)
listB_in_g(
x1) =
listB_in_g(
x1)
[] =
[]
listB_out_g(
x1) =
listB_out_g
U2_g(
x1,
x2,
x3) =
U2_g(
x3)
Infinitary Constructor Rewriting Termination of PiTRS implies Termination of Prolog
(4) Obligation:
Pi-finite rewrite system:
The TRS R consists of the following rules:
goalC_in_g(s(T8)) → U3_g(T8, s2lA_in_ga(T8, X28))
s2lA_in_ga(s(T16), .(X62, X63)) → U1_ga(T16, X62, X63, s2lA_in_ga(T16, X63))
s2lA_in_ga(0, []) → s2lA_out_ga(0, [])
U1_ga(T16, X62, X63, s2lA_out_ga(T16, X63)) → s2lA_out_ga(s(T16), .(X62, X63))
U3_g(T8, s2lA_out_ga(T8, X28)) → goalC_out_g(s(T8))
goalC_in_g(s(T8)) → U4_g(T8, s2lA_in_ga(T8, T22))
U4_g(T8, s2lA_out_ga(T8, T22)) → U5_g(T8, listB_in_g(T22))
listB_in_g([]) → listB_out_g([])
listB_in_g(.(T27, T29)) → U2_g(T27, T29, listB_in_g(T29))
U2_g(T27, T29, listB_out_g(T29)) → listB_out_g(.(T27, T29))
U5_g(T8, listB_out_g(T22)) → goalC_out_g(s(T8))
goalC_in_g(0) → goalC_out_g(0)
The argument filtering Pi contains the following mapping:
goalC_in_g(
x1) =
goalC_in_g(
x1)
s(
x1) =
s(
x1)
U3_g(
x1,
x2) =
U3_g(
x2)
s2lA_in_ga(
x1,
x2) =
s2lA_in_ga(
x1)
U1_ga(
x1,
x2,
x3,
x4) =
U1_ga(
x4)
0 =
0
s2lA_out_ga(
x1,
x2) =
s2lA_out_ga(
x2)
.(
x1,
x2) =
.(
x2)
goalC_out_g(
x1) =
goalC_out_g
U4_g(
x1,
x2) =
U4_g(
x2)
U5_g(
x1,
x2) =
U5_g(
x2)
listB_in_g(
x1) =
listB_in_g(
x1)
[] =
[]
listB_out_g(
x1) =
listB_out_g
U2_g(
x1,
x2,
x3) =
U2_g(
x3)
(5) DependencyPairsProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)
Using Dependency Pairs [AG00,LOPSTR] we result in the following initial DP problem:
Pi DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:
GOALC_IN_G(s(T8)) → U3_G(T8, s2lA_in_ga(T8, X28))
GOALC_IN_G(s(T8)) → S2LA_IN_GA(T8, X28)
S2LA_IN_GA(s(T16), .(X62, X63)) → U1_GA(T16, X62, X63, s2lA_in_ga(T16, X63))
S2LA_IN_GA(s(T16), .(X62, X63)) → S2LA_IN_GA(T16, X63)
GOALC_IN_G(s(T8)) → U4_G(T8, s2lA_in_ga(T8, T22))
U4_G(T8, s2lA_out_ga(T8, T22)) → U5_G(T8, listB_in_g(T22))
U4_G(T8, s2lA_out_ga(T8, T22)) → LISTB_IN_G(T22)
LISTB_IN_G(.(T27, T29)) → U2_G(T27, T29, listB_in_g(T29))
LISTB_IN_G(.(T27, T29)) → LISTB_IN_G(T29)
The TRS R consists of the following rules:
goalC_in_g(s(T8)) → U3_g(T8, s2lA_in_ga(T8, X28))
s2lA_in_ga(s(T16), .(X62, X63)) → U1_ga(T16, X62, X63, s2lA_in_ga(T16, X63))
s2lA_in_ga(0, []) → s2lA_out_ga(0, [])
U1_ga(T16, X62, X63, s2lA_out_ga(T16, X63)) → s2lA_out_ga(s(T16), .(X62, X63))
U3_g(T8, s2lA_out_ga(T8, X28)) → goalC_out_g(s(T8))
goalC_in_g(s(T8)) → U4_g(T8, s2lA_in_ga(T8, T22))
U4_g(T8, s2lA_out_ga(T8, T22)) → U5_g(T8, listB_in_g(T22))
listB_in_g([]) → listB_out_g([])
listB_in_g(.(T27, T29)) → U2_g(T27, T29, listB_in_g(T29))
U2_g(T27, T29, listB_out_g(T29)) → listB_out_g(.(T27, T29))
U5_g(T8, listB_out_g(T22)) → goalC_out_g(s(T8))
goalC_in_g(0) → goalC_out_g(0)
The argument filtering Pi contains the following mapping:
goalC_in_g(
x1) =
goalC_in_g(
x1)
s(
x1) =
s(
x1)
U3_g(
x1,
x2) =
U3_g(
x2)
s2lA_in_ga(
x1,
x2) =
s2lA_in_ga(
x1)
U1_ga(
x1,
x2,
x3,
x4) =
U1_ga(
x4)
0 =
0
s2lA_out_ga(
x1,
x2) =
s2lA_out_ga(
x2)
.(
x1,
x2) =
.(
x2)
goalC_out_g(
x1) =
goalC_out_g
U4_g(
x1,
x2) =
U4_g(
x2)
U5_g(
x1,
x2) =
U5_g(
x2)
listB_in_g(
x1) =
listB_in_g(
x1)
[] =
[]
listB_out_g(
x1) =
listB_out_g
U2_g(
x1,
x2,
x3) =
U2_g(
x3)
GOALC_IN_G(
x1) =
GOALC_IN_G(
x1)
U3_G(
x1,
x2) =
U3_G(
x2)
S2LA_IN_GA(
x1,
x2) =
S2LA_IN_GA(
x1)
U1_GA(
x1,
x2,
x3,
x4) =
U1_GA(
x4)
U4_G(
x1,
x2) =
U4_G(
x2)
U5_G(
x1,
x2) =
U5_G(
x2)
LISTB_IN_G(
x1) =
LISTB_IN_G(
x1)
U2_G(
x1,
x2,
x3) =
U2_G(
x3)
We have to consider all (P,R,Pi)-chains
(6) Obligation:
Pi DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:
GOALC_IN_G(s(T8)) → U3_G(T8, s2lA_in_ga(T8, X28))
GOALC_IN_G(s(T8)) → S2LA_IN_GA(T8, X28)
S2LA_IN_GA(s(T16), .(X62, X63)) → U1_GA(T16, X62, X63, s2lA_in_ga(T16, X63))
S2LA_IN_GA(s(T16), .(X62, X63)) → S2LA_IN_GA(T16, X63)
GOALC_IN_G(s(T8)) → U4_G(T8, s2lA_in_ga(T8, T22))
U4_G(T8, s2lA_out_ga(T8, T22)) → U5_G(T8, listB_in_g(T22))
U4_G(T8, s2lA_out_ga(T8, T22)) → LISTB_IN_G(T22)
LISTB_IN_G(.(T27, T29)) → U2_G(T27, T29, listB_in_g(T29))
LISTB_IN_G(.(T27, T29)) → LISTB_IN_G(T29)
The TRS R consists of the following rules:
goalC_in_g(s(T8)) → U3_g(T8, s2lA_in_ga(T8, X28))
s2lA_in_ga(s(T16), .(X62, X63)) → U1_ga(T16, X62, X63, s2lA_in_ga(T16, X63))
s2lA_in_ga(0, []) → s2lA_out_ga(0, [])
U1_ga(T16, X62, X63, s2lA_out_ga(T16, X63)) → s2lA_out_ga(s(T16), .(X62, X63))
U3_g(T8, s2lA_out_ga(T8, X28)) → goalC_out_g(s(T8))
goalC_in_g(s(T8)) → U4_g(T8, s2lA_in_ga(T8, T22))
U4_g(T8, s2lA_out_ga(T8, T22)) → U5_g(T8, listB_in_g(T22))
listB_in_g([]) → listB_out_g([])
listB_in_g(.(T27, T29)) → U2_g(T27, T29, listB_in_g(T29))
U2_g(T27, T29, listB_out_g(T29)) → listB_out_g(.(T27, T29))
U5_g(T8, listB_out_g(T22)) → goalC_out_g(s(T8))
goalC_in_g(0) → goalC_out_g(0)
The argument filtering Pi contains the following mapping:
goalC_in_g(
x1) =
goalC_in_g(
x1)
s(
x1) =
s(
x1)
U3_g(
x1,
x2) =
U3_g(
x2)
s2lA_in_ga(
x1,
x2) =
s2lA_in_ga(
x1)
U1_ga(
x1,
x2,
x3,
x4) =
U1_ga(
x4)
0 =
0
s2lA_out_ga(
x1,
x2) =
s2lA_out_ga(
x2)
.(
x1,
x2) =
.(
x2)
goalC_out_g(
x1) =
goalC_out_g
U4_g(
x1,
x2) =
U4_g(
x2)
U5_g(
x1,
x2) =
U5_g(
x2)
listB_in_g(
x1) =
listB_in_g(
x1)
[] =
[]
listB_out_g(
x1) =
listB_out_g
U2_g(
x1,
x2,
x3) =
U2_g(
x3)
GOALC_IN_G(
x1) =
GOALC_IN_G(
x1)
U3_G(
x1,
x2) =
U3_G(
x2)
S2LA_IN_GA(
x1,
x2) =
S2LA_IN_GA(
x1)
U1_GA(
x1,
x2,
x3,
x4) =
U1_GA(
x4)
U4_G(
x1,
x2) =
U4_G(
x2)
U5_G(
x1,
x2) =
U5_G(
x2)
LISTB_IN_G(
x1) =
LISTB_IN_G(
x1)
U2_G(
x1,
x2,
x3) =
U2_G(
x3)
We have to consider all (P,R,Pi)-chains
(7) DependencyGraphProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)
The approximation of the Dependency Graph [LOPSTR] contains 2 SCCs with 7 less nodes.
(8) Complex Obligation (AND)
(9) Obligation:
Pi DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:
LISTB_IN_G(.(T27, T29)) → LISTB_IN_G(T29)
The TRS R consists of the following rules:
goalC_in_g(s(T8)) → U3_g(T8, s2lA_in_ga(T8, X28))
s2lA_in_ga(s(T16), .(X62, X63)) → U1_ga(T16, X62, X63, s2lA_in_ga(T16, X63))
s2lA_in_ga(0, []) → s2lA_out_ga(0, [])
U1_ga(T16, X62, X63, s2lA_out_ga(T16, X63)) → s2lA_out_ga(s(T16), .(X62, X63))
U3_g(T8, s2lA_out_ga(T8, X28)) → goalC_out_g(s(T8))
goalC_in_g(s(T8)) → U4_g(T8, s2lA_in_ga(T8, T22))
U4_g(T8, s2lA_out_ga(T8, T22)) → U5_g(T8, listB_in_g(T22))
listB_in_g([]) → listB_out_g([])
listB_in_g(.(T27, T29)) → U2_g(T27, T29, listB_in_g(T29))
U2_g(T27, T29, listB_out_g(T29)) → listB_out_g(.(T27, T29))
U5_g(T8, listB_out_g(T22)) → goalC_out_g(s(T8))
goalC_in_g(0) → goalC_out_g(0)
The argument filtering Pi contains the following mapping:
goalC_in_g(
x1) =
goalC_in_g(
x1)
s(
x1) =
s(
x1)
U3_g(
x1,
x2) =
U3_g(
x2)
s2lA_in_ga(
x1,
x2) =
s2lA_in_ga(
x1)
U1_ga(
x1,
x2,
x3,
x4) =
U1_ga(
x4)
0 =
0
s2lA_out_ga(
x1,
x2) =
s2lA_out_ga(
x2)
.(
x1,
x2) =
.(
x2)
goalC_out_g(
x1) =
goalC_out_g
U4_g(
x1,
x2) =
U4_g(
x2)
U5_g(
x1,
x2) =
U5_g(
x2)
listB_in_g(
x1) =
listB_in_g(
x1)
[] =
[]
listB_out_g(
x1) =
listB_out_g
U2_g(
x1,
x2,
x3) =
U2_g(
x3)
LISTB_IN_G(
x1) =
LISTB_IN_G(
x1)
We have to consider all (P,R,Pi)-chains
(10) UsableRulesProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)
For (infinitary) constructor rewriting [LOPSTR] we can delete all non-usable rules from R.
(11) Obligation:
Pi DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:
LISTB_IN_G(.(T27, T29)) → LISTB_IN_G(T29)
R is empty.
The argument filtering Pi contains the following mapping:
.(
x1,
x2) =
.(
x2)
LISTB_IN_G(
x1) =
LISTB_IN_G(
x1)
We have to consider all (P,R,Pi)-chains
(12) PiDPToQDPProof (SOUND transformation)
Transforming (infinitary) constructor rewriting Pi-DP problem [LOPSTR] into ordinary QDP problem [LPAR04] by application of Pi.
(13) Obligation:
Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:
LISTB_IN_G(.(T29)) → LISTB_IN_G(T29)
R is empty.
Q is empty.
We have to consider all (P,Q,R)-chains.
(14) 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:
- LISTB_IN_G(.(T29)) → LISTB_IN_G(T29)
The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1
(15) YES
(16) Obligation:
Pi DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:
S2LA_IN_GA(s(T16), .(X62, X63)) → S2LA_IN_GA(T16, X63)
The TRS R consists of the following rules:
goalC_in_g(s(T8)) → U3_g(T8, s2lA_in_ga(T8, X28))
s2lA_in_ga(s(T16), .(X62, X63)) → U1_ga(T16, X62, X63, s2lA_in_ga(T16, X63))
s2lA_in_ga(0, []) → s2lA_out_ga(0, [])
U1_ga(T16, X62, X63, s2lA_out_ga(T16, X63)) → s2lA_out_ga(s(T16), .(X62, X63))
U3_g(T8, s2lA_out_ga(T8, X28)) → goalC_out_g(s(T8))
goalC_in_g(s(T8)) → U4_g(T8, s2lA_in_ga(T8, T22))
U4_g(T8, s2lA_out_ga(T8, T22)) → U5_g(T8, listB_in_g(T22))
listB_in_g([]) → listB_out_g([])
listB_in_g(.(T27, T29)) → U2_g(T27, T29, listB_in_g(T29))
U2_g(T27, T29, listB_out_g(T29)) → listB_out_g(.(T27, T29))
U5_g(T8, listB_out_g(T22)) → goalC_out_g(s(T8))
goalC_in_g(0) → goalC_out_g(0)
The argument filtering Pi contains the following mapping:
goalC_in_g(
x1) =
goalC_in_g(
x1)
s(
x1) =
s(
x1)
U3_g(
x1,
x2) =
U3_g(
x2)
s2lA_in_ga(
x1,
x2) =
s2lA_in_ga(
x1)
U1_ga(
x1,
x2,
x3,
x4) =
U1_ga(
x4)
0 =
0
s2lA_out_ga(
x1,
x2) =
s2lA_out_ga(
x2)
.(
x1,
x2) =
.(
x2)
goalC_out_g(
x1) =
goalC_out_g
U4_g(
x1,
x2) =
U4_g(
x2)
U5_g(
x1,
x2) =
U5_g(
x2)
listB_in_g(
x1) =
listB_in_g(
x1)
[] =
[]
listB_out_g(
x1) =
listB_out_g
U2_g(
x1,
x2,
x3) =
U2_g(
x3)
S2LA_IN_GA(
x1,
x2) =
S2LA_IN_GA(
x1)
We have to consider all (P,R,Pi)-chains
(17) UsableRulesProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)
For (infinitary) constructor rewriting [LOPSTR] we can delete all non-usable rules from R.
(18) Obligation:
Pi DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:
S2LA_IN_GA(s(T16), .(X62, X63)) → S2LA_IN_GA(T16, X63)
R is empty.
The argument filtering Pi contains the following mapping:
s(
x1) =
s(
x1)
.(
x1,
x2) =
.(
x2)
S2LA_IN_GA(
x1,
x2) =
S2LA_IN_GA(
x1)
We have to consider all (P,R,Pi)-chains
(19) PiDPToQDPProof (SOUND transformation)
Transforming (infinitary) constructor rewriting Pi-DP problem [LOPSTR] into ordinary QDP problem [LPAR04] by application of Pi.
(20) Obligation:
Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:
S2LA_IN_GA(s(T16)) → S2LA_IN_GA(T16)
R is empty.
Q is empty.
We have to consider all (P,Q,R)-chains.
(21) 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:
- S2LA_IN_GA(s(T16)) → S2LA_IN_GA(T16)
The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1
(22) YES