(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) PrologToDTProblemTransformerProof (SOUND transformation)

Built DT problem from termination graph DT10.

(2) Obligation:

Triples:

s2lA(s(X1), .(X2, X3)) :- s2lA(X1, X3).
listB(.(X1, X2)) :- listB(X2).
goalC(s(X1)) :- s2lA(X1, X2).
goalC(s(X1)) :- ','(s2lcA(X1, X2), listB(X2)).

Clauses:

s2lcA(s(X1), .(X2, X3)) :- s2lcA(X1, X3).
s2lcA(0, []).
listcB([]).
listcB(.(X1, X2)) :- listcB(X2).

Afs:

goalC(x1)  =  goalC(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:
goalC_in: (b)
s2lA_in: (b,f)
s2lcA_in: (b,f)
listB_in: (b)
Transforming TRIPLES into the following Term Rewriting System:
Pi DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:

GOALC_IN_G(s(X1)) → U3_G(X1, s2lA_in_ga(X1, X2))
GOALC_IN_G(s(X1)) → S2LA_IN_GA(X1, X2)
S2LA_IN_GA(s(X1), .(X2, X3)) → U1_GA(X1, X2, X3, s2lA_in_ga(X1, X3))
S2LA_IN_GA(s(X1), .(X2, X3)) → S2LA_IN_GA(X1, X3)
GOALC_IN_G(s(X1)) → U4_G(X1, s2lcA_in_ga(X1, X2))
U4_G(X1, s2lcA_out_ga(X1, X2)) → U5_G(X1, listB_in_g(X2))
U4_G(X1, s2lcA_out_ga(X1, X2)) → LISTB_IN_G(X2)
LISTB_IN_G(.(X1, X2)) → U2_G(X1, X2, listB_in_g(X2))
LISTB_IN_G(.(X1, X2)) → LISTB_IN_G(X2)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

s2lcA_in_ga(s(X1), .(X2, X3)) → U7_ga(X1, X2, X3, s2lcA_in_ga(X1, X3))
s2lcA_in_ga(0, []) → s2lcA_out_ga(0, [])
U7_ga(X1, X2, X3, s2lcA_out_ga(X1, X3)) → s2lcA_out_ga(s(X1), .(X2, X3))

The argument filtering Pi contains the following mapping:
s(x1)  =  s(x1)
s2lA_in_ga(x1, x2)  =  s2lA_in_ga(x1)
.(x1, x2)  =  .(x2)
s2lcA_in_ga(x1, x2)  =  s2lcA_in_ga(x1)
U7_ga(x1, x2, x3, x4)  =  U7_ga(x1, x4)
0  =  0
s2lcA_out_ga(x1, x2)  =  s2lcA_out_ga(x1, x2)
listB_in_g(x1)  =  listB_in_g(x1)
GOALC_IN_G(x1)  =  GOALC_IN_G(x1)
U3_G(x1, x2)  =  U3_G(x1, x2)
S2LA_IN_GA(x1, x2)  =  S2LA_IN_GA(x1)
U1_GA(x1, x2, x3, x4)  =  U1_GA(x1, x4)
U4_G(x1, x2)  =  U4_G(x1, x2)
U5_G(x1, x2)  =  U5_G(x1, x2)
LISTB_IN_G(x1)  =  LISTB_IN_G(x1)
U2_G(x1, x2, x3)  =  U2_G(x2, x3)

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:

GOALC_IN_G(s(X1)) → U3_G(X1, s2lA_in_ga(X1, X2))
GOALC_IN_G(s(X1)) → S2LA_IN_GA(X1, X2)
S2LA_IN_GA(s(X1), .(X2, X3)) → U1_GA(X1, X2, X3, s2lA_in_ga(X1, X3))
S2LA_IN_GA(s(X1), .(X2, X3)) → S2LA_IN_GA(X1, X3)
GOALC_IN_G(s(X1)) → U4_G(X1, s2lcA_in_ga(X1, X2))
U4_G(X1, s2lcA_out_ga(X1, X2)) → U5_G(X1, listB_in_g(X2))
U4_G(X1, s2lcA_out_ga(X1, X2)) → LISTB_IN_G(X2)
LISTB_IN_G(.(X1, X2)) → U2_G(X1, X2, listB_in_g(X2))
LISTB_IN_G(.(X1, X2)) → LISTB_IN_G(X2)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

s2lcA_in_ga(s(X1), .(X2, X3)) → U7_ga(X1, X2, X3, s2lcA_in_ga(X1, X3))
s2lcA_in_ga(0, []) → s2lcA_out_ga(0, [])
U7_ga(X1, X2, X3, s2lcA_out_ga(X1, X3)) → s2lcA_out_ga(s(X1), .(X2, X3))

The argument filtering Pi contains the following mapping:
s(x1)  =  s(x1)
s2lA_in_ga(x1, x2)  =  s2lA_in_ga(x1)
.(x1, x2)  =  .(x2)
s2lcA_in_ga(x1, x2)  =  s2lcA_in_ga(x1)
U7_ga(x1, x2, x3, x4)  =  U7_ga(x1, x4)
0  =  0
s2lcA_out_ga(x1, x2)  =  s2lcA_out_ga(x1, x2)
listB_in_g(x1)  =  listB_in_g(x1)
GOALC_IN_G(x1)  =  GOALC_IN_G(x1)
U3_G(x1, x2)  =  U3_G(x1, x2)
S2LA_IN_GA(x1, x2)  =  S2LA_IN_GA(x1)
U1_GA(x1, x2, x3, x4)  =  U1_GA(x1, x4)
U4_G(x1, x2)  =  U4_G(x1, x2)
U5_G(x1, x2)  =  U5_G(x1, x2)
LISTB_IN_G(x1)  =  LISTB_IN_G(x1)
U2_G(x1, x2, x3)  =  U2_G(x2, x3)

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

(5) DependencyGraphProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

The approximation of the Dependency Graph [LOPSTR] contains 2 SCCs with 7 less nodes.

(6) Complex Obligation (AND)

(7) Obligation:

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

LISTB_IN_G(.(X1, X2)) → LISTB_IN_G(X2)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

s2lcA_in_ga(s(X1), .(X2, X3)) → U7_ga(X1, X2, X3, s2lcA_in_ga(X1, X3))
s2lcA_in_ga(0, []) → s2lcA_out_ga(0, [])
U7_ga(X1, X2, X3, s2lcA_out_ga(X1, X3)) → s2lcA_out_ga(s(X1), .(X2, X3))

The argument filtering Pi contains the following mapping:
s(x1)  =  s(x1)
.(x1, x2)  =  .(x2)
s2lcA_in_ga(x1, x2)  =  s2lcA_in_ga(x1)
U7_ga(x1, x2, x3, x4)  =  U7_ga(x1, x4)
0  =  0
s2lcA_out_ga(x1, x2)  =  s2lcA_out_ga(x1, x2)
LISTB_IN_G(x1)  =  LISTB_IN_G(x1)

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

(8) UsableRulesProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

For (infinitary) constructor rewriting [LOPSTR] we can delete all non-usable rules from R.

(9) Obligation:

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

LISTB_IN_G(.(X1, X2)) → LISTB_IN_G(X2)

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

(10) PiDPToQDPProof (SOUND transformation)

Transforming (infinitary) constructor rewriting Pi-DP problem [LOPSTR] into ordinary QDP problem [LPAR04] by application of Pi.

(11) Obligation:

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

LISTB_IN_G(.(X2)) → LISTB_IN_G(X2)

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

(12) 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(.(X2)) → LISTB_IN_G(X2)
    The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1

(13) YES

(14) Obligation:

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

S2LA_IN_GA(s(X1), .(X2, X3)) → S2LA_IN_GA(X1, X3)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

s2lcA_in_ga(s(X1), .(X2, X3)) → U7_ga(X1, X2, X3, s2lcA_in_ga(X1, X3))
s2lcA_in_ga(0, []) → s2lcA_out_ga(0, [])
U7_ga(X1, X2, X3, s2lcA_out_ga(X1, X3)) → s2lcA_out_ga(s(X1), .(X2, X3))

The argument filtering Pi contains the following mapping:
s(x1)  =  s(x1)
.(x1, x2)  =  .(x2)
s2lcA_in_ga(x1, x2)  =  s2lcA_in_ga(x1)
U7_ga(x1, x2, x3, x4)  =  U7_ga(x1, x4)
0  =  0
s2lcA_out_ga(x1, x2)  =  s2lcA_out_ga(x1, x2)
S2LA_IN_GA(x1, x2)  =  S2LA_IN_GA(x1)

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

(15) UsableRulesProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

For (infinitary) constructor rewriting [LOPSTR] we can delete all non-usable rules from R.

(16) Obligation:

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

S2LA_IN_GA(s(X1), .(X2, X3)) → S2LA_IN_GA(X1, X3)

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

(17) PiDPToQDPProof (SOUND transformation)

Transforming (infinitary) constructor rewriting Pi-DP problem [LOPSTR] into ordinary QDP problem [LPAR04] by application of Pi.

(18) Obligation:

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

S2LA_IN_GA(s(X1)) → S2LA_IN_GA(X1)

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

(19) 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(X1)) → S2LA_IN_GA(X1)
    The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1

(20) YES