(0) Obligation:

Clauses:

p(X, X).
p(f(X), g(Y)) :- ','(p(f(X), f(Z)), p(Z, g(W))).

Query: p(g,a)

(1) PrologToDTProblemTransformerProof (SOUND transformation)

Built DT problem from termination graph DT10.

(2) Obligation:

Triples:

pA(X1, X1, X2) :- pB(X1, X2).
pB(f(X1), X2) :- pA(X1, X3, X4).
pC(f(X1), g(X2)) :- pA(X1, X3, X4).
pC(f(X1), g(X2)) :- pB(X1, X3).

Clauses:

qcA(X1, X1, X2) :- pcB(X1, X2).
pcB(g(X1), X1).
pcB(f(X1), X2) :- qcA(X1, X3, X4).

Afs:

pC(x1, x2)  =  pC(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:
pC_in: (b,f)
pA_in: (b,f,f)
pB_in: (b,f)
Transforming TRIPLES into the following Term Rewriting System:
Pi DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:

PC_IN_GA(f(X1), g(X2)) → U3_GA(X1, X2, pA_in_gaa(X1, X3, X4))
PC_IN_GA(f(X1), g(X2)) → PA_IN_GAA(X1, X3, X4)
PA_IN_GAA(X1, X1, X2) → U1_GAA(X1, X2, pB_in_ga(X1, X2))
PA_IN_GAA(X1, X1, X2) → PB_IN_GA(X1, X2)
PB_IN_GA(f(X1), X2) → U2_GA(X1, X2, pA_in_gaa(X1, X3, X4))
PB_IN_GA(f(X1), X2) → PA_IN_GAA(X1, X3, X4)
PC_IN_GA(f(X1), g(X2)) → U4_GA(X1, X2, pB_in_ga(X1, X3))
PC_IN_GA(f(X1), g(X2)) → PB_IN_GA(X1, X3)

R is empty.
The argument filtering Pi contains the following mapping:
f(x1)  =  f(x1)
pA_in_gaa(x1, x2, x3)  =  pA_in_gaa(x1)
pB_in_ga(x1, x2)  =  pB_in_ga(x1)
g(x1)  =  g
PC_IN_GA(x1, x2)  =  PC_IN_GA(x1)
U3_GA(x1, x2, x3)  =  U3_GA(x1, x3)
PA_IN_GAA(x1, x2, x3)  =  PA_IN_GAA(x1)
U1_GAA(x1, x2, x3)  =  U1_GAA(x1, x3)
PB_IN_GA(x1, x2)  =  PB_IN_GA(x1)
U2_GA(x1, x2, x3)  =  U2_GA(x1, x3)
U4_GA(x1, x2, x3)  =  U4_GA(x1, 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:

PC_IN_GA(f(X1), g(X2)) → U3_GA(X1, X2, pA_in_gaa(X1, X3, X4))
PC_IN_GA(f(X1), g(X2)) → PA_IN_GAA(X1, X3, X4)
PA_IN_GAA(X1, X1, X2) → U1_GAA(X1, X2, pB_in_ga(X1, X2))
PA_IN_GAA(X1, X1, X2) → PB_IN_GA(X1, X2)
PB_IN_GA(f(X1), X2) → U2_GA(X1, X2, pA_in_gaa(X1, X3, X4))
PB_IN_GA(f(X1), X2) → PA_IN_GAA(X1, X3, X4)
PC_IN_GA(f(X1), g(X2)) → U4_GA(X1, X2, pB_in_ga(X1, X3))
PC_IN_GA(f(X1), g(X2)) → PB_IN_GA(X1, X3)

R is empty.
The argument filtering Pi contains the following mapping:
f(x1)  =  f(x1)
pA_in_gaa(x1, x2, x3)  =  pA_in_gaa(x1)
pB_in_ga(x1, x2)  =  pB_in_ga(x1)
g(x1)  =  g
PC_IN_GA(x1, x2)  =  PC_IN_GA(x1)
U3_GA(x1, x2, x3)  =  U3_GA(x1, x3)
PA_IN_GAA(x1, x2, x3)  =  PA_IN_GAA(x1)
U1_GAA(x1, x2, x3)  =  U1_GAA(x1, x3)
PB_IN_GA(x1, x2)  =  PB_IN_GA(x1)
U2_GA(x1, x2, x3)  =  U2_GA(x1, x3)
U4_GA(x1, x2, x3)  =  U4_GA(x1, x3)

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

(5) DependencyGraphProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

The approximation of the Dependency Graph [LOPSTR] contains 1 SCC with 6 less nodes.

(6) Obligation:

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

PA_IN_GAA(X1, X1, X2) → PB_IN_GA(X1, X2)
PB_IN_GA(f(X1), X2) → PA_IN_GAA(X1, X3, X4)

R is empty.
The argument filtering Pi contains the following mapping:
f(x1)  =  f(x1)
PA_IN_GAA(x1, x2, x3)  =  PA_IN_GAA(x1)
PB_IN_GA(x1, x2)  =  PB_IN_GA(x1)

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

(7) PiDPToQDPProof (SOUND transformation)

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

(8) Obligation:

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

PA_IN_GAA(X1) → PB_IN_GA(X1)
PB_IN_GA(f(X1)) → PA_IN_GAA(X1)

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

(9) 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_GA(f(X1)) → PA_IN_GAA(X1)
    The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1

  • PA_IN_GAA(X1) → PB_IN_GA(X1)
    The graph contains the following edges 1 >= 1

(10) YES