(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