(0) Obligation:
Clauses:
concatenate([], L, L).
concatenate(.(X, L1), L2, .(X, L3)) :- concatenate(L1, L2, L3).
member(X, .(X, L)).
member(X, .(Y, L)) :- member(X, L).
reverse(L, L1) :- reverse_concatenate(L, [], L1).
reverse_concatenate([], L, L).
reverse_concatenate(.(X, L1), L2, L3) :- reverse_concatenate(L1, .(X, L2), L3).
Query: reverse_concatenate(g,g,a)
(1) PrologToDTProblemTransformerProof (SOUND transformation)
Built DT problem from termination graph DT10.
(2) Obligation:
Triples:
reverse_concatenateA(.(X1, .(X2, X3)), X4, X5) :- reverse_concatenateA(X3, .(X2, .(X1, X4)), X5).
Clauses:
reverse_concatenatecA([], X1, X1).
reverse_concatenatecA(.(X1, []), X2, .(X1, X2)).
reverse_concatenatecA(.(X1, .(X2, X3)), X4, X5) :- reverse_concatenatecA(X3, .(X2, .(X1, X4)), X5).
Afs:
reverse_concatenateA(x1, x2, x3) = reverse_concatenateA(x1, 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:
reverse_concatenateA_in: (b,b,f)
Transforming
TRIPLES into the following
Term Rewriting System:
Pi DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:
REVERSE_CONCATENATEA_IN_GGA(.(X1, .(X2, X3)), X4, X5) → U1_GGA(X1, X2, X3, X4, X5, reverse_concatenateA_in_gga(X3, .(X2, .(X1, X4)), X5))
REVERSE_CONCATENATEA_IN_GGA(.(X1, .(X2, X3)), X4, X5) → REVERSE_CONCATENATEA_IN_GGA(X3, .(X2, .(X1, X4)), X5)
R is empty.
The argument filtering Pi contains the following mapping:
reverse_concatenateA_in_gga(
x1,
x2,
x3) =
reverse_concatenateA_in_gga(
x1,
x2)
.(
x1,
x2) =
.(
x1,
x2)
REVERSE_CONCATENATEA_IN_GGA(
x1,
x2,
x3) =
REVERSE_CONCATENATEA_IN_GGA(
x1,
x2)
U1_GGA(
x1,
x2,
x3,
x4,
x5,
x6) =
U1_GGA(
x1,
x2,
x3,
x4,
x6)
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:
REVERSE_CONCATENATEA_IN_GGA(.(X1, .(X2, X3)), X4, X5) → U1_GGA(X1, X2, X3, X4, X5, reverse_concatenateA_in_gga(X3, .(X2, .(X1, X4)), X5))
REVERSE_CONCATENATEA_IN_GGA(.(X1, .(X2, X3)), X4, X5) → REVERSE_CONCATENATEA_IN_GGA(X3, .(X2, .(X1, X4)), X5)
R is empty.
The argument filtering Pi contains the following mapping:
reverse_concatenateA_in_gga(
x1,
x2,
x3) =
reverse_concatenateA_in_gga(
x1,
x2)
.(
x1,
x2) =
.(
x1,
x2)
REVERSE_CONCATENATEA_IN_GGA(
x1,
x2,
x3) =
REVERSE_CONCATENATEA_IN_GGA(
x1,
x2)
U1_GGA(
x1,
x2,
x3,
x4,
x5,
x6) =
U1_GGA(
x1,
x2,
x3,
x4,
x6)
We have to consider all (P,R,Pi)-chains
(5) DependencyGraphProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)
The approximation of the Dependency Graph [LOPSTR] contains 1 SCC with 1 less node.
(6) Obligation:
Pi DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:
REVERSE_CONCATENATEA_IN_GGA(.(X1, .(X2, X3)), X4, X5) → REVERSE_CONCATENATEA_IN_GGA(X3, .(X2, .(X1, X4)), X5)
R is empty.
The argument filtering Pi contains the following mapping:
.(
x1,
x2) =
.(
x1,
x2)
REVERSE_CONCATENATEA_IN_GGA(
x1,
x2,
x3) =
REVERSE_CONCATENATEA_IN_GGA(
x1,
x2)
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:
REVERSE_CONCATENATEA_IN_GGA(.(X1, .(X2, X3)), X4) → REVERSE_CONCATENATEA_IN_GGA(X3, .(X2, .(X1, X4)))
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:
- REVERSE_CONCATENATEA_IN_GGA(.(X1, .(X2, X3)), X4) → REVERSE_CONCATENATEA_IN_GGA(X3, .(X2, .(X1, X4)))
The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1
(10) YES