(0) Obligation:

Clauses:

app3_a(Xs, Ys, Zs, Us) :- ','(app(Xs, Ys, Vs), app(Vs, Zs, Us)).
app3_b(Xs, Ys, Zs, Us) :- ','(app(Ys, Zs, Vs), app(Xs, Vs, Us)).
app([], Ys, Ys).
app(.(X, Xs), Ys, .(X, Zs)) :- app(Xs, Ys, Zs).

Query: app3_a(g,g,g,a)

(1) PrologToDTProblemTransformerProof (SOUND transformation)

Built DT problem from termination graph DT10.

(2) Obligation:

Triples:

appA(.(X1, X2), X3, .(X1, X4)) :- appA(X2, X3, X4).
appB(.(X1, X2), X3, .(X1, X4)) :- appB(X2, X3, X4).
app3_aC([], X1, X2, X3) :- appA(X1, X2, X3).
app3_aC(.(X1, X2), X3, X4, X5) :- appB(X2, X3, X6).
app3_aC(.(X1, X2), X3, X4, X5) :- ','(appcB(X2, X3, X6), appA(.(X1, X6), X4, X5)).

Clauses:

appcA([], X1, X1).
appcA(.(X1, X2), X3, .(X1, X4)) :- appcA(X2, X3, X4).
appcB([], X1, X1).
appcB(.(X1, X2), X3, .(X1, X4)) :- appcB(X2, X3, X4).

Afs:

app3_aC(x1, x2, x3, x4)  =  app3_aC(x1, x2, x3)

(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:
app3_aC_in: (b,b,b,f)
appA_in: (b,b,f)
appB_in: (b,b,f)
appcB_in: (b,b,f)
Transforming TRIPLES into the following Term Rewriting System:
Pi DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:

APP3_AC_IN_GGGA([], X1, X2, X3) → U3_GGGA(X1, X2, X3, appA_in_gga(X1, X2, X3))
APP3_AC_IN_GGGA([], X1, X2, X3) → APPA_IN_GGA(X1, X2, X3)
APPA_IN_GGA(.(X1, X2), X3, .(X1, X4)) → U1_GGA(X1, X2, X3, X4, appA_in_gga(X2, X3, X4))
APPA_IN_GGA(.(X1, X2), X3, .(X1, X4)) → APPA_IN_GGA(X2, X3, X4)
APP3_AC_IN_GGGA(.(X1, X2), X3, X4, X5) → U4_GGGA(X1, X2, X3, X4, X5, appB_in_gga(X2, X3, X6))
APP3_AC_IN_GGGA(.(X1, X2), X3, X4, X5) → APPB_IN_GGA(X2, X3, X6)
APPB_IN_GGA(.(X1, X2), X3, .(X1, X4)) → U2_GGA(X1, X2, X3, X4, appB_in_gga(X2, X3, X4))
APPB_IN_GGA(.(X1, X2), X3, .(X1, X4)) → APPB_IN_GGA(X2, X3, X4)
APP3_AC_IN_GGGA(.(X1, X2), X3, X4, X5) → U5_GGGA(X1, X2, X3, X4, X5, appcB_in_gga(X2, X3, X6))
U5_GGGA(X1, X2, X3, X4, X5, appcB_out_gga(X2, X3, X6)) → U6_GGGA(X1, X2, X3, X4, X5, appA_in_gga(.(X1, X6), X4, X5))
U5_GGGA(X1, X2, X3, X4, X5, appcB_out_gga(X2, X3, X6)) → APPA_IN_GGA(.(X1, X6), X4, X5)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

appcB_in_gga([], X1, X1) → appcB_out_gga([], X1, X1)
appcB_in_gga(.(X1, X2), X3, .(X1, X4)) → U9_gga(X1, X2, X3, X4, appcB_in_gga(X2, X3, X4))
U9_gga(X1, X2, X3, X4, appcB_out_gga(X2, X3, X4)) → appcB_out_gga(.(X1, X2), X3, .(X1, X4))

The argument filtering Pi contains the following mapping:
[]  =  []
appA_in_gga(x1, x2, x3)  =  appA_in_gga(x1, x2)
.(x1, x2)  =  .(x1, x2)
appB_in_gga(x1, x2, x3)  =  appB_in_gga(x1, x2)
appcB_in_gga(x1, x2, x3)  =  appcB_in_gga(x1, x2)
appcB_out_gga(x1, x2, x3)  =  appcB_out_gga(x1, x2, x3)
U9_gga(x1, x2, x3, x4, x5)  =  U9_gga(x1, x2, x3, x5)
APP3_AC_IN_GGGA(x1, x2, x3, x4)  =  APP3_AC_IN_GGGA(x1, x2, x3)
U3_GGGA(x1, x2, x3, x4)  =  U3_GGGA(x1, x2, x4)
APPA_IN_GGA(x1, x2, x3)  =  APPA_IN_GGA(x1, x2)
U1_GGA(x1, x2, x3, x4, x5)  =  U1_GGA(x1, x2, x3, x5)
U4_GGGA(x1, x2, x3, x4, x5, x6)  =  U4_GGGA(x1, x2, x3, x4, x6)
APPB_IN_GGA(x1, x2, x3)  =  APPB_IN_GGA(x1, x2)
U2_GGA(x1, x2, x3, x4, x5)  =  U2_GGA(x1, x2, x3, x5)
U5_GGGA(x1, x2, x3, x4, x5, x6)  =  U5_GGGA(x1, x2, x3, x4, x6)
U6_GGGA(x1, x2, x3, x4, x5, x6)  =  U6_GGGA(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:

APP3_AC_IN_GGGA([], X1, X2, X3) → U3_GGGA(X1, X2, X3, appA_in_gga(X1, X2, X3))
APP3_AC_IN_GGGA([], X1, X2, X3) → APPA_IN_GGA(X1, X2, X3)
APPA_IN_GGA(.(X1, X2), X3, .(X1, X4)) → U1_GGA(X1, X2, X3, X4, appA_in_gga(X2, X3, X4))
APPA_IN_GGA(.(X1, X2), X3, .(X1, X4)) → APPA_IN_GGA(X2, X3, X4)
APP3_AC_IN_GGGA(.(X1, X2), X3, X4, X5) → U4_GGGA(X1, X2, X3, X4, X5, appB_in_gga(X2, X3, X6))
APP3_AC_IN_GGGA(.(X1, X2), X3, X4, X5) → APPB_IN_GGA(X2, X3, X6)
APPB_IN_GGA(.(X1, X2), X3, .(X1, X4)) → U2_GGA(X1, X2, X3, X4, appB_in_gga(X2, X3, X4))
APPB_IN_GGA(.(X1, X2), X3, .(X1, X4)) → APPB_IN_GGA(X2, X3, X4)
APP3_AC_IN_GGGA(.(X1, X2), X3, X4, X5) → U5_GGGA(X1, X2, X3, X4, X5, appcB_in_gga(X2, X3, X6))
U5_GGGA(X1, X2, X3, X4, X5, appcB_out_gga(X2, X3, X6)) → U6_GGGA(X1, X2, X3, X4, X5, appA_in_gga(.(X1, X6), X4, X5))
U5_GGGA(X1, X2, X3, X4, X5, appcB_out_gga(X2, X3, X6)) → APPA_IN_GGA(.(X1, X6), X4, X5)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

appcB_in_gga([], X1, X1) → appcB_out_gga([], X1, X1)
appcB_in_gga(.(X1, X2), X3, .(X1, X4)) → U9_gga(X1, X2, X3, X4, appcB_in_gga(X2, X3, X4))
U9_gga(X1, X2, X3, X4, appcB_out_gga(X2, X3, X4)) → appcB_out_gga(.(X1, X2), X3, .(X1, X4))

The argument filtering Pi contains the following mapping:
[]  =  []
appA_in_gga(x1, x2, x3)  =  appA_in_gga(x1, x2)
.(x1, x2)  =  .(x1, x2)
appB_in_gga(x1, x2, x3)  =  appB_in_gga(x1, x2)
appcB_in_gga(x1, x2, x3)  =  appcB_in_gga(x1, x2)
appcB_out_gga(x1, x2, x3)  =  appcB_out_gga(x1, x2, x3)
U9_gga(x1, x2, x3, x4, x5)  =  U9_gga(x1, x2, x3, x5)
APP3_AC_IN_GGGA(x1, x2, x3, x4)  =  APP3_AC_IN_GGGA(x1, x2, x3)
U3_GGGA(x1, x2, x3, x4)  =  U3_GGGA(x1, x2, x4)
APPA_IN_GGA(x1, x2, x3)  =  APPA_IN_GGA(x1, x2)
U1_GGA(x1, x2, x3, x4, x5)  =  U1_GGA(x1, x2, x3, x5)
U4_GGGA(x1, x2, x3, x4, x5, x6)  =  U4_GGGA(x1, x2, x3, x4, x6)
APPB_IN_GGA(x1, x2, x3)  =  APPB_IN_GGA(x1, x2)
U2_GGA(x1, x2, x3, x4, x5)  =  U2_GGA(x1, x2, x3, x5)
U5_GGGA(x1, x2, x3, x4, x5, x6)  =  U5_GGGA(x1, x2, x3, x4, x6)
U6_GGGA(x1, x2, x3, x4, x5, x6)  =  U6_GGGA(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 2 SCCs with 9 less nodes.

(6) Complex Obligation (AND)

(7) Obligation:

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

APPB_IN_GGA(.(X1, X2), X3, .(X1, X4)) → APPB_IN_GGA(X2, X3, X4)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

appcB_in_gga([], X1, X1) → appcB_out_gga([], X1, X1)
appcB_in_gga(.(X1, X2), X3, .(X1, X4)) → U9_gga(X1, X2, X3, X4, appcB_in_gga(X2, X3, X4))
U9_gga(X1, X2, X3, X4, appcB_out_gga(X2, X3, X4)) → appcB_out_gga(.(X1, X2), X3, .(X1, X4))

The argument filtering Pi contains the following mapping:
[]  =  []
.(x1, x2)  =  .(x1, x2)
appcB_in_gga(x1, x2, x3)  =  appcB_in_gga(x1, x2)
appcB_out_gga(x1, x2, x3)  =  appcB_out_gga(x1, x2, x3)
U9_gga(x1, x2, x3, x4, x5)  =  U9_gga(x1, x2, x3, x5)
APPB_IN_GGA(x1, x2, x3)  =  APPB_IN_GGA(x1, x2)

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:

APPB_IN_GGA(.(X1, X2), X3, .(X1, X4)) → APPB_IN_GGA(X2, X3, X4)

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

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:

APPB_IN_GGA(.(X1, X2), X3) → APPB_IN_GGA(X2, X3)

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:

  • APPB_IN_GGA(.(X1, X2), X3) → APPB_IN_GGA(X2, X3)
    The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1, 2 >= 2

(13) YES

(14) Obligation:

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

APPA_IN_GGA(.(X1, X2), X3, .(X1, X4)) → APPA_IN_GGA(X2, X3, X4)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

appcB_in_gga([], X1, X1) → appcB_out_gga([], X1, X1)
appcB_in_gga(.(X1, X2), X3, .(X1, X4)) → U9_gga(X1, X2, X3, X4, appcB_in_gga(X2, X3, X4))
U9_gga(X1, X2, X3, X4, appcB_out_gga(X2, X3, X4)) → appcB_out_gga(.(X1, X2), X3, .(X1, X4))

The argument filtering Pi contains the following mapping:
[]  =  []
.(x1, x2)  =  .(x1, x2)
appcB_in_gga(x1, x2, x3)  =  appcB_in_gga(x1, x2)
appcB_out_gga(x1, x2, x3)  =  appcB_out_gga(x1, x2, x3)
U9_gga(x1, x2, x3, x4, x5)  =  U9_gga(x1, x2, x3, x5)
APPA_IN_GGA(x1, x2, x3)  =  APPA_IN_GGA(x1, x2)

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:

APPA_IN_GGA(.(X1, X2), X3, .(X1, X4)) → APPA_IN_GGA(X2, X3, X4)

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

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:

APPA_IN_GGA(.(X1, X2), X3) → APPA_IN_GGA(X2, X3)

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:

  • APPA_IN_GGA(.(X1, X2), X3) → APPA_IN_GGA(X2, X3)
    The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1, 2 >= 2

(20) YES