(0) Obligation:
Q restricted rewrite system:
The TRS R consists of the following rules:
terms(N) → cons(recip(sqr(N)), terms(s(N)))
sqr(0) → 0
sqr(s(X)) → s(add(sqr(X), dbl(X)))
dbl(0) → 0
dbl(s(X)) → s(s(dbl(X)))
add(0, X) → X
add(s(X), Y) → s(add(X, Y))
first(0, X) → nil
first(s(X), cons(Y, Z)) → cons(Y, first(X, Z))
Q is empty.
(1) DependencyPairsProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)
Using Dependency Pairs [AG00,LPAR04] we result in the following initial DP problem.
(2) Obligation:
Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:
TERMS(N) → SQR(N)
TERMS(N) → TERMS(s(N))
SQR(s(X)) → ADD(sqr(X), dbl(X))
SQR(s(X)) → SQR(X)
SQR(s(X)) → DBL(X)
DBL(s(X)) → DBL(X)
ADD(s(X), Y) → ADD(X, Y)
FIRST(s(X), cons(Y, Z)) → FIRST(X, Z)
The TRS R consists of the following rules:
terms(N) → cons(recip(sqr(N)), terms(s(N)))
sqr(0) → 0
sqr(s(X)) → s(add(sqr(X), dbl(X)))
dbl(0) → 0
dbl(s(X)) → s(s(dbl(X)))
add(0, X) → X
add(s(X), Y) → s(add(X, Y))
first(0, X) → nil
first(s(X), cons(Y, Z)) → cons(Y, first(X, Z))
Q is empty.
We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
(3) DependencyGraphProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)
The approximation of the Dependency Graph [LPAR04,FROCOS05,EDGSTAR] contains 5 SCCs with 3 less nodes.
(4) Complex Obligation (AND)
(5) Obligation:
Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:
FIRST(s(X), cons(Y, Z)) → FIRST(X, Z)
The TRS R consists of the following rules:
terms(N) → cons(recip(sqr(N)), terms(s(N)))
sqr(0) → 0
sqr(s(X)) → s(add(sqr(X), dbl(X)))
dbl(0) → 0
dbl(s(X)) → s(s(dbl(X)))
add(0, X) → X
add(s(X), Y) → s(add(X, Y))
first(0, X) → nil
first(s(X), cons(Y, Z)) → cons(Y, first(X, Z))
Q is empty.
We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
(6) 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:
- FIRST(s(X), cons(Y, Z)) → FIRST(X, Z)
The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1, 2 > 2
(7) YES
(8) Obligation:
Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:
ADD(s(X), Y) → ADD(X, Y)
The TRS R consists of the following rules:
terms(N) → cons(recip(sqr(N)), terms(s(N)))
sqr(0) → 0
sqr(s(X)) → s(add(sqr(X), dbl(X)))
dbl(0) → 0
dbl(s(X)) → s(s(dbl(X)))
add(0, X) → X
add(s(X), Y) → s(add(X, Y))
first(0, X) → nil
first(s(X), cons(Y, Z)) → cons(Y, first(X, Z))
Q is empty.
We have to consider all minimal (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:
- ADD(s(X), Y) → ADD(X, Y)
The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1, 2 >= 2
(10) YES
(11) Obligation:
Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:
DBL(s(X)) → DBL(X)
The TRS R consists of the following rules:
terms(N) → cons(recip(sqr(N)), terms(s(N)))
sqr(0) → 0
sqr(s(X)) → s(add(sqr(X), dbl(X)))
dbl(0) → 0
dbl(s(X)) → s(s(dbl(X)))
add(0, X) → X
add(s(X), Y) → s(add(X, Y))
first(0, X) → nil
first(s(X), cons(Y, Z)) → cons(Y, first(X, Z))
Q is empty.
We have to consider all minimal (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:
- DBL(s(X)) → DBL(X)
The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1
(13) YES
(14) Obligation:
Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:
SQR(s(X)) → SQR(X)
The TRS R consists of the following rules:
terms(N) → cons(recip(sqr(N)), terms(s(N)))
sqr(0) → 0
sqr(s(X)) → s(add(sqr(X), dbl(X)))
dbl(0) → 0
dbl(s(X)) → s(s(dbl(X)))
add(0, X) → X
add(s(X), Y) → s(add(X, Y))
first(0, X) → nil
first(s(X), cons(Y, Z)) → cons(Y, first(X, Z))
Q is empty.
We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
(15) 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:
- SQR(s(X)) → SQR(X)
The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1
(16) YES
(17) Obligation:
Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:
TERMS(N) → TERMS(s(N))
The TRS R consists of the following rules:
terms(N) → cons(recip(sqr(N)), terms(s(N)))
sqr(0) → 0
sqr(s(X)) → s(add(sqr(X), dbl(X)))
dbl(0) → 0
dbl(s(X)) → s(s(dbl(X)))
add(0, X) → X
add(s(X), Y) → s(add(X, Y))
first(0, X) → nil
first(s(X), cons(Y, Z)) → cons(Y, first(X, Z))
Q is empty.
We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
(18) NonLoopProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)
By Theorem 8 [NONLOOP] we deduce infiniteness of the QDP.
We apply the theorem with m = 1, b = 0,
σ' = [ ], and μ' = [x0 / s(x0)] on the rule
TERMS(s(x0))[ ]n[ ] → TERMS(s(x0))[ ]n[x0 / s(x0)]
This rule is correct for the QDP as the following derivation shows:
intermediate steps: Equivalent (Simplify mu) - Instantiate mu - Instantiation
TERMS(N)[ ]n[ ] → TERMS(s(N))[ ]n[ ]
by OriginalRule from TRS P
(19) NO