Termination w.r.t. Q proof of /tmp/tmpEsMhUm/29.trs

Termination w.r.t. Q of the following Term Rewriting System could be proven:

Q restricted rewrite system:
The TRS R consists of the following rules:

app(app(ack, 0), y) → app(succ, y)
app(app(ack, app(succ, x)), y) → app(app(ack, x), app(succ, 0))
app(app(ack, app(succ, x)), app(succ, y)) → app(app(ack, x), app(app(ack, app(succ, x)), y))
app(app(map, f), nil) → nil
app(app(map, f), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → app(app(cons, app(f, x)), app(app(map, f), xs))
app(app(filter, f), nil) → nil
app(app(filter, f), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → app(app(app(app(filter2, app(f, x)), f), x), xs)
app(app(app(app(filter2, true), f), x), xs) → app(app(cons, x), app(app(filter, f), xs))
app(app(app(app(filter2, false), f), x), xs) → app(app(filter, f), xs)

Q is empty.

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

Q restricted rewrite system:
The TRS R consists of the following rules:

app(app(ack, 0), y) → app(succ, y)
app(app(ack, app(succ, x)), y) → app(app(ack, x), app(succ, 0))
app(app(ack, app(succ, x)), app(succ, y)) → app(app(ack, x), app(app(ack, app(succ, x)), y))
app(app(map, f), nil) → nil
app(app(map, f), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → app(app(cons, app(f, x)), app(app(map, f), xs))
app(app(filter, f), nil) → nil
app(app(filter, f), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → app(app(app(app(filter2, app(f, x)), f), x), xs)
app(app(app(app(filter2, true), f), x), xs) → app(app(cons, x), app(app(filter, f), xs))
app(app(app(app(filter2, false), f), x), xs) → app(app(filter, f), xs)

Q is empty.

Using Dependency Pairs [1,15] we result in the following initial DP problem:
Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:

APP(app(app(app(filter2, false), f), x), xs) → APP(filter, f)
APP(app(filter, f), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → APP(app(filter2, app(f, x)), f)
APP(app(filter, f), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → APP(f, x)
APP(app(filter, f), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → APP(app(app(filter2, app(f, x)), f), x)
APP(app(ack, app(succ, x)), y) → APP(succ, 0)
APP(app(filter, f), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → APP(app(app(app(filter2, app(f, x)), f), x), xs)
APP(app(ack, 0), y) → APP(succ, y)
APP(app(map, f), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → APP(f, x)
APP(app(map, f), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → APP(app(map, f), xs)
APP(app(ack, app(succ, x)), y) → APP(app(ack, x), app(succ, 0))
APP(app(ack, app(succ, x)), app(succ, y)) → APP(app(ack, x), app(app(ack, app(succ, x)), y))
APP(app(ack, app(succ, x)), app(succ, y)) → APP(ack, x)
APP(app(ack, app(succ, x)), app(succ, y)) → APP(app(ack, app(succ, x)), y)
APP(app(app(app(filter2, true), f), x), xs) → APP(cons, x)
APP(app(filter, f), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → APP(filter2, app(f, x))
APP(app(app(app(filter2, false), f), x), xs) → APP(app(filter, f), xs)
APP(app(app(app(filter2, true), f), x), xs) → APP(app(filter, f), xs)
APP(app(map, f), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → APP(cons, app(f, x))
APP(app(app(app(filter2, true), f), x), xs) → APP(filter, f)
APP(app(ack, app(succ, x)), y) → APP(ack, x)
APP(app(app(app(filter2, true), f), x), xs) → APP(app(cons, x), app(app(filter, f), xs))
APP(app(map, f), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → APP(app(cons, app(f, x)), app(app(map, f), xs))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

app(app(ack, 0), y) → app(succ, y)
app(app(ack, app(succ, x)), y) → app(app(ack, x), app(succ, 0))
app(app(ack, app(succ, x)), app(succ, y)) → app(app(ack, x), app(app(ack, app(succ, x)), y))
app(app(map, f), nil) → nil
app(app(map, f), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → app(app(cons, app(f, x)), app(app(map, f), xs))
app(app(filter, f), nil) → nil
app(app(filter, f), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → app(app(app(app(filter2, app(f, x)), f), x), xs)
app(app(app(app(filter2, true), f), x), xs) → app(app(cons, x), app(app(filter, f), xs))
app(app(app(app(filter2, false), f), x), xs) → app(app(filter, f), xs)

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

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

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

APP(app(app(app(filter2, false), f), x), xs) → APP(filter, f)
APP(app(filter, f), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → APP(app(filter2, app(f, x)), f)
APP(app(filter, f), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → APP(f, x)
APP(app(filter, f), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → APP(app(app(filter2, app(f, x)), f), x)
APP(app(ack, app(succ, x)), y) → APP(succ, 0)
APP(app(filter, f), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → APP(app(app(app(filter2, app(f, x)), f), x), xs)
APP(app(ack, 0), y) → APP(succ, y)
APP(app(map, f), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → APP(f, x)
APP(app(map, f), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → APP(app(map, f), xs)
APP(app(ack, app(succ, x)), y) → APP(app(ack, x), app(succ, 0))
APP(app(ack, app(succ, x)), app(succ, y)) → APP(app(ack, x), app(app(ack, app(succ, x)), y))
APP(app(ack, app(succ, x)), app(succ, y)) → APP(ack, x)
APP(app(ack, app(succ, x)), app(succ, y)) → APP(app(ack, app(succ, x)), y)
APP(app(app(app(filter2, true), f), x), xs) → APP(cons, x)
APP(app(filter, f), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → APP(filter2, app(f, x))
APP(app(app(app(filter2, false), f), x), xs) → APP(app(filter, f), xs)
APP(app(app(app(filter2, true), f), x), xs) → APP(app(filter, f), xs)
APP(app(map, f), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → APP(cons, app(f, x))
APP(app(app(app(filter2, true), f), x), xs) → APP(filter, f)
APP(app(ack, app(succ, x)), y) → APP(ack, x)
APP(app(app(app(filter2, true), f), x), xs) → APP(app(cons, x), app(app(filter, f), xs))
APP(app(map, f), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → APP(app(cons, app(f, x)), app(app(map, f), xs))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

app(app(ack, 0), y) → app(succ, y)
app(app(ack, app(succ, x)), y) → app(app(ack, x), app(succ, 0))
app(app(ack, app(succ, x)), app(succ, y)) → app(app(ack, x), app(app(ack, app(succ, x)), y))
app(app(map, f), nil) → nil
app(app(map, f), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → app(app(cons, app(f, x)), app(app(map, f), xs))
app(app(filter, f), nil) → nil
app(app(filter, f), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → app(app(app(app(filter2, app(f, x)), f), x), xs)
app(app(app(app(filter2, true), f), x), xs) → app(app(cons, x), app(app(filter, f), xs))
app(app(app(app(filter2, false), f), x), xs) → app(app(filter, f), xs)

Q is empty.
We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
The approximation of the Dependency Graph [15,17,22] contains 2 SCCs with 14 less nodes.

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ QDPApplicativeOrderProof

          ↳ QDP

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

APP(app(ack, app(succ, x)), app(succ, y)) → APP(app(ack, x), app(app(ack, app(succ, x)), y))
APP(app(ack, app(succ, x)), app(succ, y)) → APP(app(ack, app(succ, x)), y)
APP(app(ack, app(succ, x)), y) → APP(app(ack, x), app(succ, 0))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

app(app(ack, 0), y) → app(succ, y)
app(app(ack, app(succ, x)), y) → app(app(ack, x), app(succ, 0))
app(app(ack, app(succ, x)), app(succ, y)) → app(app(ack, x), app(app(ack, app(succ, x)), y))
app(app(map, f), nil) → nil
app(app(map, f), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → app(app(cons, app(f, x)), app(app(map, f), xs))
app(app(filter, f), nil) → nil
app(app(filter, f), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → app(app(app(app(filter2, app(f, x)), f), x), xs)
app(app(app(app(filter2, true), f), x), xs) → app(app(cons, x), app(app(filter, f), xs))
app(app(app(app(filter2, false), f), x), xs) → app(app(filter, f), xs)

Q is empty.
We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
We use the reduction pair processor [15].Here, we combined the reduction pair processor with the A-transformation [17] which results in the following intermediate Q-DP Problem.
The a-transformed P is

ack1(succ(x), succ(y)) → ack1(x, ack(succ(x), y))
ack1(succ(x), succ(y)) → ack1(succ(x), y)
ack1(succ(x), y) → ack1(x, succ(0))

The a-transformed usable rules are
none

The following pairs can be oriented strictly and are deleted.

APP(app(ack, app(succ, x)), app(succ, y)) → APP(app(ack, x), app(app(ack, app(succ, x)), y))
APP(app(ack, app(succ, x)), y) → APP(app(ack, x), app(succ, 0))

The remaining pairs can at least be oriented weakly.

APP(app(ack, app(succ, x)), app(succ, y)) → APP(app(ack, app(succ, x)), y)

Used ordering: Polynomial interpretation [25]:

POL(0) = 0
POL(ack(x₁, x₂)) = x₁
POL(ack1(x₁, x₂)) = x₁
POL(succ(x₁)) = 1 + x₁

The following usable rules [17] were oriented: none

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ QDPApplicativeOrderProof

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ UsableRulesProof

          ↳ QDP

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

APP(app(ack, app(succ, x)), app(succ, y)) → APP(app(ack, app(succ, x)), y)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

app(app(ack, 0), y) → app(succ, y)
app(app(ack, app(succ, x)), y) → app(app(ack, x), app(succ, 0))
app(app(ack, app(succ, x)), app(succ, y)) → app(app(ack, x), app(app(ack, app(succ, x)), y))
app(app(map, f), nil) → nil
app(app(map, f), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → app(app(cons, app(f, x)), app(app(map, f), xs))
app(app(filter, f), nil) → nil
app(app(filter, f), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → app(app(app(app(filter2, app(f, x)), f), x), xs)
app(app(app(app(filter2, true), f), x), xs) → app(app(cons, x), app(app(filter, f), xs))
app(app(app(app(filter2, false), f), x), xs) → app(app(filter, f), xs)

Q is empty.
We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
We can use the usable rules and reduction pair processor [15] with the Ce-compatible extension of the polynomial order that maps every function symbol to the sum of its argument. Then, we can delete all non-usable rules [17] from R.

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ QDPApplicativeOrderProof

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ UsableRulesProof

                  ↳ QDP

                    ↳ ATransformationProof

          ↳ QDP

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

APP(app(ack, app(succ, x)), app(succ, y)) → APP(app(ack, app(succ, x)), y)

R is empty.
Q is empty.
We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
We have applied the A-Transformation [17] to get from an applicative problem to a standard problem.

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ QDPApplicativeOrderProof

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ UsableRulesProof

                  ↳ QDP

                    ↳ ATransformationProof

                      ↳ QDP

                        ↳ QDPSizeChangeProof

          ↳ QDP

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

ack(succ(x), succ(y)) → ack(succ(x), y)

R is empty.
Q is empty.
We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
By using the subterm criterion [20] together with the size-change analysis [32] 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:

ack(succ(x), succ(y)) → ack(succ(x), y)
The graph contains the following edges 1 >= 1, 2 > 2

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ UsableRulesProof

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

APP(app(filter, f), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → APP(f, x)
APP(app(app(app(filter2, false), f), x), xs) → APP(app(filter, f), xs)
APP(app(app(app(filter2, true), f), x), xs) → APP(app(filter, f), xs)
APP(app(map, f), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → APP(f, x)
APP(app(map, f), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → APP(app(map, f), xs)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

app(app(ack, 0), y) → app(succ, y)
app(app(ack, app(succ, x)), y) → app(app(ack, x), app(succ, 0))
app(app(ack, app(succ, x)), app(succ, y)) → app(app(ack, x), app(app(ack, app(succ, x)), y))
app(app(map, f), nil) → nil
app(app(map, f), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → app(app(cons, app(f, x)), app(app(map, f), xs))
app(app(filter, f), nil) → nil
app(app(filter, f), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → app(app(app(app(filter2, app(f, x)), f), x), xs)
app(app(app(app(filter2, true), f), x), xs) → app(app(cons, x), app(app(filter, f), xs))
app(app(app(app(filter2, false), f), x), xs) → app(app(filter, f), xs)

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ UsableRulesProof

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ QDPSizeChangeProof

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

APP(app(filter, f), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → APP(f, x)
APP(app(app(app(filter2, true), f), x), xs) → APP(app(filter, f), xs)
APP(app(app(app(filter2, false), f), x), xs) → APP(app(filter, f), xs)
APP(app(map, f), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → APP(f, x)
APP(app(map, f), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → APP(app(map, f), xs)

From the DPs we obtained the following set of size-change graphs:

APP(app(map, f), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → APP(app(map, f), xs)
The graph contains the following edges 1 >= 1, 2 > 2
APP(app(filter, f), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → APP(f, x)
The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1, 2 > 2
APP(app(map, f), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → APP(f, x)
The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1, 2 > 2
APP(app(app(app(filter2, false), f), x), xs) → APP(app(filter, f), xs)
The graph contains the following edges 2 >= 2
APP(app(app(app(filter2, true), f), x), xs) → APP(app(filter, f), xs)
The graph contains the following edges 2 >= 2