(0) Obligation:
Q restricted rewrite system:
The TRS R consists of the following rules:
f(0) → true
f(1) → false
f(s(x)) → f(x)
if(true, s(x), s(y)) → s(x)
if(false, s(x), s(y)) → s(y)
g(x, c(y)) → c(g(x, y))
g(x, c(y)) → g(x, if(f(x), c(g(s(x), y)), c(y)))
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:
F(s(x)) → F(x)
G(x, c(y)) → G(x, y)
G(x, c(y)) → G(x, if(f(x), c(g(s(x), y)), c(y)))
G(x, c(y)) → IF(f(x), c(g(s(x), y)), c(y))
G(x, c(y)) → F(x)
G(x, c(y)) → G(s(x), y)
The TRS R consists of the following rules:
f(0) → true
f(1) → false
f(s(x)) → f(x)
if(true, s(x), s(y)) → s(x)
if(false, s(x), s(y)) → s(y)
g(x, c(y)) → c(g(x, y))
g(x, c(y)) → g(x, if(f(x), c(g(s(x), y)), c(y)))
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 2 SCCs with 3 less nodes.
(4) Complex Obligation (AND)
(5) Obligation:
Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:
F(s(x)) → F(x)
The TRS R consists of the following rules:
f(0) → true
f(1) → false
f(s(x)) → f(x)
if(true, s(x), s(y)) → s(x)
if(false, s(x), s(y)) → s(y)
g(x, c(y)) → c(g(x, y))
g(x, c(y)) → g(x, if(f(x), c(g(s(x), y)), c(y)))
Q is empty.
We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
(6) UsableRulesProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)
We can use the usable rules and reduction pair processor [LPAR04] with the Ce-compatible extension of the polynomial order that maps every function symbol to the sum of its arguments. Then, we can delete all non-usable rules [FROCOS05] from R.
(7) Obligation:
Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:
F(s(x)) → F(x)
R is empty.
Q is empty.
We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
(8) 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:
- F(s(x)) → F(x)
The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1
(9) TRUE
(10) Obligation:
Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:
G(x, c(y)) → G(s(x), y)
G(x, c(y)) → G(x, y)
The TRS R consists of the following rules:
f(0) → true
f(1) → false
f(s(x)) → f(x)
if(true, s(x), s(y)) → s(x)
if(false, s(x), s(y)) → s(y)
g(x, c(y)) → c(g(x, y))
g(x, c(y)) → g(x, if(f(x), c(g(s(x), y)), c(y)))
Q is empty.
We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
(11) UsableRulesProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)
We can use the usable rules and reduction pair processor [LPAR04] with the Ce-compatible extension of the polynomial order that maps every function symbol to the sum of its arguments. Then, we can delete all non-usable rules [FROCOS05] from R.
(12) Obligation:
Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:
G(x, c(y)) → G(s(x), y)
G(x, c(y)) → G(x, y)
R is empty.
Q is empty.
We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
(13) 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:
- G(x, c(y)) → G(s(x), y)
The graph contains the following edges 2 > 2
- G(x, c(y)) → G(x, y)
The graph contains the following edges 1 >= 1, 2 > 2
(14) TRUE