(0) Obligation:
Q restricted rewrite system:
The TRS R consists of the following rules:
fib(0) → 0
fib(s(0)) → s(0)
fib(s(s(0))) → s(0)
fib(s(s(x))) → sp(g(x))
g(0) → pair(s(0), 0)
g(s(0)) → pair(s(0), s(0))
g(s(x)) → np(g(x))
sp(pair(x, y)) → +(x, y)
np(pair(x, y)) → pair(+(x, y), x)
+(x, 0) → x
+(x, s(y)) → s(+(x, 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:
FIB(s(s(x))) → SP(g(x))
FIB(s(s(x))) → G(x)
G(s(x)) → NP(g(x))
G(s(x)) → G(x)
SP(pair(x, y)) → +1(x, y)
NP(pair(x, y)) → +1(x, y)
+1(x, s(y)) → +1(x, y)
The TRS R consists of the following rules:
fib(0) → 0
fib(s(0)) → s(0)
fib(s(s(0))) → s(0)
fib(s(s(x))) → sp(g(x))
g(0) → pair(s(0), 0)
g(s(0)) → pair(s(0), s(0))
g(s(x)) → np(g(x))
sp(pair(x, y)) → +(x, y)
np(pair(x, y)) → pair(+(x, y), x)
+(x, 0) → x
+(x, s(y)) → s(+(x, 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 5 less nodes.
(4) Complex Obligation (AND)
(5) Obligation:
Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:
+1(x, s(y)) → +1(x, y)
The TRS R consists of the following rules:
fib(0) → 0
fib(s(0)) → s(0)
fib(s(s(0))) → s(0)
fib(s(s(x))) → sp(g(x))
g(0) → pair(s(0), 0)
g(s(0)) → pair(s(0), s(0))
g(s(x)) → np(g(x))
sp(pair(x, y)) → +(x, y)
np(pair(x, y)) → pair(+(x, y), x)
+(x, 0) → x
+(x, s(y)) → s(+(x, 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:
+1(x, s(y)) → +1(x, y)
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:
- +1(x, s(y)) → +1(x, y)
The graph contains the following edges 1 >= 1, 2 > 2
(9) TRUE
(10) Obligation:
Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:
G(s(x)) → G(x)
The TRS R consists of the following rules:
fib(0) → 0
fib(s(0)) → s(0)
fib(s(s(0))) → s(0)
fib(s(s(x))) → sp(g(x))
g(0) → pair(s(0), 0)
g(s(0)) → pair(s(0), s(0))
g(s(x)) → np(g(x))
sp(pair(x, y)) → +(x, y)
np(pair(x, y)) → pair(+(x, y), x)
+(x, 0) → x
+(x, s(y)) → s(+(x, 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(s(x)) → G(x)
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(s(x)) → G(x)
The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1
(14) TRUE