(0) Obligation:
Q restricted rewrite system:
The TRS R consists of the following rules:
from(X) → cons(X, n__from(n__s(X)))
first(0, Z) → nil
first(s(X), cons(Y, Z)) → cons(Y, n__first(X, activate(Z)))
sel(0, cons(X, Z)) → X
sel(s(X), cons(Y, Z)) → sel(X, activate(Z))
from(X) → n__from(X)
s(X) → n__s(X)
first(X1, X2) → n__first(X1, X2)
activate(n__from(X)) → from(activate(X))
activate(n__s(X)) → s(activate(X))
activate(n__first(X1, X2)) → first(activate(X1), activate(X2))
activate(X) → X
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:
FIRST(s(X), cons(Y, Z)) → ACTIVATE(Z)
SEL(s(X), cons(Y, Z)) → SEL(X, activate(Z))
SEL(s(X), cons(Y, Z)) → ACTIVATE(Z)
ACTIVATE(n__from(X)) → FROM(activate(X))
ACTIVATE(n__from(X)) → ACTIVATE(X)
ACTIVATE(n__s(X)) → S(activate(X))
ACTIVATE(n__s(X)) → ACTIVATE(X)
ACTIVATE(n__first(X1, X2)) → FIRST(activate(X1), activate(X2))
ACTIVATE(n__first(X1, X2)) → ACTIVATE(X1)
ACTIVATE(n__first(X1, X2)) → ACTIVATE(X2)
The TRS R consists of the following rules:
from(X) → cons(X, n__from(n__s(X)))
first(0, Z) → nil
first(s(X), cons(Y, Z)) → cons(Y, n__first(X, activate(Z)))
sel(0, cons(X, Z)) → X
sel(s(X), cons(Y, Z)) → sel(X, activate(Z))
from(X) → n__from(X)
s(X) → n__s(X)
first(X1, X2) → n__first(X1, X2)
activate(n__from(X)) → from(activate(X))
activate(n__s(X)) → s(activate(X))
activate(n__first(X1, X2)) → first(activate(X1), activate(X2))
activate(X) → X
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:
ACTIVATE(n__from(X)) → ACTIVATE(X)
ACTIVATE(n__s(X)) → ACTIVATE(X)
ACTIVATE(n__first(X1, X2)) → FIRST(activate(X1), activate(X2))
FIRST(s(X), cons(Y, Z)) → ACTIVATE(Z)
ACTIVATE(n__first(X1, X2)) → ACTIVATE(X1)
ACTIVATE(n__first(X1, X2)) → ACTIVATE(X2)
The TRS R consists of the following rules:
from(X) → cons(X, n__from(n__s(X)))
first(0, Z) → nil
first(s(X), cons(Y, Z)) → cons(Y, n__first(X, activate(Z)))
sel(0, cons(X, Z)) → X
sel(s(X), cons(Y, Z)) → sel(X, activate(Z))
from(X) → n__from(X)
s(X) → n__s(X)
first(X1, X2) → n__first(X1, X2)
activate(n__from(X)) → from(activate(X))
activate(n__s(X)) → s(activate(X))
activate(n__first(X1, X2)) → first(activate(X1), activate(X2))
activate(X) → X
Q is empty.
We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
(6) QDPOrderProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)
We use the reduction pair processor [LPAR04].
The following pairs can be oriented strictly and are deleted.
ACTIVATE(n__from(X)) → ACTIVATE(X)
The remaining pairs can at least be oriented weakly.
Used ordering: Polynomial interpretation [POLO]:
POL(0) = 0
POL(ACTIVATE(x1)) = x1
POL(FIRST(x1, x2)) = x2
POL(activate(x1)) = x1
POL(cons(x1, x2)) = x2
POL(first(x1, x2)) = x1 + x2
POL(from(x1)) = 1 + x1
POL(n__first(x1, x2)) = x1 + x2
POL(n__from(x1)) = 1 + x1
POL(n__s(x1)) = x1
POL(nil) = 0
POL(s(x1)) = x1
The following usable rules [FROCOS05] were oriented:
activate(n__s(X)) → s(activate(X))
activate(n__from(X)) → from(activate(X))
activate(X) → X
activate(n__first(X1, X2)) → first(activate(X1), activate(X2))
from(X) → n__from(X)
first(X1, X2) → n__first(X1, X2)
s(X) → n__s(X)
from(X) → cons(X, n__from(n__s(X)))
first(0, Z) → nil
first(s(X), cons(Y, Z)) → cons(Y, n__first(X, activate(Z)))
(7) Obligation:
Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:
ACTIVATE(n__s(X)) → ACTIVATE(X)
ACTIVATE(n__first(X1, X2)) → FIRST(activate(X1), activate(X2))
FIRST(s(X), cons(Y, Z)) → ACTIVATE(Z)
ACTIVATE(n__first(X1, X2)) → ACTIVATE(X1)
ACTIVATE(n__first(X1, X2)) → ACTIVATE(X2)
The TRS R consists of the following rules:
from(X) → cons(X, n__from(n__s(X)))
first(0, Z) → nil
first(s(X), cons(Y, Z)) → cons(Y, n__first(X, activate(Z)))
sel(0, cons(X, Z)) → X
sel(s(X), cons(Y, Z)) → sel(X, activate(Z))
from(X) → n__from(X)
s(X) → n__s(X)
first(X1, X2) → n__first(X1, X2)
activate(n__from(X)) → from(activate(X))
activate(n__s(X)) → s(activate(X))
activate(n__first(X1, X2)) → first(activate(X1), activate(X2))
activate(X) → X
Q is empty.
We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
(8) QDPOrderProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)
We use the reduction pair processor [LPAR04].
The following pairs can be oriented strictly and are deleted.
ACTIVATE(n__first(X1, X2)) → FIRST(activate(X1), activate(X2))
ACTIVATE(n__first(X1, X2)) → ACTIVATE(X1)
ACTIVATE(n__first(X1, X2)) → ACTIVATE(X2)
The remaining pairs can at least be oriented weakly.
Used ordering: Matrix interpretation [MATRO]:
POL(ACTIVATE(x1)) = | | + | | · | x1 |
POL(n__first(x1, x2)) = | | + | | · | x1 | + | | · | x2 |
POL(FIRST(x1, x2)) = | | + | | · | x1 | + | | · | x2 |
POL(activate(x1)) = | | + | | · | x1 |
POL(cons(x1, x2)) = | | + | | · | x1 | + | | · | x2 |
POL(first(x1, x2)) = | | + | | · | x1 | + | | · | x2 |
The following usable rules [FROCOS05] were oriented:
activate(n__s(X)) → s(activate(X))
activate(n__from(X)) → from(activate(X))
activate(X) → X
activate(n__first(X1, X2)) → first(activate(X1), activate(X2))
from(X) → n__from(X)
first(X1, X2) → n__first(X1, X2)
s(X) → n__s(X)
from(X) → cons(X, n__from(n__s(X)))
first(0, Z) → nil
first(s(X), cons(Y, Z)) → cons(Y, n__first(X, activate(Z)))
(9) Obligation:
Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:
ACTIVATE(n__s(X)) → ACTIVATE(X)
FIRST(s(X), cons(Y, Z)) → ACTIVATE(Z)
The TRS R consists of the following rules:
from(X) → cons(X, n__from(n__s(X)))
first(0, Z) → nil
first(s(X), cons(Y, Z)) → cons(Y, n__first(X, activate(Z)))
sel(0, cons(X, Z)) → X
sel(s(X), cons(Y, Z)) → sel(X, activate(Z))
from(X) → n__from(X)
s(X) → n__s(X)
first(X1, X2) → n__first(X1, X2)
activate(n__from(X)) → from(activate(X))
activate(n__s(X)) → s(activate(X))
activate(n__first(X1, X2)) → first(activate(X1), activate(X2))
activate(X) → X
Q is empty.
We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
(10) DependencyGraphProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)
The approximation of the Dependency Graph [LPAR04,FROCOS05,EDGSTAR] contains 1 SCC with 1 less node.
(11) Obligation:
Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:
ACTIVATE(n__s(X)) → ACTIVATE(X)
The TRS R consists of the following rules:
from(X) → cons(X, n__from(n__s(X)))
first(0, Z) → nil
first(s(X), cons(Y, Z)) → cons(Y, n__first(X, activate(Z)))
sel(0, cons(X, Z)) → X
sel(s(X), cons(Y, Z)) → sel(X, activate(Z))
from(X) → n__from(X)
s(X) → n__s(X)
first(X1, X2) → n__first(X1, X2)
activate(n__from(X)) → from(activate(X))
activate(n__s(X)) → s(activate(X))
activate(n__first(X1, X2)) → first(activate(X1), activate(X2))
activate(X) → X
Q is empty.
We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
(12) 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.
(13) Obligation:
Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:
ACTIVATE(n__s(X)) → ACTIVATE(X)
R is empty.
Q is empty.
We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
(14) 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:
- ACTIVATE(n__s(X)) → ACTIVATE(X)
The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1
(15) TRUE
(16) Obligation:
Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:
SEL(s(X), cons(Y, Z)) → SEL(X, activate(Z))
The TRS R consists of the following rules:
from(X) → cons(X, n__from(n__s(X)))
first(0, Z) → nil
first(s(X), cons(Y, Z)) → cons(Y, n__first(X, activate(Z)))
sel(0, cons(X, Z)) → X
sel(s(X), cons(Y, Z)) → sel(X, activate(Z))
from(X) → n__from(X)
s(X) → n__s(X)
first(X1, X2) → n__first(X1, X2)
activate(n__from(X)) → from(activate(X))
activate(n__s(X)) → s(activate(X))
activate(n__first(X1, X2)) → first(activate(X1), activate(X2))
activate(X) → X
Q is empty.
We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
(17) 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:
- SEL(s(X), cons(Y, Z)) → SEL(X, activate(Z))
The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1
(18) TRUE