(0) Obligation:
Q restricted rewrite system:
The TRS R consists of the following rules:
from(X) → cons(X, n__from(n__s(X)))
after(0, XS) → XS
after(s(N), cons(X, XS)) → after(N, activate(XS))
from(X) → n__from(X)
s(X) → n__s(X)
activate(n__from(X)) → from(activate(X))
activate(n__s(X)) → s(activate(X))
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:
AFTER(s(N), cons(X, XS)) → AFTER(N, activate(XS))
AFTER(s(N), cons(X, XS)) → ACTIVATE(XS)
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)
The TRS R consists of the following rules:
from(X) → cons(X, n__from(n__s(X)))
after(0, XS) → XS
after(s(N), cons(X, XS)) → after(N, activate(XS))
from(X) → n__from(X)
s(X) → n__s(X)
activate(n__from(X)) → from(activate(X))
activate(n__s(X)) → s(activate(X))
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__s(X)) → ACTIVATE(X)
ACTIVATE(n__from(X)) → ACTIVATE(X)
The TRS R consists of the following rules:
from(X) → cons(X, n__from(n__s(X)))
after(0, XS) → XS
after(s(N), cons(X, XS)) → after(N, activate(XS))
from(X) → n__from(X)
s(X) → n__s(X)
activate(n__from(X)) → from(activate(X))
activate(n__s(X)) → s(activate(X))
activate(X) → X
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:
ACTIVATE(n__s(X)) → ACTIVATE(X)
ACTIVATE(n__from(X)) → ACTIVATE(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:
- ACTIVATE(n__s(X)) → ACTIVATE(X)
The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1
- ACTIVATE(n__from(X)) → ACTIVATE(X)
The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1
(9) TRUE
(10) Obligation:
Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:
AFTER(s(N), cons(X, XS)) → AFTER(N, activate(XS))
The TRS R consists of the following rules:
from(X) → cons(X, n__from(n__s(X)))
after(0, XS) → XS
after(s(N), cons(X, XS)) → after(N, activate(XS))
from(X) → n__from(X)
s(X) → n__s(X)
activate(n__from(X)) → from(activate(X))
activate(n__s(X)) → s(activate(X))
activate(X) → X
Q is empty.
We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
(11) 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:
- AFTER(s(N), cons(X, XS)) → AFTER(N, activate(XS))
The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1
(12) TRUE