(0) Obligation:

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

app(app(:, app(app(:, x), y)), z) → app(app(:, x), app(app(:, y), z))
app(app(:, app(app(+, x), y)), z) → app(app(+, app(app(:, x), z)), app(app(:, y), z))
app(app(:, z), app(app(+, x), app(f, y))) → app(app(:, app(app(g, z), y)), app(app(+, x), a))
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.

(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:

APP(app(:, app(app(:, x), y)), z) → APP(app(:, x), app(app(:, y), z))
APP(app(:, app(app(:, x), y)), z) → APP(app(:, y), z)
APP(app(:, app(app(:, x), y)), z) → APP(:, y)
APP(app(:, app(app(+, x), y)), z) → APP(app(+, app(app(:, x), z)), app(app(:, y), z))
APP(app(:, app(app(+, x), y)), z) → APP(+, app(app(:, x), z))
APP(app(:, app(app(+, x), y)), z) → APP(app(:, x), z)
APP(app(:, app(app(+, x), y)), z) → APP(:, x)
APP(app(:, app(app(+, x), y)), z) → APP(app(:, y), z)
APP(app(:, app(app(+, x), y)), z) → APP(:, y)
APP(app(:, z), app(app(+, x), app(f, y))) → APP(app(:, app(app(g, z), y)), app(app(+, x), a))
APP(app(:, z), app(app(+, x), app(f, y))) → APP(:, app(app(g, z), y))
APP(app(:, z), app(app(+, x), app(f, y))) → APP(app(g, z), y)
APP(app(:, z), app(app(+, x), app(f, y))) → APP(g, z)
APP(app(:, z), app(app(+, x), app(f, y))) → APP(app(+, x), a)
APP(app(map, f), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → APP(app(cons, app(f, x)), app(app(map, f), xs))
APP(app(map, f), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → APP(cons, app(f, x))
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(filter, f), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → APP(app(app(app(filter2, app(f, x)), f), x), xs)
APP(app(filter, f), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → APP(app(app(filter2, app(f, x)), f), x)
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(filter2, app(f, x))
APP(app(filter, f), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → APP(f, x)
APP(app(app(app(filter2, true), f), x), xs) → APP(app(cons, x), app(app(filter, f), xs))
APP(app(app(app(filter2, true), f), x), xs) → APP(cons, x)
APP(app(app(app(filter2, true), f), x), xs) → APP(app(filter, f), xs)
APP(app(app(app(filter2, true), f), x), xs) → APP(filter, f)
APP(app(app(app(filter2, false), f), x), xs) → APP(app(filter, f), xs)
APP(app(app(app(filter2, false), f), x), xs) → APP(filter, f)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

app(app(:, app(app(:, x), y)), z) → app(app(:, x), app(app(:, y), z))
app(app(:, app(app(+, x), y)), z) → app(app(+, app(app(:, x), z)), app(app(:, y), z))
app(app(:, z), app(app(+, x), app(f, y))) → app(app(:, app(app(g, z), y)), app(app(+, x), a))
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.

(3) DependencyGraphProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

The approximation of the Dependency Graph [LPAR04,FROCOS05,EDGSTAR] contains 2 SCCs with 20 less nodes.

(4) Complex Obligation (AND)

(5) Obligation:

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

APP(app(:, app(app(:, x), y)), z) → APP(app(:, y), z)
APP(app(:, app(app(:, x), y)), z) → APP(app(:, x), app(app(:, y), z))
APP(app(:, app(app(+, x), y)), z) → APP(app(:, x), z)
APP(app(:, app(app(+, x), y)), z) → APP(app(:, y), z)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

app(app(:, app(app(:, x), y)), z) → app(app(:, x), app(app(:, y), z))
app(app(:, app(app(+, x), y)), z) → app(app(+, app(app(:, x), z)), app(app(:, y), z))
app(app(:, z), app(app(+, x), app(f, y))) → app(app(:, app(app(g, z), y)), app(app(+, x), a))
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.

(6) QDPApplicativeOrderProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

We use the reduction pair processor [LPAR04].Here, we combined the reduction pair processor with the A-transformation [FROCOS05] which results in the following intermediate Q-DP Problem.
The a-transformed P is

:1(:(x, y), z) → :1(y, z)
:1(:(x, y), z) → :1(x, :(y, z))
:1(+(x, y), z) → :1(x, z)
:1(+(x, y), z) → :1(y, z)

The a-transformed usable rules are
none


The following pairs can be oriented strictly and are deleted.


APP(app(:, app(app(+, x), y)), z) → APP(app(:, x), z)
APP(app(:, app(app(+, x), y)), z) → APP(app(:, y), z)
The remaining pairs can at least be oriented weakly.

APP(app(:, app(app(:, x), y)), z) → APP(app(:, y), z)
APP(app(:, app(app(:, x), y)), z) → APP(app(:, x), app(app(:, y), z))
Used ordering: Polynomial interpretation [POLO]:

POL(+(x1, x2)) = 1 + x1 + x2   
POL(:(x1, x2)) = x1 + x2   
POL(:1(x1, x2)) = x1   
POL(a) = 0   
POL(g(x1, x2)) = 1 + x2   
POL(notProper) = 0   

The following usable rules [FROCOS05] were oriented: none

(7) Obligation:

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

APP(app(:, app(app(:, x), y)), z) → APP(app(:, y), z)
APP(app(:, app(app(:, x), y)), z) → APP(app(:, x), app(app(:, y), z))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

app(app(:, app(app(:, x), y)), z) → app(app(:, x), app(app(:, y), z))
app(app(:, app(app(+, x), y)), z) → app(app(+, app(app(:, x), z)), app(app(:, y), z))
app(app(:, z), app(app(+, x), app(f, y))) → app(app(:, app(app(g, z), y)), app(app(+, x), a))
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.

(8) QDPApplicativeOrderProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

We use the reduction pair processor [LPAR04].Here, we combined the reduction pair processor with the A-transformation [FROCOS05] which results in the following intermediate Q-DP Problem.
The a-transformed P is

:1(:(x, y), z) → :1(y, z)
:1(:(x, y), z) → :1(x, :(y, z))

The a-transformed usable rules are

:(z, +(x, notProper)) → :(g(z, y), +(x, a))
:(:(x, y), z) → :(x, :(y, z))
:(+(x, y), z) → +(:(x, z), :(y, z))


The following pairs can be oriented strictly and are deleted.


APP(app(:, app(app(:, x), y)), z) → APP(app(:, y), z)
The remaining pairs can at least be oriented weakly.

APP(app(:, app(app(:, x), y)), z) → APP(app(:, x), app(app(:, y), z))
Used ordering: Polynomial interpretation [POLO]:

POL(+(x1, x2)) = x1   
POL(:(x1, x2)) = 1 + x1 + x2   
POL(:1(x1, x2)) = x1 + x2   
POL(a) = 0   
POL(g(x1, x2)) = 0   
POL(notProper) = 0   

The following usable rules [FROCOS05] were oriented:

app(app(:, z), app(app(+, x), app(f, y))) → app(app(:, app(app(g, z), y)), app(app(+, x), a))
app(app(:, app(app(:, x), y)), z) → app(app(:, x), app(app(:, y), z))
app(app(:, app(app(+, x), y)), z) → app(app(+, app(app(:, x), z)), app(app(:, y), z))

(9) Obligation:

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

APP(app(:, app(app(:, x), y)), z) → APP(app(:, x), app(app(:, y), z))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

app(app(:, app(app(:, x), y)), z) → app(app(:, x), app(app(:, y), z))
app(app(:, app(app(+, x), y)), z) → app(app(+, app(app(:, x), z)), app(app(:, y), z))
app(app(:, z), app(app(+, x), app(f, y))) → app(app(:, app(app(g, z), y)), app(app(+, x), a))
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.

(10) 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:

  • APP(app(:, app(app(:, x), y)), z) → APP(app(:, x), app(app(:, y), z))
    The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1

(11) TRUE

(12) Obligation:

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

APP(app(map, f), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → APP(app(map, f), xs)
APP(app(map, f), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → APP(f, x)
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)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

app(app(:, app(app(:, x), y)), z) → app(app(:, x), app(app(:, y), z))
app(app(:, app(app(+, x), y)), z) → app(app(+, app(app(:, x), z)), app(app(:, y), z))
app(app(:, z), app(app(+, x), app(f, y))) → app(app(:, app(app(g, z), y)), app(app(+, x), a))
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.

(13) 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.

(14) Obligation:

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

APP(app(map, f), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → APP(app(map, f), xs)
APP(app(map, f), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → APP(f, x)
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)

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

(15) 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:

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

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

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

(16) TRUE