(0) Obligation:
Q restricted rewrite system:
The TRS R consists of the following rules:
first(0, X) → nil
first(s(X), cons(Y, Z)) → cons(Y, first(X, Z))
from(X) → cons(X, from(s(X)))
Q is empty.
(1) Overlay + Local Confluence (EQUIVALENT transformation)
The TRS is overlay and locally confluent. By [NOC] we can switch to innermost.
(2) Obligation:
Q restricted rewrite system:
The TRS R consists of the following rules:
first(0, X) → nil
first(s(X), cons(Y, Z)) → cons(Y, first(X, Z))
from(X) → cons(X, from(s(X)))
The set Q consists of the following terms:
first(0, x0)
first(s(x0), cons(x1, x2))
from(x0)
(3) DependencyPairsProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)
Using Dependency Pairs [AG00,LPAR04] we result in the following initial DP problem.
(4) Obligation:
Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:
FIRST(s(X), cons(Y, Z)) → FIRST(X, Z)
FROM(X) → FROM(s(X))
The TRS R consists of the following rules:
first(0, X) → nil
first(s(X), cons(Y, Z)) → cons(Y, first(X, Z))
from(X) → cons(X, from(s(X)))
The set Q consists of the following terms:
first(0, x0)
first(s(x0), cons(x1, x2))
from(x0)
We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
(5) DependencyGraphProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)
The approximation of the Dependency Graph [LPAR04,FROCOS05,EDGSTAR] contains 2 SCCs.
(6) Complex Obligation (AND)
(7) Obligation:
Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:
FROM(X) → FROM(s(X))
The TRS R consists of the following rules:
first(0, X) → nil
first(s(X), cons(Y, Z)) → cons(Y, first(X, Z))
from(X) → cons(X, from(s(X)))
The set Q consists of the following terms:
first(0, x0)
first(s(x0), cons(x1, x2))
from(x0)
We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
(8) Obligation:
Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:
FIRST(s(X), cons(Y, Z)) → FIRST(X, Z)
The TRS R consists of the following rules:
first(0, X) → nil
first(s(X), cons(Y, Z)) → cons(Y, first(X, Z))
from(X) → cons(X, from(s(X)))
The set Q consists of the following terms:
first(0, x0)
first(s(x0), cons(x1, x2))
from(x0)
We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
(9) QDPOrderProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)
We use the reduction pair processor [LPAR04].
The following pairs can be oriented strictly and are deleted.
FIRST(s(X), cons(Y, Z)) → FIRST(X, Z)
The remaining pairs can at least be oriented weakly.
Used ordering: Combined order from the following AFS and order.
FIRST(
x1,
x2) =
FIRST(
x1)
s(
x1) =
s(
x1)
cons(
x1,
x2) =
x1
first(
x1,
x2) =
x2
0 =
0
nil =
nil
from(
x1) =
x1
Recursive path order with status [RPO].
Precedence:
FIRST1 > nil
s1 > nil
0 > nil
Status:
FIRST1: [1]
s1: multiset
0: multiset
nil: multiset
The following usable rules [FROCOS05] were oriented:
first(0, X) → nil
first(s(X), cons(Y, Z)) → cons(Y, first(X, Z))
from(X) → cons(X, from(s(X)))
(10) Obligation:
Q DP problem:
P is empty.
The TRS R consists of the following rules:
first(0, X) → nil
first(s(X), cons(Y, Z)) → cons(Y, first(X, Z))
from(X) → cons(X, from(s(X)))
The set Q consists of the following terms:
first(0, x0)
first(s(x0), cons(x1, x2))
from(x0)
We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
(11) PisEmptyProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)
The TRS P is empty. Hence, there is no (P,Q,R) chain.
(12) TRUE