Termination w.r.t. Q of the given QTRS could be disproven:

0 QTRS
↳1 Overlay + Local Confluence (⇔)
↳2 QTRS
↳3 DependencyPairsProof (⇔)
↳4 QDP
↳5 DependencyGraphProof (⇔)
↳6 AND
  ↳7 QDP
    ↳8 UsableRulesProof (⇔)
    ↳9 QDP
    ↳10 QReductionProof (⇔)
    ↳11 QDP
    ↳12 QDPSizeChangeProof (⇔)
    ↳13 TRUE
  ↳14 QDP
    ↳15 UsableRulesProof (⇔)
    ↳16 QDP
    ↳17 QReductionProof (⇔)
    ↳18 QDP
    ↳19 QDPSizeChangeProof (⇔)
    ↳20 TRUE
  ↳21 QDP
    ↳22 UsableRulesProof (⇔)
    ↳23 QDP
    ↳24 QReductionProof (⇔)
    ↳25 QDP
    ↳26 QDPSizeChangeProof (⇔)
    ↳27 TRUE
  ↳28 QDP
    ↳29 UsableRulesProof (⇔)
    ↳30 QDP
    ↳31 QReductionProof (⇔)
    ↳32 QDP
      ↳33 Instantiation (⇔)
        ↳34 QDP
      ↳35 Instantiation (⇔)
        ↳36 QDP
        ↳37 Instantiation (⇔)
        ↳38 QDP
        ↳39 NonTerminationProof (⇔)
        ↳40 FALSE

(0) Obligation:

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

from(X) → cons(X, from(s(X)))
2ndspos(0, Z) → rnil
2ndspos(s(N), cons(X, Z)) → 2ndspos(s(N), cons2(X, Z))
2ndspos(s(N), cons2(X, cons(Y, Z))) → rcons(posrecip(Y), 2ndsneg(N, Z))
2ndsneg(0, Z) → rnil
2ndsneg(s(N), cons(X, Z)) → 2ndsneg(s(N), cons2(X, Z))
2ndsneg(s(N), cons2(X, cons(Y, Z))) → rcons(negrecip(Y), 2ndspos(N, Z))
pi(X) → 2ndspos(X, from(0))
plus(0, Y) → Y
plus(s(X), Y) → s(plus(X, Y))
times(0, Y) → 0
times(s(X), Y) → plus(Y, times(X, Y))
square(X) → times(X, 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:

from(X) → cons(X, from(s(X)))
2ndspos(0, Z) → rnil
2ndspos(s(N), cons(X, Z)) → 2ndspos(s(N), cons2(X, Z))
2ndspos(s(N), cons2(X, cons(Y, Z))) → rcons(posrecip(Y), 2ndsneg(N, Z))
2ndsneg(0, Z) → rnil
2ndsneg(s(N), cons(X, Z)) → 2ndsneg(s(N), cons2(X, Z))
2ndsneg(s(N), cons2(X, cons(Y, Z))) → rcons(negrecip(Y), 2ndspos(N, Z))
pi(X) → 2ndspos(X, from(0))
plus(0, Y) → Y
plus(s(X), Y) → s(plus(X, Y))
times(0, Y) → 0
times(s(X), Y) → plus(Y, times(X, Y))
square(X) → times(X, X)

The set Q consists of the following terms:

from(x0)
2ndspos(0, x0)
2ndspos(s(x0), cons(x1, x2))
2ndspos(s(x0), cons2(x1, cons(x2, x3)))
2ndsneg(0, x0)
2ndsneg(s(x0), cons(x1, x2))
2ndsneg(s(x0), cons2(x1, cons(x2, x3)))
pi(x0)
plus(0, x0)
plus(s(x0), x1)
times(0, x0)
times(s(x0), x1)
square(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:

FROM(X) → FROM(s(X))
2NDSPOS(s(N), cons(X, Z)) → 2NDSPOS(s(N), cons2(X, Z))
2NDSPOS(s(N), cons2(X, cons(Y, Z))) → 2NDSNEG(N, Z)
2NDSNEG(s(N), cons(X, Z)) → 2NDSNEG(s(N), cons2(X, Z))
2NDSNEG(s(N), cons2(X, cons(Y, Z))) → 2NDSPOS(N, Z)
PI(X) → 2NDSPOS(X, from(0))
PI(X) → FROM(0)
PLUS(s(X), Y) → PLUS(X, Y)
TIMES(s(X), Y) → PLUS(Y, times(X, Y))
TIMES(s(X), Y) → TIMES(X, Y)
SQUARE(X) → TIMES(X, X)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

from(X) → cons(X, from(s(X)))
2ndspos(0, Z) → rnil
2ndspos(s(N), cons(X, Z)) → 2ndspos(s(N), cons2(X, Z))
2ndspos(s(N), cons2(X, cons(Y, Z))) → rcons(posrecip(Y), 2ndsneg(N, Z))
2ndsneg(0, Z) → rnil
2ndsneg(s(N), cons(X, Z)) → 2ndsneg(s(N), cons2(X, Z))
2ndsneg(s(N), cons2(X, cons(Y, Z))) → rcons(negrecip(Y), 2ndspos(N, Z))
pi(X) → 2ndspos(X, from(0))
plus(0, Y) → Y
plus(s(X), Y) → s(plus(X, Y))
times(0, Y) → 0
times(s(X), Y) → plus(Y, times(X, Y))
square(X) → times(X, X)

The set Q consists of the following terms:

from(x0)
2ndspos(0, x0)
2ndspos(s(x0), cons(x1, x2))
2ndspos(s(x0), cons2(x1, cons(x2, x3)))
2ndsneg(0, x0)
2ndsneg(s(x0), cons(x1, x2))
2ndsneg(s(x0), cons2(x1, cons(x2, x3)))
pi(x0)
plus(0, x0)
plus(s(x0), x1)
times(0, x0)
times(s(x0), x1)
square(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 4 SCCs with 4 less nodes.

(6) Complex Obligation (AND)

(7) Obligation:

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

PLUS(s(X), Y) → PLUS(X, Y)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

from(X) → cons(X, from(s(X)))
2ndspos(0, Z) → rnil
2ndspos(s(N), cons(X, Z)) → 2ndspos(s(N), cons2(X, Z))
2ndspos(s(N), cons2(X, cons(Y, Z))) → rcons(posrecip(Y), 2ndsneg(N, Z))
2ndsneg(0, Z) → rnil
2ndsneg(s(N), cons(X, Z)) → 2ndsneg(s(N), cons2(X, Z))
2ndsneg(s(N), cons2(X, cons(Y, Z))) → rcons(negrecip(Y), 2ndspos(N, Z))
pi(X) → 2ndspos(X, from(0))
plus(0, Y) → Y
plus(s(X), Y) → s(plus(X, Y))
times(0, Y) → 0
times(s(X), Y) → plus(Y, times(X, Y))
square(X) → times(X, X)

The set Q consists of the following terms:

from(x0)
2ndspos(0, x0)
2ndspos(s(x0), cons(x1, x2))
2ndspos(s(x0), cons2(x1, cons(x2, x3)))
2ndsneg(0, x0)
2ndsneg(s(x0), cons(x1, x2))
2ndsneg(s(x0), cons2(x1, cons(x2, x3)))
pi(x0)
plus(0, x0)
plus(s(x0), x1)
times(0, x0)
times(s(x0), x1)
square(x0)

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

(8) UsableRulesProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

As all Q-normal forms are R-normal forms we are in the innermost case. Hence, by the usable rules processor [LPAR04] we can delete all non-usable rules [FROCOS05] from R.

(9) Obligation:

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

PLUS(s(X), Y) → PLUS(X, Y)

R is empty.
The set Q consists of the following terms:

from(x0)
2ndspos(0, x0)
2ndspos(s(x0), cons(x1, x2))
2ndspos(s(x0), cons2(x1, cons(x2, x3)))
2ndsneg(0, x0)
2ndsneg(s(x0), cons(x1, x2))
2ndsneg(s(x0), cons2(x1, cons(x2, x3)))
pi(x0)
plus(0, x0)
plus(s(x0), x1)
times(0, x0)
times(s(x0), x1)
square(x0)

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

(10) QReductionProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

We deleted the following terms from Q as each root-symbol of these terms does neither occur in P nor in R.[THIEMANN].

from(x0)
2ndspos(0, x0)
2ndspos(s(x0), cons(x1, x2))
2ndspos(s(x0), cons2(x1, cons(x2, x3)))
2ndsneg(0, x0)
2ndsneg(s(x0), cons(x1, x2))
2ndsneg(s(x0), cons2(x1, cons(x2, x3)))
pi(x0)
plus(0, x0)
plus(s(x0), x1)
times(0, x0)
times(s(x0), x1)
square(x0)

(11) Obligation:

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

PLUS(s(X), Y) → PLUS(X, Y)

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

(12) 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:

  • PLUS(s(X), Y) → PLUS(X, Y)
    The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1, 2 >= 2

(13) TRUE

(14) Obligation:

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

TIMES(s(X), Y) → TIMES(X, Y)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

from(X) → cons(X, from(s(X)))
2ndspos(0, Z) → rnil
2ndspos(s(N), cons(X, Z)) → 2ndspos(s(N), cons2(X, Z))
2ndspos(s(N), cons2(X, cons(Y, Z))) → rcons(posrecip(Y), 2ndsneg(N, Z))
2ndsneg(0, Z) → rnil
2ndsneg(s(N), cons(X, Z)) → 2ndsneg(s(N), cons2(X, Z))
2ndsneg(s(N), cons2(X, cons(Y, Z))) → rcons(negrecip(Y), 2ndspos(N, Z))
pi(X) → 2ndspos(X, from(0))
plus(0, Y) → Y
plus(s(X), Y) → s(plus(X, Y))
times(0, Y) → 0
times(s(X), Y) → plus(Y, times(X, Y))
square(X) → times(X, X)

The set Q consists of the following terms:

from(x0)
2ndspos(0, x0)
2ndspos(s(x0), cons(x1, x2))
2ndspos(s(x0), cons2(x1, cons(x2, x3)))
2ndsneg(0, x0)
2ndsneg(s(x0), cons(x1, x2))
2ndsneg(s(x0), cons2(x1, cons(x2, x3)))
pi(x0)
plus(0, x0)
plus(s(x0), x1)
times(0, x0)
times(s(x0), x1)
square(x0)

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

(15) UsableRulesProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

As all Q-normal forms are R-normal forms we are in the innermost case. Hence, by the usable rules processor [LPAR04] we can delete all non-usable rules [FROCOS05] from R.

(16) Obligation:

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

TIMES(s(X), Y) → TIMES(X, Y)

R is empty.
The set Q consists of the following terms:

from(x0)
2ndspos(0, x0)
2ndspos(s(x0), cons(x1, x2))
2ndspos(s(x0), cons2(x1, cons(x2, x3)))
2ndsneg(0, x0)
2ndsneg(s(x0), cons(x1, x2))
2ndsneg(s(x0), cons2(x1, cons(x2, x3)))
pi(x0)
plus(0, x0)
plus(s(x0), x1)
times(0, x0)
times(s(x0), x1)
square(x0)

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

(17) QReductionProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

We deleted the following terms from Q as each root-symbol of these terms does neither occur in P nor in R.[THIEMANN].

from(x0)
2ndspos(0, x0)
2ndspos(s(x0), cons(x1, x2))
2ndspos(s(x0), cons2(x1, cons(x2, x3)))
2ndsneg(0, x0)
2ndsneg(s(x0), cons(x1, x2))
2ndsneg(s(x0), cons2(x1, cons(x2, x3)))
pi(x0)
plus(0, x0)
plus(s(x0), x1)
times(0, x0)
times(s(x0), x1)
square(x0)

(18) Obligation:

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

TIMES(s(X), Y) → TIMES(X, Y)

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

(19) 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:

  • TIMES(s(X), Y) → TIMES(X, Y)
    The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1, 2 >= 2

(20) TRUE

(21) Obligation:

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

2NDSPOS(s(N), cons2(X, cons(Y, Z))) → 2NDSNEG(N, Z)
2NDSNEG(s(N), cons(X, Z)) → 2NDSNEG(s(N), cons2(X, Z))
2NDSNEG(s(N), cons2(X, cons(Y, Z))) → 2NDSPOS(N, Z)
2NDSPOS(s(N), cons(X, Z)) → 2NDSPOS(s(N), cons2(X, Z))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

from(X) → cons(X, from(s(X)))
2ndspos(0, Z) → rnil
2ndspos(s(N), cons(X, Z)) → 2ndspos(s(N), cons2(X, Z))
2ndspos(s(N), cons2(X, cons(Y, Z))) → rcons(posrecip(Y), 2ndsneg(N, Z))
2ndsneg(0, Z) → rnil
2ndsneg(s(N), cons(X, Z)) → 2ndsneg(s(N), cons2(X, Z))
2ndsneg(s(N), cons2(X, cons(Y, Z))) → rcons(negrecip(Y), 2ndspos(N, Z))
pi(X) → 2ndspos(X, from(0))
plus(0, Y) → Y
plus(s(X), Y) → s(plus(X, Y))
times(0, Y) → 0
times(s(X), Y) → plus(Y, times(X, Y))
square(X) → times(X, X)

The set Q consists of the following terms:

from(x0)
2ndspos(0, x0)
2ndspos(s(x0), cons(x1, x2))
2ndspos(s(x0), cons2(x1, cons(x2, x3)))
2ndsneg(0, x0)
2ndsneg(s(x0), cons(x1, x2))
2ndsneg(s(x0), cons2(x1, cons(x2, x3)))
pi(x0)
plus(0, x0)
plus(s(x0), x1)
times(0, x0)
times(s(x0), x1)
square(x0)

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

(22) UsableRulesProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

As all Q-normal forms are R-normal forms we are in the innermost case. Hence, by the usable rules processor [LPAR04] we can delete all non-usable rules [FROCOS05] from R.

(23) Obligation:

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

2NDSPOS(s(N), cons2(X, cons(Y, Z))) → 2NDSNEG(N, Z)
2NDSNEG(s(N), cons(X, Z)) → 2NDSNEG(s(N), cons2(X, Z))
2NDSNEG(s(N), cons2(X, cons(Y, Z))) → 2NDSPOS(N, Z)
2NDSPOS(s(N), cons(X, Z)) → 2NDSPOS(s(N), cons2(X, Z))

R is empty.
The set Q consists of the following terms:

from(x0)
2ndspos(0, x0)
2ndspos(s(x0), cons(x1, x2))
2ndspos(s(x0), cons2(x1, cons(x2, x3)))
2ndsneg(0, x0)
2ndsneg(s(x0), cons(x1, x2))
2ndsneg(s(x0), cons2(x1, cons(x2, x3)))
pi(x0)
plus(0, x0)
plus(s(x0), x1)
times(0, x0)
times(s(x0), x1)
square(x0)

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

(24) QReductionProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

We deleted the following terms from Q as each root-symbol of these terms does neither occur in P nor in R.[THIEMANN].

from(x0)
2ndspos(0, x0)
2ndspos(s(x0), cons(x1, x2))
2ndspos(s(x0), cons2(x1, cons(x2, x3)))
2ndsneg(0, x0)
2ndsneg(s(x0), cons(x1, x2))
2ndsneg(s(x0), cons2(x1, cons(x2, x3)))
pi(x0)
plus(0, x0)
plus(s(x0), x1)
times(0, x0)
times(s(x0), x1)
square(x0)

(25) Obligation:

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

2NDSPOS(s(N), cons2(X, cons(Y, Z))) → 2NDSNEG(N, Z)
2NDSNEG(s(N), cons(X, Z)) → 2NDSNEG(s(N), cons2(X, Z))
2NDSNEG(s(N), cons2(X, cons(Y, Z))) → 2NDSPOS(N, Z)
2NDSPOS(s(N), cons(X, Z)) → 2NDSPOS(s(N), cons2(X, Z))

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

(26) 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:

  • 2NDSNEG(s(N), cons2(X, cons(Y, Z))) → 2NDSPOS(N, Z)
    The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1, 2 > 2

  • 2NDSNEG(s(N), cons(X, Z)) → 2NDSNEG(s(N), cons2(X, Z))
    The graph contains the following edges 1 >= 1

  • 2NDSPOS(s(N), cons(X, Z)) → 2NDSPOS(s(N), cons2(X, Z))
    The graph contains the following edges 1 >= 1

  • 2NDSPOS(s(N), cons2(X, cons(Y, Z))) → 2NDSNEG(N, Z)
    The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1, 2 > 2

(27) TRUE

(28) 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:

from(X) → cons(X, from(s(X)))
2ndspos(0, Z) → rnil
2ndspos(s(N), cons(X, Z)) → 2ndspos(s(N), cons2(X, Z))
2ndspos(s(N), cons2(X, cons(Y, Z))) → rcons(posrecip(Y), 2ndsneg(N, Z))
2ndsneg(0, Z) → rnil
2ndsneg(s(N), cons(X, Z)) → 2ndsneg(s(N), cons2(X, Z))
2ndsneg(s(N), cons2(X, cons(Y, Z))) → rcons(negrecip(Y), 2ndspos(N, Z))
pi(X) → 2ndspos(X, from(0))
plus(0, Y) → Y
plus(s(X), Y) → s(plus(X, Y))
times(0, Y) → 0
times(s(X), Y) → plus(Y, times(X, Y))
square(X) → times(X, X)

The set Q consists of the following terms:

from(x0)
2ndspos(0, x0)
2ndspos(s(x0), cons(x1, x2))
2ndspos(s(x0), cons2(x1, cons(x2, x3)))
2ndsneg(0, x0)
2ndsneg(s(x0), cons(x1, x2))
2ndsneg(s(x0), cons2(x1, cons(x2, x3)))
pi(x0)
plus(0, x0)
plus(s(x0), x1)
times(0, x0)
times(s(x0), x1)
square(x0)

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

(29) UsableRulesProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

As all Q-normal forms are R-normal forms we are in the innermost case. Hence, by the usable rules processor [LPAR04] we can delete all non-usable rules [FROCOS05] from R.

(30) Obligation:

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

FROM(X) → FROM(s(X))

R is empty.
The set Q consists of the following terms:

from(x0)
2ndspos(0, x0)
2ndspos(s(x0), cons(x1, x2))
2ndspos(s(x0), cons2(x1, cons(x2, x3)))
2ndsneg(0, x0)
2ndsneg(s(x0), cons(x1, x2))
2ndsneg(s(x0), cons2(x1, cons(x2, x3)))
pi(x0)
plus(0, x0)
plus(s(x0), x1)
times(0, x0)
times(s(x0), x1)
square(x0)

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

(31) QReductionProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

We deleted the following terms from Q as each root-symbol of these terms does neither occur in P nor in R.[THIEMANN].

from(x0)
2ndspos(0, x0)
2ndspos(s(x0), cons(x1, x2))
2ndspos(s(x0), cons2(x1, cons(x2, x3)))
2ndsneg(0, x0)
2ndsneg(s(x0), cons(x1, x2))
2ndsneg(s(x0), cons2(x1, cons(x2, x3)))
pi(x0)
plus(0, x0)
plus(s(x0), x1)
times(0, x0)
times(s(x0), x1)
square(x0)

(32) Obligation:

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

FROM(X) → FROM(s(X))

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

(33) Instantiation (EQUIVALENT transformation)

By instantiating [LPAR04] the rule FROM(X) → FROM(s(X)) we obtained the following new rules [LPAR04]:

FROM(s(z0)) → FROM(s(s(z0)))

(34) Obligation:

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

FROM(s(z0)) → FROM(s(s(z0)))

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

(35) Instantiation (EQUIVALENT transformation)

By instantiating [LPAR04] the rule FROM(X) → FROM(s(X)) we obtained the following new rules [LPAR04]:

FROM(s(z0)) → FROM(s(s(z0)))

(36) Obligation:

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

FROM(s(z0)) → FROM(s(s(z0)))

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

(37) Instantiation (EQUIVALENT transformation)

By instantiating [LPAR04] the rule FROM(s(z0)) → FROM(s(s(z0))) we obtained the following new rules [LPAR04]:

FROM(s(s(z0))) → FROM(s(s(s(z0))))

(38) Obligation:

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

FROM(s(s(z0))) → FROM(s(s(s(z0))))

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

(39) NonTerminationProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

We used the non-termination processor [FROCOS05] to show that the DP problem is infinite.
Found a loop by semiunifying a rule from P directly.

s = FROM(s(s(z0))) evaluates to t =FROM(s(s(s(z0))))

Thus s starts an infinite chain as s semiunifies with t with the following substitutions:
  • Semiunifier: [ ]
  • Matcher: [z0 / s(z0)]



Rewriting sequence

The DP semiunifies directly so there is only one rewrite step from FROM(s(s(z0))) to FROM(s(s(s(z0)))).



(40) FALSE