Termination w.r.t. Q of the following Term Rewriting System could be proven:
Q restricted rewrite system:
The TRS R consists of the following rules:
app2(app2(plus, 0), y) -> y
app2(app2(plus, app2(s, x)), y) -> app2(s, app2(app2(plus, x), y))
app2(app2(map, f), nil) -> nil
app2(app2(map, f), app2(app2(cons, x), xs)) -> app2(app2(cons, app2(f, x)), app2(app2(map, f), xs))
inc -> app2(map, app2(plus, app2(s, 0)))
Q is empty.
↳ QTRS
↳ Non-Overlap Check
Q restricted rewrite system:
The TRS R consists of the following rules:
app2(app2(plus, 0), y) -> y
app2(app2(plus, app2(s, x)), y) -> app2(s, app2(app2(plus, x), y))
app2(app2(map, f), nil) -> nil
app2(app2(map, f), app2(app2(cons, x), xs)) -> app2(app2(cons, app2(f, x)), app2(app2(map, f), xs))
inc -> app2(map, app2(plus, app2(s, 0)))
Q is empty.
The TRS is non-overlapping. Hence, we can switch to innermost.
↳ QTRS
↳ Non-Overlap Check
↳ QTRS
↳ DependencyPairsProof
Q restricted rewrite system:
The TRS R consists of the following rules:
app2(app2(plus, 0), y) -> y
app2(app2(plus, app2(s, x)), y) -> app2(s, app2(app2(plus, x), y))
app2(app2(map, f), nil) -> nil
app2(app2(map, f), app2(app2(cons, x), xs)) -> app2(app2(cons, app2(f, x)), app2(app2(map, f), xs))
inc -> app2(map, app2(plus, app2(s, 0)))
The set Q consists of the following terms:
app2(app2(plus, 0), x0)
app2(app2(plus, app2(s, x0)), x1)
app2(app2(map, x0), nil)
app2(app2(map, x0), app2(app2(cons, x1), x2))
inc
Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:
APP2(app2(plus, app2(s, x)), y) -> APP2(s, app2(app2(plus, x), y))
APP2(app2(map, f), app2(app2(cons, x), xs)) -> APP2(app2(cons, app2(f, x)), app2(app2(map, f), xs))
APP2(app2(plus, app2(s, x)), y) -> APP2(app2(plus, x), y)
APP2(app2(map, f), app2(app2(cons, x), xs)) -> APP2(f, x)
INC -> APP2(plus, app2(s, 0))
INC -> APP2(map, app2(plus, app2(s, 0)))
APP2(app2(plus, app2(s, x)), y) -> APP2(plus, x)
INC -> APP2(s, 0)
APP2(app2(map, f), app2(app2(cons, x), xs)) -> APP2(app2(map, f), xs)
APP2(app2(map, f), app2(app2(cons, x), xs)) -> APP2(cons, app2(f, x))
The TRS R consists of the following rules:
app2(app2(plus, 0), y) -> y
app2(app2(plus, app2(s, x)), y) -> app2(s, app2(app2(plus, x), y))
app2(app2(map, f), nil) -> nil
app2(app2(map, f), app2(app2(cons, x), xs)) -> app2(app2(cons, app2(f, x)), app2(app2(map, f), xs))
inc -> app2(map, app2(plus, app2(s, 0)))
The set Q consists of the following terms:
app2(app2(plus, 0), x0)
app2(app2(plus, app2(s, x0)), x1)
app2(app2(map, x0), nil)
app2(app2(map, x0), app2(app2(cons, x1), x2))
inc
We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
↳ QTRS
↳ Non-Overlap Check
↳ QTRS
↳ DependencyPairsProof
↳ QDP
↳ DependencyGraphProof
Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:
APP2(app2(plus, app2(s, x)), y) -> APP2(s, app2(app2(plus, x), y))
APP2(app2(map, f), app2(app2(cons, x), xs)) -> APP2(app2(cons, app2(f, x)), app2(app2(map, f), xs))
APP2(app2(plus, app2(s, x)), y) -> APP2(app2(plus, x), y)
APP2(app2(map, f), app2(app2(cons, x), xs)) -> APP2(f, x)
INC -> APP2(plus, app2(s, 0))
INC -> APP2(map, app2(plus, app2(s, 0)))
APP2(app2(plus, app2(s, x)), y) -> APP2(plus, x)
INC -> APP2(s, 0)
APP2(app2(map, f), app2(app2(cons, x), xs)) -> APP2(app2(map, f), xs)
APP2(app2(map, f), app2(app2(cons, x), xs)) -> APP2(cons, app2(f, x))
The TRS R consists of the following rules:
app2(app2(plus, 0), y) -> y
app2(app2(plus, app2(s, x)), y) -> app2(s, app2(app2(plus, x), y))
app2(app2(map, f), nil) -> nil
app2(app2(map, f), app2(app2(cons, x), xs)) -> app2(app2(cons, app2(f, x)), app2(app2(map, f), xs))
inc -> app2(map, app2(plus, app2(s, 0)))
The set Q consists of the following terms:
app2(app2(plus, 0), x0)
app2(app2(plus, app2(s, x0)), x1)
app2(app2(map, x0), nil)
app2(app2(map, x0), app2(app2(cons, x1), x2))
inc
We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
The approximation of the Dependency Graph contains 2 SCCs with 7 less nodes.
↳ QTRS
↳ Non-Overlap Check
↳ QTRS
↳ DependencyPairsProof
↳ QDP
↳ DependencyGraphProof
↳ AND
↳ QDP
↳ QDPAfsSolverProof
↳ QDP
Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:
APP2(app2(plus, app2(s, x)), y) -> APP2(app2(plus, x), y)
The TRS R consists of the following rules:
app2(app2(plus, 0), y) -> y
app2(app2(plus, app2(s, x)), y) -> app2(s, app2(app2(plus, x), y))
app2(app2(map, f), nil) -> nil
app2(app2(map, f), app2(app2(cons, x), xs)) -> app2(app2(cons, app2(f, x)), app2(app2(map, f), xs))
inc -> app2(map, app2(plus, app2(s, 0)))
The set Q consists of the following terms:
app2(app2(plus, 0), x0)
app2(app2(plus, app2(s, x0)), x1)
app2(app2(map, x0), nil)
app2(app2(map, x0), app2(app2(cons, x1), x2))
inc
We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
By using an argument filtering and a montonic ordering, at least one Dependency Pair of this SCC can be strictly oriented.
APP2(app2(plus, app2(s, x)), y) -> APP2(app2(plus, x), y)
Used argument filtering: APP2(x1, x2) = x1
app2(x1, x2) = app1(x2)
Used ordering: Quasi Precedence:
trivial
↳ QTRS
↳ Non-Overlap Check
↳ QTRS
↳ DependencyPairsProof
↳ QDP
↳ DependencyGraphProof
↳ AND
↳ QDP
↳ QDPAfsSolverProof
↳ QDP
↳ PisEmptyProof
↳ QDP
Q DP problem:
P is empty.
The TRS R consists of the following rules:
app2(app2(plus, 0), y) -> y
app2(app2(plus, app2(s, x)), y) -> app2(s, app2(app2(plus, x), y))
app2(app2(map, f), nil) -> nil
app2(app2(map, f), app2(app2(cons, x), xs)) -> app2(app2(cons, app2(f, x)), app2(app2(map, f), xs))
inc -> app2(map, app2(plus, app2(s, 0)))
The set Q consists of the following terms:
app2(app2(plus, 0), x0)
app2(app2(plus, app2(s, x0)), x1)
app2(app2(map, x0), nil)
app2(app2(map, x0), app2(app2(cons, x1), x2))
inc
We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
The TRS P is empty. Hence, there is no (P,Q,R) chain.
↳ QTRS
↳ Non-Overlap Check
↳ QTRS
↳ DependencyPairsProof
↳ QDP
↳ DependencyGraphProof
↳ AND
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ QDPAfsSolverProof
Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:
APP2(app2(map, f), app2(app2(cons, x), xs)) -> APP2(f, x)
APP2(app2(map, f), app2(app2(cons, x), xs)) -> APP2(app2(map, f), xs)
The TRS R consists of the following rules:
app2(app2(plus, 0), y) -> y
app2(app2(plus, app2(s, x)), y) -> app2(s, app2(app2(plus, x), y))
app2(app2(map, f), nil) -> nil
app2(app2(map, f), app2(app2(cons, x), xs)) -> app2(app2(cons, app2(f, x)), app2(app2(map, f), xs))
inc -> app2(map, app2(plus, app2(s, 0)))
The set Q consists of the following terms:
app2(app2(plus, 0), x0)
app2(app2(plus, app2(s, x0)), x1)
app2(app2(map, x0), nil)
app2(app2(map, x0), app2(app2(cons, x1), x2))
inc
We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
By using an argument filtering and a montonic ordering, at least one Dependency Pair of this SCC can be strictly oriented.
APP2(app2(map, f), app2(app2(cons, x), xs)) -> APP2(f, x)
APP2(app2(map, f), app2(app2(cons, x), xs)) -> APP2(app2(map, f), xs)
Used argument filtering: APP2(x1, x2) = x2
app2(x1, x2) = app2(x1, x2)
cons = cons
Used ordering: Quasi Precedence:
trivial
↳ QTRS
↳ Non-Overlap Check
↳ QTRS
↳ DependencyPairsProof
↳ QDP
↳ DependencyGraphProof
↳ AND
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ QDPAfsSolverProof
↳ QDP
↳ PisEmptyProof
Q DP problem:
P is empty.
The TRS R consists of the following rules:
app2(app2(plus, 0), y) -> y
app2(app2(plus, app2(s, x)), y) -> app2(s, app2(app2(plus, x), y))
app2(app2(map, f), nil) -> nil
app2(app2(map, f), app2(app2(cons, x), xs)) -> app2(app2(cons, app2(f, x)), app2(app2(map, f), xs))
inc -> app2(map, app2(plus, app2(s, 0)))
The set Q consists of the following terms:
app2(app2(plus, 0), x0)
app2(app2(plus, app2(s, x0)), x1)
app2(app2(map, x0), nil)
app2(app2(map, x0), app2(app2(cons, x1), x2))
inc
We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
The TRS P is empty. Hence, there is no (P,Q,R) chain.