Termination w.r.t. Q proof of /tmp/tmpuxb-sl/Ex9_BLR02

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

0 QTRS

↳1 DependencyPairsProof (⇔)

↳2 QDP

↳3 DependencyGraphProof (⇔)

↳4 QDP

↳5 QDPOrderProof (⇔)

↳6 QDP

↳7 DependencyGraphProof (⇔)

↳8 QDP

↳9 QDPOrderProof (⇔)

↳10 QDP

↳11 DependencyGraphProof (⇔)

↳12 TRUE

(0) Obligation:

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

filter(cons(X, Y), 0, M) → cons(0, n__filter(activate(Y), M, M))
filter(cons(X, Y), s(N), M) → cons(X, n__filter(activate(Y), N, M))
sieve(cons(0, Y)) → cons(0, n__sieve(activate(Y)))
sieve(cons(s(N), Y)) → cons(s(N), n__sieve(filter(activate(Y), N, N)))
nats(N) → cons(N, n__nats(s(N)))
zprimes → sieve(nats(s(s(0))))
filter(X1, X2, X3) → n__filter(X1, X2, X3)
sieve(X) → n__sieve(X)
nats(X) → n__nats(X)
activate(n__filter(X1, X2, X3)) → filter(X1, X2, X3)
activate(n__sieve(X)) → sieve(X)
activate(n__nats(X)) → nats(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:

FILTER(cons(X, Y), 0, M) → ACTIVATE(Y)
FILTER(cons(X, Y), s(N), M) → ACTIVATE(Y)
SIEVE(cons(0, Y)) → ACTIVATE(Y)
SIEVE(cons(s(N), Y)) → FILTER(activate(Y), N, N)
SIEVE(cons(s(N), Y)) → ACTIVATE(Y)
ZPRIMES → SIEVE(nats(s(s(0))))
ZPRIMES → NATS(s(s(0)))
ACTIVATE(n__filter(X1, X2, X3)) → FILTER(X1, X2, X3)
ACTIVATE(n__sieve(X)) → SIEVE(X)
ACTIVATE(n__nats(X)) → NATS(X)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

filter(cons(X, Y), 0, M) → cons(0, n__filter(activate(Y), M, M))
filter(cons(X, Y), s(N), M) → cons(X, n__filter(activate(Y), N, M))
sieve(cons(0, Y)) → cons(0, n__sieve(activate(Y)))
sieve(cons(s(N), Y)) → cons(s(N), n__sieve(filter(activate(Y), N, N)))
nats(N) → cons(N, n__nats(s(N)))
zprimes → sieve(nats(s(s(0))))
filter(X1, X2, X3) → n__filter(X1, X2, X3)
sieve(X) → n__sieve(X)
nats(X) → n__nats(X)
activate(n__filter(X1, X2, X3)) → filter(X1, X2, X3)
activate(n__sieve(X)) → sieve(X)
activate(n__nats(X)) → nats(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 1 SCC with 3 less nodes.

(4) Obligation:

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

ACTIVATE(n__filter(X1, X2, X3)) → FILTER(X1, X2, X3)
FILTER(cons(X, Y), 0, M) → ACTIVATE(Y)
ACTIVATE(n__sieve(X)) → SIEVE(X)
SIEVE(cons(0, Y)) → ACTIVATE(Y)
SIEVE(cons(s(N), Y)) → FILTER(activate(Y), N, N)
FILTER(cons(X, Y), s(N), M) → ACTIVATE(Y)
SIEVE(cons(s(N), Y)) → ACTIVATE(Y)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

filter(cons(X, Y), 0, M) → cons(0, n__filter(activate(Y), M, M))
filter(cons(X, Y), s(N), M) → cons(X, n__filter(activate(Y), N, M))
sieve(cons(0, Y)) → cons(0, n__sieve(activate(Y)))
sieve(cons(s(N), Y)) → cons(s(N), n__sieve(filter(activate(Y), N, N)))
nats(N) → cons(N, n__nats(s(N)))
zprimes → sieve(nats(s(s(0))))
filter(X1, X2, X3) → n__filter(X1, X2, X3)
sieve(X) → n__sieve(X)
nats(X) → n__nats(X)
activate(n__filter(X1, X2, X3)) → filter(X1, X2, X3)
activate(n__sieve(X)) → sieve(X)
activate(n__nats(X)) → nats(X)
activate(X) → X

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

(5) QDPOrderProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

We use the reduction pair processor [LPAR04].

The following pairs can be oriented strictly and are deleted.

ACTIVATE(n__sieve(X)) → SIEVE(X)

The remaining pairs can at least be oriented weakly.
Used ordering: SCNP Order with the following components:
Level mapping:
Top level AFS:
ACTIVATE(x1) = ACTIVATE(x1)
FILTER(x1, x2, x3) = FILTER(x1)
SIEVE(x1) = SIEVE(x1)

Tags:
ACTIVATE has tags [0]
FILTER has tags [0,3,7]
SIEVE has tags [0]

Comparison: MAX
Underlying order for the size change arcs and the rules of R:
Polynomial interpretation [POLO]:

POL(0) = 0
POL(activate(x₁)) = x₁
POL(cons(x₁, x₂)) = x₂
POL(filter(x₁, x₂, x₃)) = x₁
POL(n__filter(x₁, x₂, x₃)) = x₁
POL(n__nats(x₁)) = 0
POL(n__sieve(x₁)) = 1 + x₁
POL(nats(x₁)) = 0
POL(s(x₁)) = 0
POL(sieve(x₁)) = 1 + x₁

The following usable rules [FROCOS05] were oriented:

activate(n__filter(X1, X2, X3)) → filter(X1, X2, X3)
activate(n__sieve(X)) → sieve(X)
activate(n__nats(X)) → nats(X)
activate(X) → X
filter(cons(X, Y), 0, M) → cons(0, n__filter(activate(Y), M, M))
filter(cons(X, Y), s(N), M) → cons(X, n__filter(activate(Y), N, M))
sieve(cons(0, Y)) → cons(0, n__sieve(activate(Y)))
sieve(cons(s(N), Y)) → cons(s(N), n__sieve(filter(activate(Y), N, N)))
filter(X1, X2, X3) → n__filter(X1, X2, X3)
sieve(X) → n__sieve(X)
nats(N) → cons(N, n__nats(s(N)))
nats(X) → n__nats(X)

(6) Obligation:

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

ACTIVATE(n__filter(X1, X2, X3)) → FILTER(X1, X2, X3)
FILTER(cons(X, Y), 0, M) → ACTIVATE(Y)
SIEVE(cons(0, Y)) → ACTIVATE(Y)
SIEVE(cons(s(N), Y)) → FILTER(activate(Y), N, N)
FILTER(cons(X, Y), s(N), M) → ACTIVATE(Y)
SIEVE(cons(s(N), Y)) → ACTIVATE(Y)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

filter(cons(X, Y), 0, M) → cons(0, n__filter(activate(Y), M, M))
filter(cons(X, Y), s(N), M) → cons(X, n__filter(activate(Y), N, M))
sieve(cons(0, Y)) → cons(0, n__sieve(activate(Y)))
sieve(cons(s(N), Y)) → cons(s(N), n__sieve(filter(activate(Y), N, N)))
nats(N) → cons(N, n__nats(s(N)))
zprimes → sieve(nats(s(s(0))))
filter(X1, X2, X3) → n__filter(X1, X2, X3)
sieve(X) → n__sieve(X)
nats(X) → n__nats(X)
activate(n__filter(X1, X2, X3)) → filter(X1, X2, X3)
activate(n__sieve(X)) → sieve(X)
activate(n__nats(X)) → nats(X)
activate(X) → X

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

(7) DependencyGraphProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

The approximation of the Dependency Graph [LPAR04,FROCOS05,EDGSTAR] contains 1 SCC with 3 less nodes.

(8) Obligation:

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

FILTER(cons(X, Y), 0, M) → ACTIVATE(Y)
ACTIVATE(n__filter(X1, X2, X3)) → FILTER(X1, X2, X3)
FILTER(cons(X, Y), s(N), M) → ACTIVATE(Y)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

filter(cons(X, Y), 0, M) → cons(0, n__filter(activate(Y), M, M))
filter(cons(X, Y), s(N), M) → cons(X, n__filter(activate(Y), N, M))
sieve(cons(0, Y)) → cons(0, n__sieve(activate(Y)))
sieve(cons(s(N), Y)) → cons(s(N), n__sieve(filter(activate(Y), N, N)))
nats(N) → cons(N, n__nats(s(N)))
zprimes → sieve(nats(s(s(0))))
filter(X1, X2, X3) → n__filter(X1, X2, X3)
sieve(X) → n__sieve(X)
nats(X) → n__nats(X)
activate(n__filter(X1, X2, X3)) → filter(X1, X2, X3)
activate(n__sieve(X)) → sieve(X)
activate(n__nats(X)) → nats(X)
activate(X) → X

Q is empty.
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.

FILTER(cons(X, Y), 0, M) → ACTIVATE(Y)
FILTER(cons(X, Y), s(N), M) → ACTIVATE(Y)

The remaining pairs can at least be oriented weakly.
Used ordering: SCNP Order with the following components:
Level mapping:
Top level AFS:
FILTER(x1, x2, x3) = FILTER(x1)
ACTIVATE(x1) = ACTIVATE(x1)

Tags:
FILTER has tags [0,3,3]
ACTIVATE has tags [0]

Comparison: MAX
Underlying order for the size change arcs and the rules of R:
Polynomial interpretation [POLO]:

POL(0) = 0
POL(cons(x₁, x₂)) = 1 + x₂
POL(n__filter(x₁, x₂, x₃)) = x₁
POL(s(x₁)) = 0

The following usable rules [FROCOS05] were oriented: none

(10) Obligation:

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

ACTIVATE(n__filter(X1, X2, X3)) → FILTER(X1, X2, X3)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

filter(cons(X, Y), 0, M) → cons(0, n__filter(activate(Y), M, M))
filter(cons(X, Y), s(N), M) → cons(X, n__filter(activate(Y), N, M))
sieve(cons(0, Y)) → cons(0, n__sieve(activate(Y)))
sieve(cons(s(N), Y)) → cons(s(N), n__sieve(filter(activate(Y), N, N)))
nats(N) → cons(N, n__nats(s(N)))
zprimes → sieve(nats(s(s(0))))
filter(X1, X2, X3) → n__filter(X1, X2, X3)
sieve(X) → n__sieve(X)
nats(X) → n__nats(X)
activate(n__filter(X1, X2, X3)) → filter(X1, X2, X3)
activate(n__sieve(X)) → sieve(X)
activate(n__nats(X)) → nats(X)
activate(X) → X

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

(11) DependencyGraphProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

The approximation of the Dependency Graph [LPAR04,FROCOS05,EDGSTAR] contains 0 SCCs with 1 less node.

(0) Obligation:

(1) DependencyPairsProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

(2) Obligation:

(3) DependencyGraphProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

(4) Obligation:

(5) QDPOrderProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

(6) Obligation:

(7) DependencyGraphProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

(8) Obligation:

(9) QDPOrderProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

(10) Obligation:

(11) DependencyGraphProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

(12) TRUE