(0) Obligation:
Q restricted rewrite system:
The TRS R consists of the following rules:
a__f(X) → g(h(f(X)))
mark(f(X)) → a__f(mark(X))
mark(g(X)) → g(X)
mark(h(X)) → h(mark(X))
a__f(X) → f(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:
MARK(f(X)) → A__F(mark(X))
MARK(f(X)) → MARK(X)
MARK(h(X)) → MARK(X)
The TRS R consists of the following rules:
a__f(X) → g(h(f(X)))
mark(f(X)) → a__f(mark(X))
mark(g(X)) → g(X)
mark(h(X)) → h(mark(X))
a__f(X) → f(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 1 less node.
(4) Obligation:
Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:
MARK(h(X)) → MARK(X)
MARK(f(X)) → MARK(X)
The TRS R consists of the following rules:
a__f(X) → g(h(f(X)))
mark(f(X)) → a__f(mark(X))
mark(g(X)) → g(X)
mark(h(X)) → h(mark(X))
a__f(X) → f(X)
Q is empty.
We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
(5) QDPSizeChangeProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)
We used the following order and afs together with the size-change analysis [AAECC05] to show that there are no infinite chains for this DP problem.
Order:Homeomorphic Embedding Order
AFS:
f(x1) = f(x1)
h(x1) = h(x1)
From the DPs we obtained the following set of size-change graphs:
- MARK(h(X)) → MARK(X) (allowed arguments on rhs = {1})
The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1
- MARK(f(X)) → MARK(X) (allowed arguments on rhs = {1})
The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1
We oriented the following set of usable rules [AAECC05,FROCOS05].
none
(6) TRUE