(0) Obligation:
Q restricted rewrite system:
The TRS R consists of the following rules:
__(__(X, Y), Z) → __(X, __(Y, Z))
__(X, nil) → X
__(nil, X) → X
and(tt, X) → activate(X)
isNePal(__(I, __(P, I))) → tt
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:
__1(__(X, Y), Z) → __1(X, __(Y, Z))
__1(__(X, Y), Z) → __1(Y, Z)
AND(tt, X) → ACTIVATE(X)
The TRS R consists of the following rules:
__(__(X, Y), Z) → __(X, __(Y, Z))
__(X, nil) → X
__(nil, X) → X
and(tt, X) → activate(X)
isNePal(__(I, __(P, I))) → tt
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 1 less node.
(4) Obligation:
Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:
__1(__(X, Y), Z) → __1(Y, Z)
__1(__(X, Y), Z) → __1(X, __(Y, Z))
The TRS R consists of the following rules:
__(__(X, Y), Z) → __(X, __(Y, Z))
__(X, nil) → X
__(nil, X) → X
and(tt, X) → activate(X)
isNePal(__(I, __(P, I))) → tt
activate(X) → 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:
__(x1, x2) = __(x1, x2)
From the DPs we obtained the following set of size-change graphs:
- __1(__(X, Y), Z) → __1(Y, Z) (allowed arguments on rhs = {1, 2})
The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1, 2 >= 2
- __1(__(X, Y), Z) → __1(X, __(Y, Z)) (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