Left Termination proof of /tmp/tmpIlSEJx/avg.pl

Left Termination of the query pattern avg_in_3(g, g, a) w.r.t. the given Prolog program could successfully be proven:

↳ Prolog

  ↳ PrologToPiTRSProof

Clauses:

avg(s(X), Y, Z) :- avg(X, s(Y), Z).
avg(X, s(s(s(Y))), s(Z)) :- avg(s(X), Y, Z).
avg(0, 0, 0).
avg(0, s(0), 0).
avg(0, s(s(0)), s(0)).

Queries:

avg(g,g,a).

We use the technique of [30]. With regard to the inferred argument filtering the predicates were used in the following modes:
avg_in: (b,b,f)
Transforming Prolog into the following Term Rewriting System:
Pi-finite rewrite system:
The TRS R consists of the following rules:

avg_in_gga(s(X), Y, Z) → U1_gga(X, Y, Z, avg_in_gga(X, s(Y), Z))
avg_in_gga(X, s(s(s(Y))), s(Z)) → U2_gga(X, Y, Z, avg_in_gga(s(X), Y, Z))
avg_in_gga(0, 0, 0) → avg_out_gga(0, 0, 0)
avg_in_gga(0, s(0), 0) → avg_out_gga(0, s(0), 0)
avg_in_gga(0, s(s(0)), s(0)) → avg_out_gga(0, s(s(0)), s(0))
U2_gga(X, Y, Z, avg_out_gga(s(X), Y, Z)) → avg_out_gga(X, s(s(s(Y))), s(Z))
U1_gga(X, Y, Z, avg_out_gga(X, s(Y), Z)) → avg_out_gga(s(X), Y, Z)

Infinitary Constructor Rewriting Termination of PiTRS implies Termination of Prolog

↳ Prolog

  ↳ PrologToPiTRSProof

    ↳ PiTRS

      ↳ DependencyPairsProof

Pi-finite rewrite system:
The TRS R consists of the following rules:

avg_in_gga(s(X), Y, Z) → U1_gga(X, Y, Z, avg_in_gga(X, s(Y), Z))
avg_in_gga(X, s(s(s(Y))), s(Z)) → U2_gga(X, Y, Z, avg_in_gga(s(X), Y, Z))
avg_in_gga(0, 0, 0) → avg_out_gga(0, 0, 0)
avg_in_gga(0, s(0), 0) → avg_out_gga(0, s(0), 0)
avg_in_gga(0, s(s(0)), s(0)) → avg_out_gga(0, s(s(0)), s(0))
U2_gga(X, Y, Z, avg_out_gga(s(X), Y, Z)) → avg_out_gga(X, s(s(s(Y))), s(Z))
U1_gga(X, Y, Z, avg_out_gga(X, s(Y), Z)) → avg_out_gga(s(X), Y, Z)

The argument filtering Pi contains the following mapping:
avg_in_gga(x1, x2, x3) = avg_in_gga(x1, x2)
s(x1) = s(x1)
U1_gga(x1, x2, x3, x4) = U1_gga(x4)
U2_gga(x1, x2, x3, x4) = U2_gga(x4)
0 = 0
avg_out_gga(x1, x2, x3) = avg_out_gga(x3)

Using Dependency Pairs [1,30] we result in the following initial DP problem:
Pi DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:

AVG_IN_GGA(s(X), Y, Z) → U1_GGA(X, Y, Z, avg_in_gga(X, s(Y), Z))
AVG_IN_GGA(s(X), Y, Z) → AVG_IN_GGA(X, s(Y), Z)
AVG_IN_GGA(X, s(s(s(Y))), s(Z)) → U2_GGA(X, Y, Z, avg_in_gga(s(X), Y, Z))
AVG_IN_GGA(X, s(s(s(Y))), s(Z)) → AVG_IN_GGA(s(X), Y, Z)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

avg_in_gga(s(X), Y, Z) → U1_gga(X, Y, Z, avg_in_gga(X, s(Y), Z))
avg_in_gga(X, s(s(s(Y))), s(Z)) → U2_gga(X, Y, Z, avg_in_gga(s(X), Y, Z))
avg_in_gga(0, 0, 0) → avg_out_gga(0, 0, 0)
avg_in_gga(0, s(0), 0) → avg_out_gga(0, s(0), 0)
avg_in_gga(0, s(s(0)), s(0)) → avg_out_gga(0, s(s(0)), s(0))
U2_gga(X, Y, Z, avg_out_gga(s(X), Y, Z)) → avg_out_gga(X, s(s(s(Y))), s(Z))
U1_gga(X, Y, Z, avg_out_gga(X, s(Y), Z)) → avg_out_gga(s(X), Y, Z)

The argument filtering Pi contains the following mapping:
avg_in_gga(x1, x2, x3) = avg_in_gga(x1, x2)
s(x1) = s(x1)
U1_gga(x1, x2, x3, x4) = U1_gga(x4)
U2_gga(x1, x2, x3, x4) = U2_gga(x4)
0 = 0
avg_out_gga(x1, x2, x3) = avg_out_gga(x3)
U2_GGA(x1, x2, x3, x4) = U2_GGA(x4)
U1_GGA(x1, x2, x3, x4) = U1_GGA(x4)
AVG_IN_GGA(x1, x2, x3) = AVG_IN_GGA(x1, x2)

We have to consider all (P,R,Pi)-chains

↳ Prolog

  ↳ PrologToPiTRSProof

    ↳ PiTRS

      ↳ DependencyPairsProof

        ↳ PiDP

          ↳ DependencyGraphProof

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

AVG_IN_GGA(s(X), Y, Z) → U1_GGA(X, Y, Z, avg_in_gga(X, s(Y), Z))
AVG_IN_GGA(s(X), Y, Z) → AVG_IN_GGA(X, s(Y), Z)
AVG_IN_GGA(X, s(s(s(Y))), s(Z)) → U2_GGA(X, Y, Z, avg_in_gga(s(X), Y, Z))
AVG_IN_GGA(X, s(s(s(Y))), s(Z)) → AVG_IN_GGA(s(X), Y, Z)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

avg_in_gga(s(X), Y, Z) → U1_gga(X, Y, Z, avg_in_gga(X, s(Y), Z))
avg_in_gga(X, s(s(s(Y))), s(Z)) → U2_gga(X, Y, Z, avg_in_gga(s(X), Y, Z))
avg_in_gga(0, 0, 0) → avg_out_gga(0, 0, 0)
avg_in_gga(0, s(0), 0) → avg_out_gga(0, s(0), 0)
avg_in_gga(0, s(s(0)), s(0)) → avg_out_gga(0, s(s(0)), s(0))
U2_gga(X, Y, Z, avg_out_gga(s(X), Y, Z)) → avg_out_gga(X, s(s(s(Y))), s(Z))
U1_gga(X, Y, Z, avg_out_gga(X, s(Y), Z)) → avg_out_gga(s(X), Y, Z)

The argument filtering Pi contains the following mapping:
avg_in_gga(x1, x2, x3) = avg_in_gga(x1, x2)
s(x1) = s(x1)
U1_gga(x1, x2, x3, x4) = U1_gga(x4)
U2_gga(x1, x2, x3, x4) = U2_gga(x4)
0 = 0
avg_out_gga(x1, x2, x3) = avg_out_gga(x3)
U2_GGA(x1, x2, x3, x4) = U2_GGA(x4)
U1_GGA(x1, x2, x3, x4) = U1_GGA(x4)
AVG_IN_GGA(x1, x2, x3) = AVG_IN_GGA(x1, x2)

We have to consider all (P,R,Pi)-chains
The approximation of the Dependency Graph [30] contains 1 SCC with 2 less nodes.

↳ Prolog

  ↳ PrologToPiTRSProof

    ↳ PiTRS

      ↳ DependencyPairsProof

        ↳ PiDP

          ↳ DependencyGraphProof

            ↳ PiDP

              ↳ UsableRulesProof

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

AVG_IN_GGA(s(X), Y, Z) → AVG_IN_GGA(X, s(Y), Z)
AVG_IN_GGA(X, s(s(s(Y))), s(Z)) → AVG_IN_GGA(s(X), Y, Z)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

avg_in_gga(s(X), Y, Z) → U1_gga(X, Y, Z, avg_in_gga(X, s(Y), Z))
avg_in_gga(X, s(s(s(Y))), s(Z)) → U2_gga(X, Y, Z, avg_in_gga(s(X), Y, Z))
avg_in_gga(0, 0, 0) → avg_out_gga(0, 0, 0)
avg_in_gga(0, s(0), 0) → avg_out_gga(0, s(0), 0)
avg_in_gga(0, s(s(0)), s(0)) → avg_out_gga(0, s(s(0)), s(0))
U2_gga(X, Y, Z, avg_out_gga(s(X), Y, Z)) → avg_out_gga(X, s(s(s(Y))), s(Z))
U1_gga(X, Y, Z, avg_out_gga(X, s(Y), Z)) → avg_out_gga(s(X), Y, Z)

The argument filtering Pi contains the following mapping:
avg_in_gga(x1, x2, x3) = avg_in_gga(x1, x2)
s(x1) = s(x1)
U1_gga(x1, x2, x3, x4) = U1_gga(x4)
U2_gga(x1, x2, x3, x4) = U2_gga(x4)
0 = 0
avg_out_gga(x1, x2, x3) = avg_out_gga(x3)
AVG_IN_GGA(x1, x2, x3) = AVG_IN_GGA(x1, x2)

We have to consider all (P,R,Pi)-chains
For (infinitary) constructor rewriting [30] we can delete all non-usable rules from R.

↳ Prolog

  ↳ PrologToPiTRSProof

    ↳ PiTRS

      ↳ DependencyPairsProof

        ↳ PiDP

          ↳ DependencyGraphProof

            ↳ PiDP

              ↳ UsableRulesProof

                ↳ PiDP

                  ↳ PiDPToQDPProof

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

AVG_IN_GGA(s(X), Y, Z) → AVG_IN_GGA(X, s(Y), Z)
AVG_IN_GGA(X, s(s(s(Y))), s(Z)) → AVG_IN_GGA(s(X), Y, Z)

R is empty.
The argument filtering Pi contains the following mapping:
s(x1) = s(x1)
AVG_IN_GGA(x1, x2, x3) = AVG_IN_GGA(x1, x2)

We have to consider all (P,R,Pi)-chains
Transforming (infinitary) constructor rewriting Pi-DP problem [30] into ordinary QDP problem [15] by application of Pi.

↳ Prolog

  ↳ PrologToPiTRSProof

    ↳ PiTRS

      ↳ DependencyPairsProof

        ↳ PiDP

          ↳ DependencyGraphProof

            ↳ PiDP

              ↳ UsableRulesProof

                ↳ PiDP

                  ↳ PiDPToQDPProof

                    ↳ QDP

                      ↳ RuleRemovalProof

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

AVG_IN_GGA(X, s(s(s(Y)))) → AVG_IN_GGA(s(X), Y)
AVG_IN_GGA(s(X), Y) → AVG_IN_GGA(X, s(Y))

R is empty.
Q is empty.
We have to consider all (P,Q,R)-chains.
By using the rule removal processor [15] with the following polynomial ordering [25], at least one Dependency Pair or term rewrite system rule of this QDP problem can be strictly oriented.
Strictly oriented dependency pairs:

AVG_IN_GGA(X, s(s(s(Y)))) → AVG_IN_GGA(s(X), Y)

Used ordering: POLO with Polynomial interpretation [25]:

POL(AVG_IN_GGA(x₁, x₂)) = 2·x₁ + 2·x₂
POL(s(x₁)) = 2 + x₁

↳ Prolog

  ↳ PrologToPiTRSProof

    ↳ PiTRS

      ↳ DependencyPairsProof

        ↳ PiDP

          ↳ DependencyGraphProof

            ↳ PiDP

              ↳ UsableRulesProof

                ↳ PiDP

                  ↳ PiDPToQDPProof

                    ↳ QDP

                      ↳ RuleRemovalProof

                        ↳ QDP

                          ↳ QDPSizeChangeProof

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

AVG_IN_GGA(s(X), Y) → AVG_IN_GGA(X, s(Y))

R is empty.
Q is empty.
We have to consider all (P,Q,R)-chains.
By using the subterm criterion [20] together with the size-change analysis [32] 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:

AVG_IN_GGA(s(X), Y) → AVG_IN_GGA(X, s(Y))
The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1