Left Termination proof of /tmp/tmpuZT7cv/NJ3.pl

Left Termination of the query pattern ackerman_in_3(g, g, a) w.r.t. the given Prolog program could successfully be proven:

↳ Prolog

  ↳ PrologToPiTRSProof

Clauses:

ackerman(0, N, s(N)).
ackerman(s(M), 0, Res) :- ackerman(M, s(0), Res).
ackerman(s(M), s(N), Res) :- ','(ackerman(s(M), N, Res1), ackerman(M, Res1, Res)).

Queries:

ackerman(g,g,a).

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

ackerman_in_gga(0, N, s(N)) → ackerman_out_gga(0, N, s(N))
ackerman_in_gga(s(M), 0, Res) → U1_gga(M, Res, ackerman_in_gga(M, s(0), Res))
ackerman_in_gga(s(M), s(N), Res) → U2_gga(M, N, Res, ackerman_in_gga(s(M), N, Res1))
U2_gga(M, N, Res, ackerman_out_gga(s(M), N, Res1)) → U3_gga(M, N, Res, ackerman_in_gga(M, Res1, Res))
U3_gga(M, N, Res, ackerman_out_gga(M, Res1, Res)) → ackerman_out_gga(s(M), s(N), Res)
U1_gga(M, Res, ackerman_out_gga(M, s(0), Res)) → ackerman_out_gga(s(M), 0, Res)

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:

ackerman_in_gga(0, N, s(N)) → ackerman_out_gga(0, N, s(N))
ackerman_in_gga(s(M), 0, Res) → U1_gga(M, Res, ackerman_in_gga(M, s(0), Res))
ackerman_in_gga(s(M), s(N), Res) → U2_gga(M, N, Res, ackerman_in_gga(s(M), N, Res1))
U2_gga(M, N, Res, ackerman_out_gga(s(M), N, Res1)) → U3_gga(M, N, Res, ackerman_in_gga(M, Res1, Res))
U3_gga(M, N, Res, ackerman_out_gga(M, Res1, Res)) → ackerman_out_gga(s(M), s(N), Res)
U1_gga(M, Res, ackerman_out_gga(M, s(0), Res)) → ackerman_out_gga(s(M), 0, Res)

The argument filtering Pi contains the following mapping:
ackerman_in_gga(x1, x2, x3) = ackerman_in_gga(x1, x2)
0 = 0
ackerman_out_gga(x1, x2, x3) = ackerman_out_gga(x3)
s(x1) = s(x1)
U1_gga(x1, x2, x3) = U1_gga(x3)
U2_gga(x1, x2, x3, x4) = U2_gga(x1, x4)
U3_gga(x1, x2, x3, x4) = U3_gga(x4)

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

ACKERMAN_IN_GGA(s(M), 0, Res) → U1_GGA(M, Res, ackerman_in_gga(M, s(0), Res))
ACKERMAN_IN_GGA(s(M), 0, Res) → ACKERMAN_IN_GGA(M, s(0), Res)
ACKERMAN_IN_GGA(s(M), s(N), Res) → U2_GGA(M, N, Res, ackerman_in_gga(s(M), N, Res1))
ACKERMAN_IN_GGA(s(M), s(N), Res) → ACKERMAN_IN_GGA(s(M), N, Res1)
U2_GGA(M, N, Res, ackerman_out_gga(s(M), N, Res1)) → U3_GGA(M, N, Res, ackerman_in_gga(M, Res1, Res))
U2_GGA(M, N, Res, ackerman_out_gga(s(M), N, Res1)) → ACKERMAN_IN_GGA(M, Res1, Res)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

ackerman_in_gga(0, N, s(N)) → ackerman_out_gga(0, N, s(N))
ackerman_in_gga(s(M), 0, Res) → U1_gga(M, Res, ackerman_in_gga(M, s(0), Res))
ackerman_in_gga(s(M), s(N), Res) → U2_gga(M, N, Res, ackerman_in_gga(s(M), N, Res1))
U2_gga(M, N, Res, ackerman_out_gga(s(M), N, Res1)) → U3_gga(M, N, Res, ackerman_in_gga(M, Res1, Res))
U3_gga(M, N, Res, ackerman_out_gga(M, Res1, Res)) → ackerman_out_gga(s(M), s(N), Res)
U1_gga(M, Res, ackerman_out_gga(M, s(0), Res)) → ackerman_out_gga(s(M), 0, Res)

The argument filtering Pi contains the following mapping:
ackerman_in_gga(x1, x2, x3) = ackerman_in_gga(x1, x2)
0 = 0
ackerman_out_gga(x1, x2, x3) = ackerman_out_gga(x3)
s(x1) = s(x1)
U1_gga(x1, x2, x3) = U1_gga(x3)
U2_gga(x1, x2, x3, x4) = U2_gga(x1, x4)
U3_gga(x1, x2, x3, x4) = U3_gga(x4)
U2_GGA(x1, x2, x3, x4) = U2_GGA(x1, x4)
U1_GGA(x1, x2, x3) = U1_GGA(x3)
U3_GGA(x1, x2, x3, x4) = U3_GGA(x4)
ACKERMAN_IN_GGA(x1, x2, x3) = ACKERMAN_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:

ACKERMAN_IN_GGA(s(M), 0, Res) → U1_GGA(M, Res, ackerman_in_gga(M, s(0), Res))
ACKERMAN_IN_GGA(s(M), 0, Res) → ACKERMAN_IN_GGA(M, s(0), Res)
ACKERMAN_IN_GGA(s(M), s(N), Res) → U2_GGA(M, N, Res, ackerman_in_gga(s(M), N, Res1))
ACKERMAN_IN_GGA(s(M), s(N), Res) → ACKERMAN_IN_GGA(s(M), N, Res1)
U2_GGA(M, N, Res, ackerman_out_gga(s(M), N, Res1)) → U3_GGA(M, N, Res, ackerman_in_gga(M, Res1, Res))
U2_GGA(M, N, Res, ackerman_out_gga(s(M), N, Res1)) → ACKERMAN_IN_GGA(M, Res1, Res)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

ackerman_in_gga(0, N, s(N)) → ackerman_out_gga(0, N, s(N))
ackerman_in_gga(s(M), 0, Res) → U1_gga(M, Res, ackerman_in_gga(M, s(0), Res))
ackerman_in_gga(s(M), s(N), Res) → U2_gga(M, N, Res, ackerman_in_gga(s(M), N, Res1))
U2_gga(M, N, Res, ackerman_out_gga(s(M), N, Res1)) → U3_gga(M, N, Res, ackerman_in_gga(M, Res1, Res))
U3_gga(M, N, Res, ackerman_out_gga(M, Res1, Res)) → ackerman_out_gga(s(M), s(N), Res)
U1_gga(M, Res, ackerman_out_gga(M, s(0), Res)) → ackerman_out_gga(s(M), 0, Res)

The argument filtering Pi contains the following mapping:
ackerman_in_gga(x1, x2, x3) = ackerman_in_gga(x1, x2)
0 = 0
ackerman_out_gga(x1, x2, x3) = ackerman_out_gga(x3)
s(x1) = s(x1)
U1_gga(x1, x2, x3) = U1_gga(x3)
U2_gga(x1, x2, x3, x4) = U2_gga(x1, x4)
U3_gga(x1, x2, x3, x4) = U3_gga(x4)
U2_GGA(x1, x2, x3, x4) = U2_GGA(x1, x4)
U1_GGA(x1, x2, x3) = U1_GGA(x3)
U3_GGA(x1, x2, x3, x4) = U3_GGA(x4)
ACKERMAN_IN_GGA(x1, x2, x3) = ACKERMAN_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

              ↳ PiDPToQDPProof

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

ACKERMAN_IN_GGA(s(M), s(N), Res) → U2_GGA(M, N, Res, ackerman_in_gga(s(M), N, Res1))
ACKERMAN_IN_GGA(s(M), 0, Res) → ACKERMAN_IN_GGA(M, s(0), Res)
U2_GGA(M, N, Res, ackerman_out_gga(s(M), N, Res1)) → ACKERMAN_IN_GGA(M, Res1, Res)
ACKERMAN_IN_GGA(s(M), s(N), Res) → ACKERMAN_IN_GGA(s(M), N, Res1)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

ackerman_in_gga(0, N, s(N)) → ackerman_out_gga(0, N, s(N))
ackerman_in_gga(s(M), 0, Res) → U1_gga(M, Res, ackerman_in_gga(M, s(0), Res))
ackerman_in_gga(s(M), s(N), Res) → U2_gga(M, N, Res, ackerman_in_gga(s(M), N, Res1))
U2_gga(M, N, Res, ackerman_out_gga(s(M), N, Res1)) → U3_gga(M, N, Res, ackerman_in_gga(M, Res1, Res))
U3_gga(M, N, Res, ackerman_out_gga(M, Res1, Res)) → ackerman_out_gga(s(M), s(N), Res)
U1_gga(M, Res, ackerman_out_gga(M, s(0), Res)) → ackerman_out_gga(s(M), 0, Res)

The argument filtering Pi contains the following mapping:
ackerman_in_gga(x1, x2, x3) = ackerman_in_gga(x1, x2)
0 = 0
ackerman_out_gga(x1, x2, x3) = ackerman_out_gga(x3)
s(x1) = s(x1)
U1_gga(x1, x2, x3) = U1_gga(x3)
U2_gga(x1, x2, x3, x4) = U2_gga(x1, x4)
U3_gga(x1, x2, x3, x4) = U3_gga(x4)
U2_GGA(x1, x2, x3, x4) = U2_GGA(x1, x4)
ACKERMAN_IN_GGA(x1, x2, x3) = ACKERMAN_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

              ↳ PiDPToQDPProof

                ↳ QDP

                  ↳ QDPSizeChangeProof

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

ACKERMAN_IN_GGA(s(M), s(N)) → ACKERMAN_IN_GGA(s(M), N)
U2_GGA(M, ackerman_out_gga(Res1)) → ACKERMAN_IN_GGA(M, Res1)
ACKERMAN_IN_GGA(s(M), 0) → ACKERMAN_IN_GGA(M, s(0))
ACKERMAN_IN_GGA(s(M), s(N)) → U2_GGA(M, ackerman_in_gga(s(M), N))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

ackerman_in_gga(0, N) → ackerman_out_gga(s(N))
ackerman_in_gga(s(M), 0) → U1_gga(ackerman_in_gga(M, s(0)))
ackerman_in_gga(s(M), s(N)) → U2_gga(M, ackerman_in_gga(s(M), N))
U2_gga(M, ackerman_out_gga(Res1)) → U3_gga(ackerman_in_gga(M, Res1))
U3_gga(ackerman_out_gga(Res)) → ackerman_out_gga(Res)
U1_gga(ackerman_out_gga(Res)) → ackerman_out_gga(Res)

The set Q consists of the following terms:

ackerman_in_gga(x0, x1)
U2_gga(x0, x1)
U3_gga(x0)
U1_gga(x0)

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:

U2_GGA(M, ackerman_out_gga(Res1)) → ACKERMAN_IN_GGA(M, Res1)
The graph contains the following edges 1 >= 1, 2 > 2
ACKERMAN_IN_GGA(s(M), s(N)) → U2_GGA(M, ackerman_in_gga(s(M), N))
The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1
ACKERMAN_IN_GGA(s(M), s(N)) → ACKERMAN_IN_GGA(s(M), N)
The graph contains the following edges 1 >= 1, 2 > 2
ACKERMAN_IN_GGA(s(M), 0) → ACKERMAN_IN_GGA(M, s(0))
The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1