(0) Obligation:

Clauses:

goal(X) :- ','(s2l(X, Xs), append(Xs, X1, X2)).
append([], Y, Z) :- ','(!, eq(Y, Z)).
append(X, Y, .(H, Z)) :- ','(head(X, H), ','(tail(X, T), append(T, Y, Z))).
s2l(0, L) :- ','(!, eq(L, [])).
s2l(X, .(X3, Xs)) :- ','(p(X, P), s2l(P, Xs)).
head([], X4).
head(.(H, X5), H).
tail([], []).
tail(.(X6, Xs), Xs).
p(0, 0).
p(s(X), X).
eq(X, X).

Queries:

goal(g).

(1) PrologToDTProblemTransformerProof (SOUND transformation)

Built DT problem from termination graph.

(2) Obligation:

Triples:

s2l21(s(T16), .(X114, X115)) :- s2l21(T16, X115).
append43([], X250, .(X266, X252)) :- append9(X250, X252).
append43(.(T51, T53), X250, .(T51, X252)) :- append43(T53, X250, X252).
goal1(0) :- append9(X10, X11).
goal1(s(T9)) :- s2l21(T9, X73).
goal1(s(T9)) :- ','(s2lc21(T9, T32), append43(T32, X164, X166)).

Clauses:

s2lc21(0, []).
s2lc21(s(T16), .(X114, X115)) :- s2lc21(T16, X115).
appendc9(X54, X54).
appendc43([], X225, X225).
appendc43([], X250, .(X266, X252)) :- appendc9(X250, X252).
appendc43(.(T51, T53), X250, .(T51, X252)) :- appendc43(T53, X250, X252).

Afs:

goal1(x1)  =  goal1(x1)

(3) UndefinedPredicateInTriplesTransformerProof (SOUND transformation)

Deleted triples and predicates having undefined goals [UNKNOWN].

(4) Obligation:

Triples:

s2l21(s(T16), .(X114, X115)) :- s2l21(T16, X115).
append43(.(T51, T53), X250, .(T51, X252)) :- append43(T53, X250, X252).
goal1(s(T9)) :- s2l21(T9, X73).
goal1(s(T9)) :- ','(s2lc21(T9, T32), append43(T32, X164, X166)).

Clauses:

s2lc21(0, []).
s2lc21(s(T16), .(X114, X115)) :- s2lc21(T16, X115).
appendc9(X54, X54).
appendc43([], X225, X225).
appendc43([], X250, .(X266, X252)) :- appendc9(X250, X252).
appendc43(.(T51, T53), X250, .(T51, X252)) :- appendc43(T53, X250, X252).

Afs:

goal1(x1)  =  goal1(x1)

(5) TriplesToPiDPProof (SOUND transformation)

We use the technique of [LOPSTR]. With regard to the inferred argument filtering the predicates were used in the following modes:
goal1_in: (b)
s2l21_in: (b,f)
s2lc21_in: (b,f)
append43_in: (b,f,f)
Transforming TRIPLES into the following Term Rewriting System:
Pi DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:

GOAL1_IN_G(s(T9)) → U3_G(T9, s2l21_in_ga(T9, X73))
GOAL1_IN_G(s(T9)) → S2L21_IN_GA(T9, X73)
S2L21_IN_GA(s(T16), .(X114, X115)) → U1_GA(T16, X114, X115, s2l21_in_ga(T16, X115))
S2L21_IN_GA(s(T16), .(X114, X115)) → S2L21_IN_GA(T16, X115)
GOAL1_IN_G(s(T9)) → U4_G(T9, s2lc21_in_ga(T9, T32))
U4_G(T9, s2lc21_out_ga(T9, T32)) → U5_G(T9, append43_in_gaa(T32, X164, X166))
U4_G(T9, s2lc21_out_ga(T9, T32)) → APPEND43_IN_GAA(T32, X164, X166)
APPEND43_IN_GAA(.(T51, T53), X250, .(T51, X252)) → U2_GAA(T51, T53, X250, X252, append43_in_gaa(T53, X250, X252))
APPEND43_IN_GAA(.(T51, T53), X250, .(T51, X252)) → APPEND43_IN_GAA(T53, X250, X252)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

s2lc21_in_ga(0, []) → s2lc21_out_ga(0, [])
s2lc21_in_ga(s(T16), .(X114, X115)) → U7_ga(T16, X114, X115, s2lc21_in_ga(T16, X115))
U7_ga(T16, X114, X115, s2lc21_out_ga(T16, X115)) → s2lc21_out_ga(s(T16), .(X114, X115))

The argument filtering Pi contains the following mapping:
s(x1)  =  s(x1)
s2l21_in_ga(x1, x2)  =  s2l21_in_ga(x1)
.(x1, x2)  =  .(x2)
s2lc21_in_ga(x1, x2)  =  s2lc21_in_ga(x1)
0  =  0
s2lc21_out_ga(x1, x2)  =  s2lc21_out_ga(x1, x2)
U7_ga(x1, x2, x3, x4)  =  U7_ga(x1, x4)
append43_in_gaa(x1, x2, x3)  =  append43_in_gaa(x1)
GOAL1_IN_G(x1)  =  GOAL1_IN_G(x1)
U3_G(x1, x2)  =  U3_G(x1, x2)
S2L21_IN_GA(x1, x2)  =  S2L21_IN_GA(x1)
U1_GA(x1, x2, x3, x4)  =  U1_GA(x1, x4)
U4_G(x1, x2)  =  U4_G(x1, x2)
U5_G(x1, x2)  =  U5_G(x1, x2)
APPEND43_IN_GAA(x1, x2, x3)  =  APPEND43_IN_GAA(x1)
U2_GAA(x1, x2, x3, x4, x5)  =  U2_GAA(x2, x5)

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

Infinitary Constructor Rewriting Termination of PiDP implies Termination of TRIPLES

(6) Obligation:

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

GOAL1_IN_G(s(T9)) → U3_G(T9, s2l21_in_ga(T9, X73))
GOAL1_IN_G(s(T9)) → S2L21_IN_GA(T9, X73)
S2L21_IN_GA(s(T16), .(X114, X115)) → U1_GA(T16, X114, X115, s2l21_in_ga(T16, X115))
S2L21_IN_GA(s(T16), .(X114, X115)) → S2L21_IN_GA(T16, X115)
GOAL1_IN_G(s(T9)) → U4_G(T9, s2lc21_in_ga(T9, T32))
U4_G(T9, s2lc21_out_ga(T9, T32)) → U5_G(T9, append43_in_gaa(T32, X164, X166))
U4_G(T9, s2lc21_out_ga(T9, T32)) → APPEND43_IN_GAA(T32, X164, X166)
APPEND43_IN_GAA(.(T51, T53), X250, .(T51, X252)) → U2_GAA(T51, T53, X250, X252, append43_in_gaa(T53, X250, X252))
APPEND43_IN_GAA(.(T51, T53), X250, .(T51, X252)) → APPEND43_IN_GAA(T53, X250, X252)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

s2lc21_in_ga(0, []) → s2lc21_out_ga(0, [])
s2lc21_in_ga(s(T16), .(X114, X115)) → U7_ga(T16, X114, X115, s2lc21_in_ga(T16, X115))
U7_ga(T16, X114, X115, s2lc21_out_ga(T16, X115)) → s2lc21_out_ga(s(T16), .(X114, X115))

The argument filtering Pi contains the following mapping:
s(x1)  =  s(x1)
s2l21_in_ga(x1, x2)  =  s2l21_in_ga(x1)
.(x1, x2)  =  .(x2)
s2lc21_in_ga(x1, x2)  =  s2lc21_in_ga(x1)
0  =  0
s2lc21_out_ga(x1, x2)  =  s2lc21_out_ga(x1, x2)
U7_ga(x1, x2, x3, x4)  =  U7_ga(x1, x4)
append43_in_gaa(x1, x2, x3)  =  append43_in_gaa(x1)
GOAL1_IN_G(x1)  =  GOAL1_IN_G(x1)
U3_G(x1, x2)  =  U3_G(x1, x2)
S2L21_IN_GA(x1, x2)  =  S2L21_IN_GA(x1)
U1_GA(x1, x2, x3, x4)  =  U1_GA(x1, x4)
U4_G(x1, x2)  =  U4_G(x1, x2)
U5_G(x1, x2)  =  U5_G(x1, x2)
APPEND43_IN_GAA(x1, x2, x3)  =  APPEND43_IN_GAA(x1)
U2_GAA(x1, x2, x3, x4, x5)  =  U2_GAA(x2, x5)

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

(7) DependencyGraphProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

The approximation of the Dependency Graph [LOPSTR] contains 2 SCCs with 7 less nodes.

(8) Complex Obligation (AND)

(9) Obligation:

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

APPEND43_IN_GAA(.(T51, T53), X250, .(T51, X252)) → APPEND43_IN_GAA(T53, X250, X252)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

s2lc21_in_ga(0, []) → s2lc21_out_ga(0, [])
s2lc21_in_ga(s(T16), .(X114, X115)) → U7_ga(T16, X114, X115, s2lc21_in_ga(T16, X115))
U7_ga(T16, X114, X115, s2lc21_out_ga(T16, X115)) → s2lc21_out_ga(s(T16), .(X114, X115))

The argument filtering Pi contains the following mapping:
s(x1)  =  s(x1)
.(x1, x2)  =  .(x2)
s2lc21_in_ga(x1, x2)  =  s2lc21_in_ga(x1)
0  =  0
s2lc21_out_ga(x1, x2)  =  s2lc21_out_ga(x1, x2)
U7_ga(x1, x2, x3, x4)  =  U7_ga(x1, x4)
APPEND43_IN_GAA(x1, x2, x3)  =  APPEND43_IN_GAA(x1)

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

(10) UsableRulesProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

For (infinitary) constructor rewriting [LOPSTR] we can delete all non-usable rules from R.

(11) Obligation:

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

APPEND43_IN_GAA(.(T51, T53), X250, .(T51, X252)) → APPEND43_IN_GAA(T53, X250, X252)

R is empty.
The argument filtering Pi contains the following mapping:
.(x1, x2)  =  .(x2)
APPEND43_IN_GAA(x1, x2, x3)  =  APPEND43_IN_GAA(x1)

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

(12) PiDPToQDPProof (SOUND transformation)

Transforming (infinitary) constructor rewriting Pi-DP problem [LOPSTR] into ordinary QDP problem [LPAR04] by application of Pi.

(13) Obligation:

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

APPEND43_IN_GAA(.(T53)) → APPEND43_IN_GAA(T53)

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

(14) QDPSizeChangeProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

By using the subterm criterion [SUBTERM_CRITERION] together with the size-change analysis [AAECC05] 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:

  • APPEND43_IN_GAA(.(T53)) → APPEND43_IN_GAA(T53)
    The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1

(15) YES

(16) Obligation:

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

S2L21_IN_GA(s(T16), .(X114, X115)) → S2L21_IN_GA(T16, X115)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

s2lc21_in_ga(0, []) → s2lc21_out_ga(0, [])
s2lc21_in_ga(s(T16), .(X114, X115)) → U7_ga(T16, X114, X115, s2lc21_in_ga(T16, X115))
U7_ga(T16, X114, X115, s2lc21_out_ga(T16, X115)) → s2lc21_out_ga(s(T16), .(X114, X115))

The argument filtering Pi contains the following mapping:
s(x1)  =  s(x1)
.(x1, x2)  =  .(x2)
s2lc21_in_ga(x1, x2)  =  s2lc21_in_ga(x1)
0  =  0
s2lc21_out_ga(x1, x2)  =  s2lc21_out_ga(x1, x2)
U7_ga(x1, x2, x3, x4)  =  U7_ga(x1, x4)
S2L21_IN_GA(x1, x2)  =  S2L21_IN_GA(x1)

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

(17) UsableRulesProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

For (infinitary) constructor rewriting [LOPSTR] we can delete all non-usable rules from R.

(18) Obligation:

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

S2L21_IN_GA(s(T16), .(X114, X115)) → S2L21_IN_GA(T16, X115)

R is empty.
The argument filtering Pi contains the following mapping:
s(x1)  =  s(x1)
.(x1, x2)  =  .(x2)
S2L21_IN_GA(x1, x2)  =  S2L21_IN_GA(x1)

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

(19) PiDPToQDPProof (SOUND transformation)

Transforming (infinitary) constructor rewriting Pi-DP problem [LOPSTR] into ordinary QDP problem [LPAR04] by application of Pi.

(20) Obligation:

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

S2L21_IN_GA(s(T16)) → S2L21_IN_GA(T16)

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

(21) QDPSizeChangeProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

By using the subterm criterion [SUBTERM_CRITERION] together with the size-change analysis [AAECC05] 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:

  • S2L21_IN_GA(s(T16)) → S2L21_IN_GA(T16)
    The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1

(22) YES