(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