(0) Obligation:
Clauses:
goal(X) :- ','(s2l(X, Xs), list(Xs)).
list([]) :- !.
list(X) :- ','(tail(X, T), list(T)).
s2l(0, L) :- ','(!, eq(L, [])).
s2l(X, .(X1, Xs)) :- ','(p(X, P), s2l(P, Xs)).
tail([], []).
tail(.(X2, 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:
s2l19(s(T16), .(X78, X79)) :- s2l19(T16, X79).
list38([]) :- list9.
list38(.(T37, T39)) :- list38(T39).
goal1(0) :- list9.
goal1(s(T9)) :- s2l19(T9, X37).
goal1(s(T9)) :- ','(s2lc19(T9, T27), list38(T27)).
Clauses:
s2lc19(0, []).
s2lc19(s(T16), .(X78, X79)) :- s2lc19(T16, X79).
listc9.
listc38([]).
listc38([]) :- listc9.
listc38(.(T37, T39)) :- listc38(T39).
Afs:
goal1(x1) = goal1(x1)
(3) UndefinedPredicateInTriplesTransformerProof (SOUND transformation)
Deleted triples and predicates having undefined goals [UNKNOWN].
(4) Obligation:
Triples:
s2l19(s(T16), .(X78, X79)) :- s2l19(T16, X79).
list38(.(T37, T39)) :- list38(T39).
goal1(s(T9)) :- s2l19(T9, X37).
goal1(s(T9)) :- ','(s2lc19(T9, T27), list38(T27)).
Clauses:
s2lc19(0, []).
s2lc19(s(T16), .(X78, X79)) :- s2lc19(T16, X79).
listc9.
listc38([]).
listc38([]) :- listc9.
listc38(.(T37, T39)) :- listc38(T39).
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)
s2l19_in: (b,f)
s2lc19_in: (b,f)
list38_in: (b)
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, s2l19_in_ga(T9, X37))
GOAL1_IN_G(s(T9)) → S2L19_IN_GA(T9, X37)
S2L19_IN_GA(s(T16), .(X78, X79)) → U1_GA(T16, X78, X79, s2l19_in_ga(T16, X79))
S2L19_IN_GA(s(T16), .(X78, X79)) → S2L19_IN_GA(T16, X79)
GOAL1_IN_G(s(T9)) → U4_G(T9, s2lc19_in_ga(T9, T27))
U4_G(T9, s2lc19_out_ga(T9, T27)) → U5_G(T9, list38_in_g(T27))
U4_G(T9, s2lc19_out_ga(T9, T27)) → LIST38_IN_G(T27)
LIST38_IN_G(.(T37, T39)) → U2_G(T37, T39, list38_in_g(T39))
LIST38_IN_G(.(T37, T39)) → LIST38_IN_G(T39)
The TRS R consists of the following rules:
s2lc19_in_ga(0, []) → s2lc19_out_ga(0, [])
s2lc19_in_ga(s(T16), .(X78, X79)) → U7_ga(T16, X78, X79, s2lc19_in_ga(T16, X79))
U7_ga(T16, X78, X79, s2lc19_out_ga(T16, X79)) → s2lc19_out_ga(s(T16), .(X78, X79))
The argument filtering Pi contains the following mapping:
s(
x1) =
s(
x1)
s2l19_in_ga(
x1,
x2) =
s2l19_in_ga(
x1)
.(
x1,
x2) =
.(
x2)
s2lc19_in_ga(
x1,
x2) =
s2lc19_in_ga(
x1)
0 =
0
s2lc19_out_ga(
x1,
x2) =
s2lc19_out_ga(
x1,
x2)
U7_ga(
x1,
x2,
x3,
x4) =
U7_ga(
x1,
x4)
list38_in_g(
x1) =
list38_in_g(
x1)
GOAL1_IN_G(
x1) =
GOAL1_IN_G(
x1)
U3_G(
x1,
x2) =
U3_G(
x1,
x2)
S2L19_IN_GA(
x1,
x2) =
S2L19_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)
LIST38_IN_G(
x1) =
LIST38_IN_G(
x1)
U2_G(
x1,
x2,
x3) =
U2_G(
x2,
x3)
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, s2l19_in_ga(T9, X37))
GOAL1_IN_G(s(T9)) → S2L19_IN_GA(T9, X37)
S2L19_IN_GA(s(T16), .(X78, X79)) → U1_GA(T16, X78, X79, s2l19_in_ga(T16, X79))
S2L19_IN_GA(s(T16), .(X78, X79)) → S2L19_IN_GA(T16, X79)
GOAL1_IN_G(s(T9)) → U4_G(T9, s2lc19_in_ga(T9, T27))
U4_G(T9, s2lc19_out_ga(T9, T27)) → U5_G(T9, list38_in_g(T27))
U4_G(T9, s2lc19_out_ga(T9, T27)) → LIST38_IN_G(T27)
LIST38_IN_G(.(T37, T39)) → U2_G(T37, T39, list38_in_g(T39))
LIST38_IN_G(.(T37, T39)) → LIST38_IN_G(T39)
The TRS R consists of the following rules:
s2lc19_in_ga(0, []) → s2lc19_out_ga(0, [])
s2lc19_in_ga(s(T16), .(X78, X79)) → U7_ga(T16, X78, X79, s2lc19_in_ga(T16, X79))
U7_ga(T16, X78, X79, s2lc19_out_ga(T16, X79)) → s2lc19_out_ga(s(T16), .(X78, X79))
The argument filtering Pi contains the following mapping:
s(
x1) =
s(
x1)
s2l19_in_ga(
x1,
x2) =
s2l19_in_ga(
x1)
.(
x1,
x2) =
.(
x2)
s2lc19_in_ga(
x1,
x2) =
s2lc19_in_ga(
x1)
0 =
0
s2lc19_out_ga(
x1,
x2) =
s2lc19_out_ga(
x1,
x2)
U7_ga(
x1,
x2,
x3,
x4) =
U7_ga(
x1,
x4)
list38_in_g(
x1) =
list38_in_g(
x1)
GOAL1_IN_G(
x1) =
GOAL1_IN_G(
x1)
U3_G(
x1,
x2) =
U3_G(
x1,
x2)
S2L19_IN_GA(
x1,
x2) =
S2L19_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)
LIST38_IN_G(
x1) =
LIST38_IN_G(
x1)
U2_G(
x1,
x2,
x3) =
U2_G(
x2,
x3)
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:
LIST38_IN_G(.(T37, T39)) → LIST38_IN_G(T39)
The TRS R consists of the following rules:
s2lc19_in_ga(0, []) → s2lc19_out_ga(0, [])
s2lc19_in_ga(s(T16), .(X78, X79)) → U7_ga(T16, X78, X79, s2lc19_in_ga(T16, X79))
U7_ga(T16, X78, X79, s2lc19_out_ga(T16, X79)) → s2lc19_out_ga(s(T16), .(X78, X79))
The argument filtering Pi contains the following mapping:
s(
x1) =
s(
x1)
.(
x1,
x2) =
.(
x2)
s2lc19_in_ga(
x1,
x2) =
s2lc19_in_ga(
x1)
0 =
0
s2lc19_out_ga(
x1,
x2) =
s2lc19_out_ga(
x1,
x2)
U7_ga(
x1,
x2,
x3,
x4) =
U7_ga(
x1,
x4)
LIST38_IN_G(
x1) =
LIST38_IN_G(
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:
LIST38_IN_G(.(T37, T39)) → LIST38_IN_G(T39)
R is empty.
The argument filtering Pi contains the following mapping:
.(
x1,
x2) =
.(
x2)
LIST38_IN_G(
x1) =
LIST38_IN_G(
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:
LIST38_IN_G(.(T39)) → LIST38_IN_G(T39)
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:
- LIST38_IN_G(.(T39)) → LIST38_IN_G(T39)
The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1
(15) YES
(16) Obligation:
Pi DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:
S2L19_IN_GA(s(T16), .(X78, X79)) → S2L19_IN_GA(T16, X79)
The TRS R consists of the following rules:
s2lc19_in_ga(0, []) → s2lc19_out_ga(0, [])
s2lc19_in_ga(s(T16), .(X78, X79)) → U7_ga(T16, X78, X79, s2lc19_in_ga(T16, X79))
U7_ga(T16, X78, X79, s2lc19_out_ga(T16, X79)) → s2lc19_out_ga(s(T16), .(X78, X79))
The argument filtering Pi contains the following mapping:
s(
x1) =
s(
x1)
.(
x1,
x2) =
.(
x2)
s2lc19_in_ga(
x1,
x2) =
s2lc19_in_ga(
x1)
0 =
0
s2lc19_out_ga(
x1,
x2) =
s2lc19_out_ga(
x1,
x2)
U7_ga(
x1,
x2,
x3,
x4) =
U7_ga(
x1,
x4)
S2L19_IN_GA(
x1,
x2) =
S2L19_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:
S2L19_IN_GA(s(T16), .(X78, X79)) → S2L19_IN_GA(T16, X79)
R is empty.
The argument filtering Pi contains the following mapping:
s(
x1) =
s(
x1)
.(
x1,
x2) =
.(
x2)
S2L19_IN_GA(
x1,
x2) =
S2L19_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:
S2L19_IN_GA(s(T16)) → S2L19_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:
- S2L19_IN_GA(s(T16)) → S2L19_IN_GA(T16)
The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1
(22) YES