(0) Obligation:
Clauses:
goal(X) :- ','(s2l(X, Xs), list(Xs)).
list([]).
list(X) :- ','(no(empty(X)), ','(tail(X, T), list(T))).
s2l(0, []).
s2l(X, .(X1, Xs)) :- ','(no(zero(X)), ','(p(X, P), s2l(P, Xs))).
tail([], []).
tail(.(X2, Xs), Xs).
p(0, 0).
p(s(X), X).
empty([]).
zero(0).
no(X) :- ','(X, ','(!, failure(a))).
no(X3).
failure(b).
Queries:
goal(g).
(1) PrologToDTProblemTransformerProof (SOUND transformation)
Built DT problem from termination graph.
(2) Obligation:
Triples:
s2l40(s(T28), .(X77, X78)) :- s2l40(T28, X78).
list78([]) :- list7.
list78(.(T69, T71)) :- list78(T71).
goal1(0) :- list7.
goal1(s(T15)) :- s2l40(T15, X35).
goal1(s(T15)) :- ','(s2lc40(T15, T49), list78(T49)).
Clauses:
s2lc40(0, []).
s2lc40(s(T28), .(X77, X78)) :- s2lc40(T28, X78).
listc7.
listc78([]).
listc78([]) :- listc7.
listc78(.(T69, T71)) :- listc78(T71).
Afs:
goal1(x1) = goal1(x1)
(3) UndefinedPredicateInTriplesTransformerProof (SOUND transformation)
Deleted triples and predicates having undefined goals [UNKNOWN].
(4) Obligation:
Triples:
s2l40(s(T28), .(X77, X78)) :- s2l40(T28, X78).
list78(.(T69, T71)) :- list78(T71).
goal1(s(T15)) :- s2l40(T15, X35).
goal1(s(T15)) :- ','(s2lc40(T15, T49), list78(T49)).
Clauses:
s2lc40(0, []).
s2lc40(s(T28), .(X77, X78)) :- s2lc40(T28, X78).
listc7.
listc78([]).
listc78([]) :- listc7.
listc78(.(T69, T71)) :- listc78(T71).
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)
s2l40_in: (b,f)
s2lc40_in: (b,f)
list78_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(T15)) → U3_G(T15, s2l40_in_ga(T15, X35))
GOAL1_IN_G(s(T15)) → S2L40_IN_GA(T15, X35)
S2L40_IN_GA(s(T28), .(X77, X78)) → U1_GA(T28, X77, X78, s2l40_in_ga(T28, X78))
S2L40_IN_GA(s(T28), .(X77, X78)) → S2L40_IN_GA(T28, X78)
GOAL1_IN_G(s(T15)) → U4_G(T15, s2lc40_in_ga(T15, T49))
U4_G(T15, s2lc40_out_ga(T15, T49)) → U5_G(T15, list78_in_g(T49))
U4_G(T15, s2lc40_out_ga(T15, T49)) → LIST78_IN_G(T49)
LIST78_IN_G(.(T69, T71)) → U2_G(T69, T71, list78_in_g(T71))
LIST78_IN_G(.(T69, T71)) → LIST78_IN_G(T71)
The TRS R consists of the following rules:
s2lc40_in_ga(0, []) → s2lc40_out_ga(0, [])
s2lc40_in_ga(s(T28), .(X77, X78)) → U7_ga(T28, X77, X78, s2lc40_in_ga(T28, X78))
U7_ga(T28, X77, X78, s2lc40_out_ga(T28, X78)) → s2lc40_out_ga(s(T28), .(X77, X78))
The argument filtering Pi contains the following mapping:
s(
x1) =
s(
x1)
s2l40_in_ga(
x1,
x2) =
s2l40_in_ga(
x1)
.(
x1,
x2) =
.(
x2)
s2lc40_in_ga(
x1,
x2) =
s2lc40_in_ga(
x1)
0 =
0
s2lc40_out_ga(
x1,
x2) =
s2lc40_out_ga(
x1,
x2)
U7_ga(
x1,
x2,
x3,
x4) =
U7_ga(
x1,
x4)
list78_in_g(
x1) =
list78_in_g(
x1)
GOAL1_IN_G(
x1) =
GOAL1_IN_G(
x1)
U3_G(
x1,
x2) =
U3_G(
x1,
x2)
S2L40_IN_GA(
x1,
x2) =
S2L40_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)
LIST78_IN_G(
x1) =
LIST78_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(T15)) → U3_G(T15, s2l40_in_ga(T15, X35))
GOAL1_IN_G(s(T15)) → S2L40_IN_GA(T15, X35)
S2L40_IN_GA(s(T28), .(X77, X78)) → U1_GA(T28, X77, X78, s2l40_in_ga(T28, X78))
S2L40_IN_GA(s(T28), .(X77, X78)) → S2L40_IN_GA(T28, X78)
GOAL1_IN_G(s(T15)) → U4_G(T15, s2lc40_in_ga(T15, T49))
U4_G(T15, s2lc40_out_ga(T15, T49)) → U5_G(T15, list78_in_g(T49))
U4_G(T15, s2lc40_out_ga(T15, T49)) → LIST78_IN_G(T49)
LIST78_IN_G(.(T69, T71)) → U2_G(T69, T71, list78_in_g(T71))
LIST78_IN_G(.(T69, T71)) → LIST78_IN_G(T71)
The TRS R consists of the following rules:
s2lc40_in_ga(0, []) → s2lc40_out_ga(0, [])
s2lc40_in_ga(s(T28), .(X77, X78)) → U7_ga(T28, X77, X78, s2lc40_in_ga(T28, X78))
U7_ga(T28, X77, X78, s2lc40_out_ga(T28, X78)) → s2lc40_out_ga(s(T28), .(X77, X78))
The argument filtering Pi contains the following mapping:
s(
x1) =
s(
x1)
s2l40_in_ga(
x1,
x2) =
s2l40_in_ga(
x1)
.(
x1,
x2) =
.(
x2)
s2lc40_in_ga(
x1,
x2) =
s2lc40_in_ga(
x1)
0 =
0
s2lc40_out_ga(
x1,
x2) =
s2lc40_out_ga(
x1,
x2)
U7_ga(
x1,
x2,
x3,
x4) =
U7_ga(
x1,
x4)
list78_in_g(
x1) =
list78_in_g(
x1)
GOAL1_IN_G(
x1) =
GOAL1_IN_G(
x1)
U3_G(
x1,
x2) =
U3_G(
x1,
x2)
S2L40_IN_GA(
x1,
x2) =
S2L40_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)
LIST78_IN_G(
x1) =
LIST78_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:
LIST78_IN_G(.(T69, T71)) → LIST78_IN_G(T71)
The TRS R consists of the following rules:
s2lc40_in_ga(0, []) → s2lc40_out_ga(0, [])
s2lc40_in_ga(s(T28), .(X77, X78)) → U7_ga(T28, X77, X78, s2lc40_in_ga(T28, X78))
U7_ga(T28, X77, X78, s2lc40_out_ga(T28, X78)) → s2lc40_out_ga(s(T28), .(X77, X78))
The argument filtering Pi contains the following mapping:
s(
x1) =
s(
x1)
.(
x1,
x2) =
.(
x2)
s2lc40_in_ga(
x1,
x2) =
s2lc40_in_ga(
x1)
0 =
0
s2lc40_out_ga(
x1,
x2) =
s2lc40_out_ga(
x1,
x2)
U7_ga(
x1,
x2,
x3,
x4) =
U7_ga(
x1,
x4)
LIST78_IN_G(
x1) =
LIST78_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:
LIST78_IN_G(.(T69, T71)) → LIST78_IN_G(T71)
R is empty.
The argument filtering Pi contains the following mapping:
.(
x1,
x2) =
.(
x2)
LIST78_IN_G(
x1) =
LIST78_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:
LIST78_IN_G(.(T71)) → LIST78_IN_G(T71)
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:
- LIST78_IN_G(.(T71)) → LIST78_IN_G(T71)
The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1
(15) YES
(16) Obligation:
Pi DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:
S2L40_IN_GA(s(T28), .(X77, X78)) → S2L40_IN_GA(T28, X78)
The TRS R consists of the following rules:
s2lc40_in_ga(0, []) → s2lc40_out_ga(0, [])
s2lc40_in_ga(s(T28), .(X77, X78)) → U7_ga(T28, X77, X78, s2lc40_in_ga(T28, X78))
U7_ga(T28, X77, X78, s2lc40_out_ga(T28, X78)) → s2lc40_out_ga(s(T28), .(X77, X78))
The argument filtering Pi contains the following mapping:
s(
x1) =
s(
x1)
.(
x1,
x2) =
.(
x2)
s2lc40_in_ga(
x1,
x2) =
s2lc40_in_ga(
x1)
0 =
0
s2lc40_out_ga(
x1,
x2) =
s2lc40_out_ga(
x1,
x2)
U7_ga(
x1,
x2,
x3,
x4) =
U7_ga(
x1,
x4)
S2L40_IN_GA(
x1,
x2) =
S2L40_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:
S2L40_IN_GA(s(T28), .(X77, X78)) → S2L40_IN_GA(T28, X78)
R is empty.
The argument filtering Pi contains the following mapping:
s(
x1) =
s(
x1)
.(
x1,
x2) =
.(
x2)
S2L40_IN_GA(
x1,
x2) =
S2L40_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:
S2L40_IN_GA(s(T28)) → S2L40_IN_GA(T28)
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:
- S2L40_IN_GA(s(T28)) → S2L40_IN_GA(T28)
The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1
(22) YES