(0) Obligation:
Clauses:
overlap(Xs, Ys) :- ','(member(X, Xs), member(X, Ys)).
member(X, Y) :- ','(no(empty(Y)), head(Y, X)).
member(X, Y) :- ','(no(empty(Y)), ','(tail(Y, T), member(X, T))).
head([], X1).
head(.(H, X2), H).
tail([], []).
tail(.(X3, T), T).
empty([]).
no(X) :- ','(X, ','(!, failure(a))).
no(X4).
failure(b).
Queries:
overlap(g,g).
(1) PrologToDTProblemTransformerProof (SOUND transformation)
Built DT problem from termination graph.
(2) Obligation:
Triples:
member22(T60, .(T76, T77)) :- member22(T60, T77).
p3(T28, .(T28, T29), T6) :- member22(T28, T6).
p3(X139, .(T93, T94), T6) :- p3(X139, T94, T6).
overlap1(T5, T6) :- p3(X9, T5, T6).
Clauses:
memberc22(T53, .(T53, T54)).
memberc22(T60, .(T76, T77)) :- memberc22(T60, T77).
qc3(T28, .(T28, T29), T6) :- memberc22(T28, T6).
qc3(X139, .(T93, T94), T6) :- qc3(X139, T94, T6).
Afs:
overlap1(x1, x2) = overlap1(x1, x2)
(3) TriplesToPiDPProof (SOUND transformation)
We use the technique of [LOPSTR]. With regard to the inferred argument filtering the predicates were used in the following modes:
overlap1_in: (b,b)
p3_in: (f,b,b)
member22_in: (b,b)
Transforming
TRIPLES into the following
Term Rewriting System:
Pi DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:
OVERLAP1_IN_GG(T5, T6) → U4_GG(T5, T6, p3_in_agg(X9, T5, T6))
OVERLAP1_IN_GG(T5, T6) → P3_IN_AGG(X9, T5, T6)
P3_IN_AGG(T28, .(T28, T29), T6) → U2_AGG(T28, T29, T6, member22_in_gg(T28, T6))
P3_IN_AGG(T28, .(T28, T29), T6) → MEMBER22_IN_GG(T28, T6)
MEMBER22_IN_GG(T60, .(T76, T77)) → U1_GG(T60, T76, T77, member22_in_gg(T60, T77))
MEMBER22_IN_GG(T60, .(T76, T77)) → MEMBER22_IN_GG(T60, T77)
P3_IN_AGG(X139, .(T93, T94), T6) → U3_AGG(X139, T93, T94, T6, p3_in_agg(X139, T94, T6))
P3_IN_AGG(X139, .(T93, T94), T6) → P3_IN_AGG(X139, T94, T6)
R is empty.
The argument filtering Pi contains the following mapping:
p3_in_agg(
x1,
x2,
x3) =
p3_in_agg(
x2,
x3)
.(
x1,
x2) =
.(
x1,
x2)
member22_in_gg(
x1,
x2) =
member22_in_gg(
x1,
x2)
OVERLAP1_IN_GG(
x1,
x2) =
OVERLAP1_IN_GG(
x1,
x2)
U4_GG(
x1,
x2,
x3) =
U4_GG(
x1,
x2,
x3)
P3_IN_AGG(
x1,
x2,
x3) =
P3_IN_AGG(
x2,
x3)
U2_AGG(
x1,
x2,
x3,
x4) =
U2_AGG(
x1,
x2,
x3,
x4)
MEMBER22_IN_GG(
x1,
x2) =
MEMBER22_IN_GG(
x1,
x2)
U1_GG(
x1,
x2,
x3,
x4) =
U1_GG(
x1,
x2,
x3,
x4)
U3_AGG(
x1,
x2,
x3,
x4,
x5) =
U3_AGG(
x2,
x3,
x4,
x5)
We have to consider all (P,R,Pi)-chains
Infinitary Constructor Rewriting Termination of PiDP implies Termination of TRIPLES
(4) Obligation:
Pi DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:
OVERLAP1_IN_GG(T5, T6) → U4_GG(T5, T6, p3_in_agg(X9, T5, T6))
OVERLAP1_IN_GG(T5, T6) → P3_IN_AGG(X9, T5, T6)
P3_IN_AGG(T28, .(T28, T29), T6) → U2_AGG(T28, T29, T6, member22_in_gg(T28, T6))
P3_IN_AGG(T28, .(T28, T29), T6) → MEMBER22_IN_GG(T28, T6)
MEMBER22_IN_GG(T60, .(T76, T77)) → U1_GG(T60, T76, T77, member22_in_gg(T60, T77))
MEMBER22_IN_GG(T60, .(T76, T77)) → MEMBER22_IN_GG(T60, T77)
P3_IN_AGG(X139, .(T93, T94), T6) → U3_AGG(X139, T93, T94, T6, p3_in_agg(X139, T94, T6))
P3_IN_AGG(X139, .(T93, T94), T6) → P3_IN_AGG(X139, T94, T6)
R is empty.
The argument filtering Pi contains the following mapping:
p3_in_agg(
x1,
x2,
x3) =
p3_in_agg(
x2,
x3)
.(
x1,
x2) =
.(
x1,
x2)
member22_in_gg(
x1,
x2) =
member22_in_gg(
x1,
x2)
OVERLAP1_IN_GG(
x1,
x2) =
OVERLAP1_IN_GG(
x1,
x2)
U4_GG(
x1,
x2,
x3) =
U4_GG(
x1,
x2,
x3)
P3_IN_AGG(
x1,
x2,
x3) =
P3_IN_AGG(
x2,
x3)
U2_AGG(
x1,
x2,
x3,
x4) =
U2_AGG(
x1,
x2,
x3,
x4)
MEMBER22_IN_GG(
x1,
x2) =
MEMBER22_IN_GG(
x1,
x2)
U1_GG(
x1,
x2,
x3,
x4) =
U1_GG(
x1,
x2,
x3,
x4)
U3_AGG(
x1,
x2,
x3,
x4,
x5) =
U3_AGG(
x2,
x3,
x4,
x5)
We have to consider all (P,R,Pi)-chains
(5) DependencyGraphProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)
The approximation of the Dependency Graph [LOPSTR] contains 2 SCCs with 6 less nodes.
(6) Complex Obligation (AND)
(7) Obligation:
Pi DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:
MEMBER22_IN_GG(T60, .(T76, T77)) → MEMBER22_IN_GG(T60, T77)
R is empty.
Pi is empty.
We have to consider all (P,R,Pi)-chains
(8) PiDPToQDPProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)
Transforming (infinitary) constructor rewriting Pi-DP problem [LOPSTR] into ordinary QDP problem [LPAR04] by application of Pi.
(9) Obligation:
Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:
MEMBER22_IN_GG(T60, .(T76, T77)) → MEMBER22_IN_GG(T60, T77)
R is empty.
Q is empty.
We have to consider all (P,Q,R)-chains.
(10) 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:
- MEMBER22_IN_GG(T60, .(T76, T77)) → MEMBER22_IN_GG(T60, T77)
The graph contains the following edges 1 >= 1, 2 > 2
(11) YES
(12) Obligation:
Pi DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:
P3_IN_AGG(X139, .(T93, T94), T6) → P3_IN_AGG(X139, T94, T6)
R is empty.
The argument filtering Pi contains the following mapping:
.(
x1,
x2) =
.(
x1,
x2)
P3_IN_AGG(
x1,
x2,
x3) =
P3_IN_AGG(
x2,
x3)
We have to consider all (P,R,Pi)-chains
(13) PiDPToQDPProof (SOUND transformation)
Transforming (infinitary) constructor rewriting Pi-DP problem [LOPSTR] into ordinary QDP problem [LPAR04] by application of Pi.
(14) Obligation:
Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:
P3_IN_AGG(.(T93, T94), T6) → P3_IN_AGG(T94, T6)
R is empty.
Q is empty.
We have to consider all (P,Q,R)-chains.
(15) 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:
- P3_IN_AGG(.(T93, T94), T6) → P3_IN_AGG(T94, T6)
The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1, 2 >= 2
(16) YES