(0) Obligation:
Clauses:
max(X, Y, X) :- less(Y, X).
max(X, Y, Y) :- less(X, s(Y)).
less(0, s(X1)).
less(s(X), s(Y)) :- less(X, Y).
Queries:
max(g,a,a).
(1) PrologToDTProblemTransformerProof (SOUND transformation)
Built DT problem from termination graph.
(2) Obligation:
Triples:
less13(s(T38), s(T37)) :- less13(T38, T37).
less32(s(T73), s(T75)) :- less32(T73, T75).
max1(s(T23), s(T24), s(T23)) :- less13(T24, T23).
max1(s(T59), T61, T61) :- less32(T59, T61).
max1(s(T92), T94, T94) :- less32(T92, T94).
Clauses:
lessc13(0, s(T31)).
lessc13(s(T38), s(T37)) :- lessc13(T38, T37).
lessc32(0, s(T68)).
lessc32(s(T73), s(T75)) :- lessc32(T73, T75).
Afs:
max1(x1, x2, x3) = max1(x1)
(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:
max1_in: (b,f,f)
less13_in: (f,b)
less32_in: (b,f)
Transforming
TRIPLES into the following
Term Rewriting System:
Pi DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:
MAX1_IN_GAA(s(T23), s(T24), s(T23)) → U3_GAA(T23, T24, less13_in_ag(T24, T23))
MAX1_IN_GAA(s(T23), s(T24), s(T23)) → LESS13_IN_AG(T24, T23)
LESS13_IN_AG(s(T38), s(T37)) → U1_AG(T38, T37, less13_in_ag(T38, T37))
LESS13_IN_AG(s(T38), s(T37)) → LESS13_IN_AG(T38, T37)
MAX1_IN_GAA(s(T59), T61, T61) → U4_GAA(T59, T61, less32_in_ga(T59, T61))
MAX1_IN_GAA(s(T59), T61, T61) → LESS32_IN_GA(T59, T61)
LESS32_IN_GA(s(T73), s(T75)) → U2_GA(T73, T75, less32_in_ga(T73, T75))
LESS32_IN_GA(s(T73), s(T75)) → LESS32_IN_GA(T73, T75)
MAX1_IN_GAA(s(T92), T94, T94) → U5_GAA(T92, T94, less32_in_ga(T92, T94))
R is empty.
The argument filtering Pi contains the following mapping:
s(
x1) =
s(
x1)
less13_in_ag(
x1,
x2) =
less13_in_ag(
x2)
less32_in_ga(
x1,
x2) =
less32_in_ga(
x1)
MAX1_IN_GAA(
x1,
x2,
x3) =
MAX1_IN_GAA(
x1)
U3_GAA(
x1,
x2,
x3) =
U3_GAA(
x1,
x3)
LESS13_IN_AG(
x1,
x2) =
LESS13_IN_AG(
x2)
U1_AG(
x1,
x2,
x3) =
U1_AG(
x2,
x3)
U4_GAA(
x1,
x2,
x3) =
U4_GAA(
x1,
x3)
LESS32_IN_GA(
x1,
x2) =
LESS32_IN_GA(
x1)
U2_GA(
x1,
x2,
x3) =
U2_GA(
x1,
x3)
U5_GAA(
x1,
x2,
x3) =
U5_GAA(
x1,
x3)
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:
MAX1_IN_GAA(s(T23), s(T24), s(T23)) → U3_GAA(T23, T24, less13_in_ag(T24, T23))
MAX1_IN_GAA(s(T23), s(T24), s(T23)) → LESS13_IN_AG(T24, T23)
LESS13_IN_AG(s(T38), s(T37)) → U1_AG(T38, T37, less13_in_ag(T38, T37))
LESS13_IN_AG(s(T38), s(T37)) → LESS13_IN_AG(T38, T37)
MAX1_IN_GAA(s(T59), T61, T61) → U4_GAA(T59, T61, less32_in_ga(T59, T61))
MAX1_IN_GAA(s(T59), T61, T61) → LESS32_IN_GA(T59, T61)
LESS32_IN_GA(s(T73), s(T75)) → U2_GA(T73, T75, less32_in_ga(T73, T75))
LESS32_IN_GA(s(T73), s(T75)) → LESS32_IN_GA(T73, T75)
MAX1_IN_GAA(s(T92), T94, T94) → U5_GAA(T92, T94, less32_in_ga(T92, T94))
R is empty.
The argument filtering Pi contains the following mapping:
s(
x1) =
s(
x1)
less13_in_ag(
x1,
x2) =
less13_in_ag(
x2)
less32_in_ga(
x1,
x2) =
less32_in_ga(
x1)
MAX1_IN_GAA(
x1,
x2,
x3) =
MAX1_IN_GAA(
x1)
U3_GAA(
x1,
x2,
x3) =
U3_GAA(
x1,
x3)
LESS13_IN_AG(
x1,
x2) =
LESS13_IN_AG(
x2)
U1_AG(
x1,
x2,
x3) =
U1_AG(
x2,
x3)
U4_GAA(
x1,
x2,
x3) =
U4_GAA(
x1,
x3)
LESS32_IN_GA(
x1,
x2) =
LESS32_IN_GA(
x1)
U2_GA(
x1,
x2,
x3) =
U2_GA(
x1,
x3)
U5_GAA(
x1,
x2,
x3) =
U5_GAA(
x1,
x3)
We have to consider all (P,R,Pi)-chains
(5) DependencyGraphProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)
The approximation of the Dependency Graph [LOPSTR] contains 2 SCCs with 7 less nodes.
(6) Complex Obligation (AND)
(7) Obligation:
Pi DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:
LESS32_IN_GA(s(T73), s(T75)) → LESS32_IN_GA(T73, T75)
R is empty.
The argument filtering Pi contains the following mapping:
s(
x1) =
s(
x1)
LESS32_IN_GA(
x1,
x2) =
LESS32_IN_GA(
x1)
We have to consider all (P,R,Pi)-chains
(8) PiDPToQDPProof (SOUND 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:
LESS32_IN_GA(s(T73)) → LESS32_IN_GA(T73)
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:
- LESS32_IN_GA(s(T73)) → LESS32_IN_GA(T73)
The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1
(11) YES
(12) Obligation:
Pi DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:
LESS13_IN_AG(s(T38), s(T37)) → LESS13_IN_AG(T38, T37)
R is empty.
The argument filtering Pi contains the following mapping:
s(
x1) =
s(
x1)
LESS13_IN_AG(
x1,
x2) =
LESS13_IN_AG(
x2)
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:
LESS13_IN_AG(s(T37)) → LESS13_IN_AG(T37)
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:
- LESS13_IN_AG(s(T37)) → LESS13_IN_AG(T37)
The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1
(16) YES