(0) Obligation:
Clauses:
reverse(X1s, X2s) :- reverse(X1s, [], X2s).
reverse([], Xs, Xs).
reverse(.(X, X1s), X2s, Ys) :- reverse(X1s, .(X, X2s), Ys).
Queries:
reverse(g,a).
(1) PrologToDTProblemTransformerProof (SOUND transformation)
Built DT problem from termination graph.
(2) Obligation:
Triples:
reverse68(.(T409, T410), T411, T412, T414) :- reverse68(T410, T409, .(T411, T412), T414).
reverse1(.(T365, .(T364, .(T363, .(T362, .(T361, .(T360, .(T359, .(T357, T358)))))))), T367) :- reverse68(T358, T357, .(T359, .(T360, .(T361, .(T362, .(T363, .(T364, .(T365, []))))))), T367).
Clauses:
reversec68([], T397, T398, .(T397, T398)).
reversec68(.(T409, T410), T411, T412, T414) :- reversec68(T410, T409, .(T411, T412), T414).
Afs:
reverse1(x1, x2) = reverse1(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:
reverse1_in: (b,f)
reverse68_in: (b,b,b,f)
Transforming
TRIPLES into the following
Term Rewriting System:
Pi DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:
REVERSE1_IN_GA(.(T365, .(T364, .(T363, .(T362, .(T361, .(T360, .(T359, .(T357, T358)))))))), T367) → U2_GA(T365, T364, T363, T362, T361, T360, T359, T357, T358, T367, reverse68_in_ggga(T358, T357, .(T359, .(T360, .(T361, .(T362, .(T363, .(T364, .(T365, []))))))), T367))
REVERSE1_IN_GA(.(T365, .(T364, .(T363, .(T362, .(T361, .(T360, .(T359, .(T357, T358)))))))), T367) → REVERSE68_IN_GGGA(T358, T357, .(T359, .(T360, .(T361, .(T362, .(T363, .(T364, .(T365, []))))))), T367)
REVERSE68_IN_GGGA(.(T409, T410), T411, T412, T414) → U1_GGGA(T409, T410, T411, T412, T414, reverse68_in_ggga(T410, T409, .(T411, T412), T414))
REVERSE68_IN_GGGA(.(T409, T410), T411, T412, T414) → REVERSE68_IN_GGGA(T410, T409, .(T411, T412), T414)
R is empty.
The argument filtering Pi contains the following mapping:
.(
x1,
x2) =
.(
x1,
x2)
reverse68_in_ggga(
x1,
x2,
x3,
x4) =
reverse68_in_ggga(
x1,
x2,
x3)
[] =
[]
REVERSE1_IN_GA(
x1,
x2) =
REVERSE1_IN_GA(
x1)
U2_GA(
x1,
x2,
x3,
x4,
x5,
x6,
x7,
x8,
x9,
x10,
x11) =
U2_GA(
x1,
x2,
x3,
x4,
x5,
x6,
x7,
x8,
x9,
x11)
REVERSE68_IN_GGGA(
x1,
x2,
x3,
x4) =
REVERSE68_IN_GGGA(
x1,
x2,
x3)
U1_GGGA(
x1,
x2,
x3,
x4,
x5,
x6) =
U1_GGGA(
x1,
x2,
x3,
x4,
x6)
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:
REVERSE1_IN_GA(.(T365, .(T364, .(T363, .(T362, .(T361, .(T360, .(T359, .(T357, T358)))))))), T367) → U2_GA(T365, T364, T363, T362, T361, T360, T359, T357, T358, T367, reverse68_in_ggga(T358, T357, .(T359, .(T360, .(T361, .(T362, .(T363, .(T364, .(T365, []))))))), T367))
REVERSE1_IN_GA(.(T365, .(T364, .(T363, .(T362, .(T361, .(T360, .(T359, .(T357, T358)))))))), T367) → REVERSE68_IN_GGGA(T358, T357, .(T359, .(T360, .(T361, .(T362, .(T363, .(T364, .(T365, []))))))), T367)
REVERSE68_IN_GGGA(.(T409, T410), T411, T412, T414) → U1_GGGA(T409, T410, T411, T412, T414, reverse68_in_ggga(T410, T409, .(T411, T412), T414))
REVERSE68_IN_GGGA(.(T409, T410), T411, T412, T414) → REVERSE68_IN_GGGA(T410, T409, .(T411, T412), T414)
R is empty.
The argument filtering Pi contains the following mapping:
.(
x1,
x2) =
.(
x1,
x2)
reverse68_in_ggga(
x1,
x2,
x3,
x4) =
reverse68_in_ggga(
x1,
x2,
x3)
[] =
[]
REVERSE1_IN_GA(
x1,
x2) =
REVERSE1_IN_GA(
x1)
U2_GA(
x1,
x2,
x3,
x4,
x5,
x6,
x7,
x8,
x9,
x10,
x11) =
U2_GA(
x1,
x2,
x3,
x4,
x5,
x6,
x7,
x8,
x9,
x11)
REVERSE68_IN_GGGA(
x1,
x2,
x3,
x4) =
REVERSE68_IN_GGGA(
x1,
x2,
x3)
U1_GGGA(
x1,
x2,
x3,
x4,
x5,
x6) =
U1_GGGA(
x1,
x2,
x3,
x4,
x6)
We have to consider all (P,R,Pi)-chains
(5) DependencyGraphProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)
The approximation of the Dependency Graph [LOPSTR] contains 1 SCC with 3 less nodes.
(6) Obligation:
Pi DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:
REVERSE68_IN_GGGA(.(T409, T410), T411, T412, T414) → REVERSE68_IN_GGGA(T410, T409, .(T411, T412), T414)
R is empty.
The argument filtering Pi contains the following mapping:
.(
x1,
x2) =
.(
x1,
x2)
REVERSE68_IN_GGGA(
x1,
x2,
x3,
x4) =
REVERSE68_IN_GGGA(
x1,
x2,
x3)
We have to consider all (P,R,Pi)-chains
(7) PiDPToQDPProof (SOUND transformation)
Transforming (infinitary) constructor rewriting Pi-DP problem [LOPSTR] into ordinary QDP problem [LPAR04] by application of Pi.
(8) Obligation:
Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:
REVERSE68_IN_GGGA(.(T409, T410), T411, T412) → REVERSE68_IN_GGGA(T410, T409, .(T411, T412))
R is empty.
Q is empty.
We have to consider all (P,Q,R)-chains.
(9) 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:
- REVERSE68_IN_GGGA(.(T409, T410), T411, T412) → REVERSE68_IN_GGGA(T410, T409, .(T411, T412))
The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1, 1 > 2
(10) YES