(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