(0) Obligation:

Clauses:

reverse(L, LR) :- revacc(L, LR, []).
revacc([], L, L).
revacc(.(EL, T), R, A) :- revacc(T, R, .(EL, A)).

Queries:

reverse(g,a).

(1) PrologToDTProblemTransformerProof (SOUND transformation)

Built DT problem from termination graph.

(2) Obligation:

Triples:

revacc68(.(T472, T473), T477, T475, T476) :- revacc68(T473, T477, T472, .(T475, T476)).
reverse1(.(T420, .(T419, .(T418, .(T417, .(T416, .(T415, .(T414, .(T411, T412)))))))), T421) :- revacc68(T412, T421, T411, .(T414, .(T415, .(T416, .(T417, .(T418, .(T419, .(T420, [])))))))).

Clauses:

revaccc68([], .(T460, T461), T460, T461).
revaccc68(.(T472, T473), T477, T475, T476) :- revaccc68(T473, T477, T472, .(T475, T476)).

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)
revacc68_in: (b,f,b,b)
Transforming TRIPLES into the following Term Rewriting System:
Pi DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:

REVERSE1_IN_GA(.(T420, .(T419, .(T418, .(T417, .(T416, .(T415, .(T414, .(T411, T412)))))))), T421) → U2_GA(T420, T419, T418, T417, T416, T415, T414, T411, T412, T421, revacc68_in_gagg(T412, T421, T411, .(T414, .(T415, .(T416, .(T417, .(T418, .(T419, .(T420, [])))))))))
REVERSE1_IN_GA(.(T420, .(T419, .(T418, .(T417, .(T416, .(T415, .(T414, .(T411, T412)))))))), T421) → REVACC68_IN_GAGG(T412, T421, T411, .(T414, .(T415, .(T416, .(T417, .(T418, .(T419, .(T420, []))))))))
REVACC68_IN_GAGG(.(T472, T473), T477, T475, T476) → U1_GAGG(T472, T473, T477, T475, T476, revacc68_in_gagg(T473, T477, T472, .(T475, T476)))
REVACC68_IN_GAGG(.(T472, T473), T477, T475, T476) → REVACC68_IN_GAGG(T473, T477, T472, .(T475, T476))

R is empty.
The argument filtering Pi contains the following mapping:
.(x1, x2)  =  .(x1, x2)
revacc68_in_gagg(x1, x2, x3, x4)  =  revacc68_in_gagg(x1, x3, x4)
[]  =  []
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)
REVACC68_IN_GAGG(x1, x2, x3, x4)  =  REVACC68_IN_GAGG(x1, x3, x4)
U1_GAGG(x1, x2, x3, x4, x5, x6)  =  U1_GAGG(x1, x2, x4, x5, 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(.(T420, .(T419, .(T418, .(T417, .(T416, .(T415, .(T414, .(T411, T412)))))))), T421) → U2_GA(T420, T419, T418, T417, T416, T415, T414, T411, T412, T421, revacc68_in_gagg(T412, T421, T411, .(T414, .(T415, .(T416, .(T417, .(T418, .(T419, .(T420, [])))))))))
REVERSE1_IN_GA(.(T420, .(T419, .(T418, .(T417, .(T416, .(T415, .(T414, .(T411, T412)))))))), T421) → REVACC68_IN_GAGG(T412, T421, T411, .(T414, .(T415, .(T416, .(T417, .(T418, .(T419, .(T420, []))))))))
REVACC68_IN_GAGG(.(T472, T473), T477, T475, T476) → U1_GAGG(T472, T473, T477, T475, T476, revacc68_in_gagg(T473, T477, T472, .(T475, T476)))
REVACC68_IN_GAGG(.(T472, T473), T477, T475, T476) → REVACC68_IN_GAGG(T473, T477, T472, .(T475, T476))

R is empty.
The argument filtering Pi contains the following mapping:
.(x1, x2)  =  .(x1, x2)
revacc68_in_gagg(x1, x2, x3, x4)  =  revacc68_in_gagg(x1, x3, x4)
[]  =  []
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)
REVACC68_IN_GAGG(x1, x2, x3, x4)  =  REVACC68_IN_GAGG(x1, x3, x4)
U1_GAGG(x1, x2, x3, x4, x5, x6)  =  U1_GAGG(x1, x2, x4, x5, 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:

REVACC68_IN_GAGG(.(T472, T473), T477, T475, T476) → REVACC68_IN_GAGG(T473, T477, T472, .(T475, T476))

R is empty.
The argument filtering Pi contains the following mapping:
.(x1, x2)  =  .(x1, x2)
REVACC68_IN_GAGG(x1, x2, x3, x4)  =  REVACC68_IN_GAGG(x1, x3, x4)

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:

REVACC68_IN_GAGG(.(T472, T473), T475, T476) → REVACC68_IN_GAGG(T473, T472, .(T475, T476))

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:

  • REVACC68_IN_GAGG(.(T472, T473), T475, T476) → REVACC68_IN_GAGG(T473, T472, .(T475, T476))
    The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1, 1 > 2

(10) YES