(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