(0) Obligation:

Clauses:

palindrome(Xs) :- reverse(Xs, Xs).
reverse(X1s, X2s) :- reverse3(X1s, [], X2s).
reverse3(.(X, X1s), X2s, Ys) :- reverse3(X1s, .(X, X2s), Ys).
reverse3([], Xs, Xs).

Queries:

palindrome(g).

(1) PrologToDTProblemTransformerProof (SOUND transformation)

Built DT problem from termination graph.

(2) Obligation:

Triples:

reverse346(.(T315, T316), T317, T318, T319, T320) :- reverse346(T316, T315, .(T317, T318), T319, T320).
palindrome1(.(T272, .(T271, .(T270, .(T269, .(T268, .(T267, .(T266, .(T264, T265))))))))) :- reverse346(T265, T264, .(T266, .(T267, .(T268, .(T269, .(T270, .(T271, .(T272, []))))))), T272, .(T271, .(T270, .(T269, .(T268, .(T267, .(T266, .(T264, T265)))))))).

Clauses:

reverse3c46(.(T315, T316), T317, T318, T319, T320) :- reverse3c46(T316, T315, .(T317, T318), T319, T320).
reverse3c46([], T332, T333, T332, T333).

Afs:

palindrome1(x1)  =  palindrome1(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:
palindrome1_in: (b)
reverse346_in: (b,b,b,b,b)
Transforming TRIPLES into the following Term Rewriting System:
Pi DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:

PALINDROME1_IN_G(.(T272, .(T271, .(T270, .(T269, .(T268, .(T267, .(T266, .(T264, T265))))))))) → U2_G(T272, T271, T270, T269, T268, T267, T266, T264, T265, reverse346_in_ggggg(T265, T264, .(T266, .(T267, .(T268, .(T269, .(T270, .(T271, .(T272, []))))))), T272, .(T271, .(T270, .(T269, .(T268, .(T267, .(T266, .(T264, T265)))))))))
PALINDROME1_IN_G(.(T272, .(T271, .(T270, .(T269, .(T268, .(T267, .(T266, .(T264, T265))))))))) → REVERSE346_IN_GGGGG(T265, T264, .(T266, .(T267, .(T268, .(T269, .(T270, .(T271, .(T272, []))))))), T272, .(T271, .(T270, .(T269, .(T268, .(T267, .(T266, .(T264, T265))))))))
REVERSE346_IN_GGGGG(.(T315, T316), T317, T318, T319, T320) → U1_GGGGG(T315, T316, T317, T318, T319, T320, reverse346_in_ggggg(T316, T315, .(T317, T318), T319, T320))
REVERSE346_IN_GGGGG(.(T315, T316), T317, T318, T319, T320) → REVERSE346_IN_GGGGG(T316, T315, .(T317, T318), T319, T320)

R is empty.
Pi is empty.
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:

PALINDROME1_IN_G(.(T272, .(T271, .(T270, .(T269, .(T268, .(T267, .(T266, .(T264, T265))))))))) → U2_G(T272, T271, T270, T269, T268, T267, T266, T264, T265, reverse346_in_ggggg(T265, T264, .(T266, .(T267, .(T268, .(T269, .(T270, .(T271, .(T272, []))))))), T272, .(T271, .(T270, .(T269, .(T268, .(T267, .(T266, .(T264, T265)))))))))
PALINDROME1_IN_G(.(T272, .(T271, .(T270, .(T269, .(T268, .(T267, .(T266, .(T264, T265))))))))) → REVERSE346_IN_GGGGG(T265, T264, .(T266, .(T267, .(T268, .(T269, .(T270, .(T271, .(T272, []))))))), T272, .(T271, .(T270, .(T269, .(T268, .(T267, .(T266, .(T264, T265))))))))
REVERSE346_IN_GGGGG(.(T315, T316), T317, T318, T319, T320) → U1_GGGGG(T315, T316, T317, T318, T319, T320, reverse346_in_ggggg(T316, T315, .(T317, T318), T319, T320))
REVERSE346_IN_GGGGG(.(T315, T316), T317, T318, T319, T320) → REVERSE346_IN_GGGGG(T316, T315, .(T317, T318), T319, T320)

R is empty.
Pi is empty.
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:

REVERSE346_IN_GGGGG(.(T315, T316), T317, T318, T319, T320) → REVERSE346_IN_GGGGG(T316, T315, .(T317, T318), T319, T320)

R is empty.
Pi is empty.
We have to consider all (P,R,Pi)-chains

(7) PiDPToQDPProof (EQUIVALENT 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:

REVERSE346_IN_GGGGG(.(T315, T316), T317, T318, T319, T320) → REVERSE346_IN_GGGGG(T316, T315, .(T317, T318), T319, T320)

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:

  • REVERSE346_IN_GGGGG(.(T315, T316), T317, T318, T319, T320) → REVERSE346_IN_GGGGG(T316, T315, .(T317, T318), T319, T320)
    The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1, 1 > 2, 4 >= 4, 5 >= 5

(10) YES