Termination w.r.t. Q proof of /tmp/tmpmWaEx1/Ex3Lists.trs

Termination w.r.t. Q of the following Term Rewriting System could be proven:

Q restricted rewrite system:
The TRS R consists of the following rules:

app(app(append, nil), l) → l
app(app(append, app(app(cons, h), t)), l) → app(app(cons, h), app(app(append, t), l))
app(app(map, f), nil) → nil
app(app(map, f), app(app(cons, h), t)) → app(app(cons, app(f, h)), app(app(map, f), t))
app(app(append, app(app(append, l1), l2)), l3) → app(app(append, l1), app(app(append, l2), l3))
app(app(map, f), app(app(append, l1), l2)) → app(app(append, app(app(map, f), l1)), app(app(map, f), l2))

Q is empty.

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

Q restricted rewrite system:
The TRS R consists of the following rules:

app(app(append, nil), l) → l
app(app(append, app(app(cons, h), t)), l) → app(app(cons, h), app(app(append, t), l))
app(app(map, f), nil) → nil
app(app(map, f), app(app(cons, h), t)) → app(app(cons, app(f, h)), app(app(map, f), t))
app(app(append, app(app(append, l1), l2)), l3) → app(app(append, l1), app(app(append, l2), l3))
app(app(map, f), app(app(append, l1), l2)) → app(app(append, app(app(map, f), l1)), app(app(map, f), l2))

Q is empty.

Using Dependency Pairs [1,15] we result in the following initial DP problem:
Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:

APP(app(append, app(app(append, l1), l2)), l3) → APP(append, l2)
APP(app(append, app(app(cons, h), t)), l) → APP(append, t)
APP(app(append, app(app(append, l1), l2)), l3) → APP(app(append, l1), app(app(append, l2), l3))
APP(app(append, app(app(cons, h), t)), l) → APP(app(append, t), l)
APP(app(append, app(app(cons, h), t)), l) → APP(app(cons, h), app(app(append, t), l))
APP(app(map, f), app(app(append, l1), l2)) → APP(app(map, f), l2)
APP(app(map, f), app(app(cons, h), t)) → APP(f, h)
APP(app(map, f), app(app(cons, h), t)) → APP(app(map, f), t)
APP(app(map, f), app(app(append, l1), l2)) → APP(app(append, app(app(map, f), l1)), app(app(map, f), l2))
APP(app(append, app(app(append, l1), l2)), l3) → APP(app(append, l2), l3)
APP(app(map, f), app(app(cons, h), t)) → APP(cons, app(f, h))
APP(app(map, f), app(app(append, l1), l2)) → APP(append, app(app(map, f), l1))
APP(app(map, f), app(app(cons, h), t)) → APP(app(cons, app(f, h)), app(app(map, f), t))
APP(app(map, f), app(app(append, l1), l2)) → APP(app(map, f), l1)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

app(app(append, nil), l) → l
app(app(append, app(app(cons, h), t)), l) → app(app(cons, h), app(app(append, t), l))
app(app(map, f), nil) → nil
app(app(map, f), app(app(cons, h), t)) → app(app(cons, app(f, h)), app(app(map, f), t))
app(app(append, app(app(append, l1), l2)), l3) → app(app(append, l1), app(app(append, l2), l3))
app(app(map, f), app(app(append, l1), l2)) → app(app(append, app(app(map, f), l1)), app(app(map, f), l2))

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

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:

APP(app(append, app(app(append, l1), l2)), l3) → APP(append, l2)
APP(app(append, app(app(cons, h), t)), l) → APP(append, t)
APP(app(append, app(app(append, l1), l2)), l3) → APP(app(append, l1), app(app(append, l2), l3))
APP(app(append, app(app(cons, h), t)), l) → APP(app(append, t), l)
APP(app(append, app(app(cons, h), t)), l) → APP(app(cons, h), app(app(append, t), l))
APP(app(map, f), app(app(append, l1), l2)) → APP(app(map, f), l2)
APP(app(map, f), app(app(cons, h), t)) → APP(f, h)
APP(app(map, f), app(app(cons, h), t)) → APP(app(map, f), t)
APP(app(map, f), app(app(append, l1), l2)) → APP(app(append, app(app(map, f), l1)), app(app(map, f), l2))
APP(app(append, app(app(append, l1), l2)), l3) → APP(app(append, l2), l3)
APP(app(map, f), app(app(cons, h), t)) → APP(cons, app(f, h))
APP(app(map, f), app(app(append, l1), l2)) → APP(append, app(app(map, f), l1))
APP(app(map, f), app(app(cons, h), t)) → APP(app(cons, app(f, h)), app(app(map, f), t))
APP(app(map, f), app(app(append, l1), l2)) → APP(app(map, f), l1)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

app(app(append, nil), l) → l
app(app(append, app(app(cons, h), t)), l) → app(app(cons, h), app(app(append, t), l))
app(app(map, f), nil) → nil
app(app(map, f), app(app(cons, h), t)) → app(app(cons, app(f, h)), app(app(map, f), t))
app(app(append, app(app(append, l1), l2)), l3) → app(app(append, l1), app(app(append, l2), l3))
app(app(map, f), app(app(append, l1), l2)) → app(app(append, app(app(map, f), l1)), app(app(map, f), l2))

Q is empty.
We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
The approximation of the Dependency Graph [15,17,22] contains 2 SCCs with 7 less nodes.

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ UsableRulesProof

          ↳ QDP

Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:

APP(app(append, app(app(append, l1), l2)), l3) → APP(app(append, l2), l3)
APP(app(append, app(app(append, l1), l2)), l3) → APP(app(append, l1), app(app(append, l2), l3))
APP(app(append, app(app(cons, h), t)), l) → APP(app(append, t), l)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

app(app(append, nil), l) → l
app(app(append, app(app(cons, h), t)), l) → app(app(cons, h), app(app(append, t), l))
app(app(map, f), nil) → nil
app(app(map, f), app(app(cons, h), t)) → app(app(cons, app(f, h)), app(app(map, f), t))
app(app(append, app(app(append, l1), l2)), l3) → app(app(append, l1), app(app(append, l2), l3))
app(app(map, f), app(app(append, l1), l2)) → app(app(append, app(app(map, f), l1)), app(app(map, f), l2))

Q is empty.
We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
We can use the usable rules and reduction pair processor [15] with the Ce-compatible extension of the polynomial order that maps every function symbol to the sum of its argument. Then, we can delete all non-usable rules [17] from R.

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ UsableRulesProof

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ UsableRulesReductionPairsProof

          ↳ QDP

Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:

APP(app(append, app(app(append, l1), l2)), l3) → APP(app(append, l2), l3)
APP(app(append, app(app(append, l1), l2)), l3) → APP(app(append, l1), app(app(append, l2), l3))
APP(app(append, app(app(cons, h), t)), l) → APP(app(append, t), l)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

app(app(append, nil), l) → l
app(app(append, app(app(cons, h), t)), l) → app(app(cons, h), app(app(append, t), l))
app(app(append, app(app(append, l1), l2)), l3) → app(app(append, l1), app(app(append, l2), l3))

Q is empty.
We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
First, we A-transformed [17] the QDP-Problem. Then we obtain the following A-transformed DP problem.
The pairs P are:

append1(append(l1, l2), l3) → append1(l2, l3)
append1(append(l1, l2), l3) → append1(l1, append(l2, l3))
append1(cons(h, t), l) → append1(t, l)

and the Q and R are:
Q restricted rewrite system:
The TRS R consists of the following rules:

append(nil, l) → l
append(cons(h, t), l) → cons(h, append(t, l))
append(append(l1, l2), l3) → append(l1, append(l2, l3))

Q is empty.

By using the usable rules with reduction pair processor [15] with a polynomial ordering [25], all dependency pairs and the corresponding usable rules [17] can be oriented non-strictly. All non-usable rules are removed, and those dependency pairs and usable rules that have been oriented strictly or contain non-usable symbols in their left-hand side are removed as well.

No dependency pairs are removed.

The following rules are removed from R:

append(nil, l) → l

Used ordering: POLO with Polynomial interpretation [25]:

POL(append(x₁, x₂)) = x₁ + x₂
POL(append1(x₁, x₂)) = 2·x₁ + 2·x₂
POL(cons(x₁, x₂)) = 2·x₁ + x₂
POL(nil) = 0

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ UsableRulesProof

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ UsableRulesReductionPairsProof

                  ↳ QDP

                    ↳ QDPSizeChangeProof

          ↳ QDP

Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:

append1(append(l1, l2), l3) → append1(l1, append(l2, l3))
append1(cons(h, t), l) → append1(t, l)
append1(append(l1, l2), l3) → append1(l2, l3)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

append(cons(h, t), l) → cons(h, append(t, l))
append(append(l1, l2), l3) → append(l1, append(l2, l3))

Q is empty.
We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
By using the subterm criterion [20] together with the size-change analysis [32] 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:

append1(append(l1, l2), l3) → append1(l2, l3)
The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1, 2 >= 2
append1(append(l1, l2), l3) → append1(l1, append(l2, l3))
The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1
append1(cons(h, t), l) → append1(t, l)
The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1, 2 >= 2

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ UsableRulesProof

Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:

APP(app(map, f), app(app(append, l1), l2)) → APP(app(map, f), l2)
APP(app(map, f), app(app(cons, h), t)) → APP(f, h)
APP(app(map, f), app(app(cons, h), t)) → APP(app(map, f), t)
APP(app(map, f), app(app(append, l1), l2)) → APP(app(map, f), l1)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

app(app(append, nil), l) → l
app(app(append, app(app(cons, h), t)), l) → app(app(cons, h), app(app(append, t), l))
app(app(map, f), nil) → nil
app(app(map, f), app(app(cons, h), t)) → app(app(cons, app(f, h)), app(app(map, f), t))
app(app(append, app(app(append, l1), l2)), l3) → app(app(append, l1), app(app(append, l2), l3))
app(app(map, f), app(app(append, l1), l2)) → app(app(append, app(app(map, f), l1)), app(app(map, f), l2))

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ UsableRulesProof

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ QDPSizeChangeProof

Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:

APP(app(map, f), app(app(cons, h), t)) → APP(f, h)
APP(app(map, f), app(app(append, l1), l2)) → APP(app(map, f), l2)
APP(app(map, f), app(app(cons, h), t)) → APP(app(map, f), t)
APP(app(map, f), app(app(append, l1), l2)) → APP(app(map, f), l1)

R is empty.
Q is empty.
We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
By using the subterm criterion [20] together with the size-change analysis [32] 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:

APP(app(map, f), app(app(append, l1), l2)) → APP(app(map, f), l2)
The graph contains the following edges 1 >= 1, 2 > 2
APP(app(map, f), app(app(cons, h), t)) → APP(f, h)
The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1, 2 > 2
APP(app(map, f), app(app(cons, h), t)) → APP(app(map, f), t)
The graph contains the following edges 1 >= 1, 2 > 2
APP(app(map, f), app(app(append, l1), l2)) → APP(app(map, f), l1)
The graph contains the following edges 1 >= 1, 2 > 2