YES Termination w.r.t. Q proof of Applicative_first_order_05_29.ari

Termination w.r.t. Q of the given QTRS could be proven:

0 QTRS
↳1 DependencyPairsProof (⇔, 0 ms)
↳2 QDP
↳3 DependencyGraphProof (⇔, 0 ms)
↳4 AND
    ↳5 QDP
        ↳6 QDPOrderProof (⇔, 0 ms)
        ↳7 QDP
        ↳8 PisEmptyProof (⇔, 0 ms)
        ↳9 YES
    ↳10 QDP
        ↳11 UsableRulesProof (⇔, 0 ms)
        ↳12 QDP
        ↳13 QDPSizeChangeProof (⇔, 0 ms)
        ↳14 YES

(0) Obligation:

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

app(app(ack, 0), y) → app(succ, y)
app(app(ack, app(succ, x)), y) → app(app(ack, x), app(succ, 0))
app(app(ack, app(succ, x)), app(succ, y)) → app(app(ack, x), app(app(ack, app(succ, x)), y))
app(app(map, f), nil) → nil
app(app(map, f), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → app(app(cons, app(f, x)), app(app(map, f), xs))
app(app(filter, f), nil) → nil
app(app(filter, f), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → app(app(app(app(filter2, app(f, x)), f), x), xs)
app(app(app(app(filter2, true), f), x), xs) → app(app(cons, x), app(app(filter, f), xs))
app(app(app(app(filter2, false), f), x), xs) → app(app(filter, f), xs)

Q is empty.

(1) DependencyPairsProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

Using Dependency Pairs [AG00,LPAR04] we result in the following initial DP problem.

(2) Obligation:

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

APP(app(ack, 0), y) → APP(succ, y)
APP(app(ack, app(succ, x)), y) → APP(app(ack, x), app(succ, 0))
APP(app(ack, app(succ, x)), y) → APP(ack, x)
APP(app(ack, app(succ, x)), y) → APP(succ, 0)
APP(app(ack, app(succ, x)), app(succ, y)) → APP(app(ack, x), app(app(ack, app(succ, x)), y))
APP(app(ack, app(succ, x)), app(succ, y)) → APP(ack, x)
APP(app(ack, app(succ, x)), app(succ, y)) → APP(app(ack, app(succ, x)), y)
APP(app(map, f), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → APP(app(cons, app(f, x)), app(app(map, f), xs))
APP(app(map, f), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → APP(cons, app(f, x))
APP(app(map, f), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → APP(f, x)
APP(app(map, f), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → APP(app(map, f), xs)
APP(app(filter, f), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → APP(app(app(app(filter2, app(f, x)), f), x), xs)
APP(app(filter, f), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → APP(app(app(filter2, app(f, x)), f), x)
APP(app(filter, f), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → APP(app(filter2, app(f, x)), f)
APP(app(filter, f), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → APP(filter2, app(f, x))
APP(app(filter, f), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → APP(f, x)
APP(app(app(app(filter2, true), f), x), xs) → APP(app(cons, x), app(app(filter, f), xs))
APP(app(app(app(filter2, true), f), x), xs) → APP(cons, x)
APP(app(app(app(filter2, true), f), x), xs) → APP(app(filter, f), xs)
APP(app(app(app(filter2, true), f), x), xs) → APP(filter, f)
APP(app(app(app(filter2, false), f), x), xs) → APP(app(filter, f), xs)
APP(app(app(app(filter2, false), f), x), xs) → APP(filter, f)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

app(app(ack, 0), y) → app(succ, y)
app(app(ack, app(succ, x)), y) → app(app(ack, x), app(succ, 0))
app(app(ack, app(succ, x)), app(succ, y)) → app(app(ack, x), app(app(ack, app(succ, x)), y))
app(app(map, f), nil) → nil
app(app(map, f), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → app(app(cons, app(f, x)), app(app(map, f), xs))
app(app(filter, f), nil) → nil
app(app(filter, f), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → app(app(app(app(filter2, app(f, x)), f), x), xs)
app(app(app(app(filter2, true), f), x), xs) → app(app(cons, x), app(app(filter, f), xs))
app(app(app(app(filter2, false), f), x), xs) → app(app(filter, f), xs)

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

(3) DependencyGraphProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

The approximation of the Dependency Graph [LPAR04,FROCOS05,EDGSTAR] contains 2 SCCs with 14 less nodes.

(4) Complex Obligation (AND)

(5) Obligation:

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

APP(app(ack, app(succ, x)), app(succ, y)) → APP(app(ack, x), app(app(ack, app(succ, x)), y))
APP(app(ack, app(succ, x)), y) → APP(app(ack, x), app(succ, 0))
APP(app(ack, app(succ, x)), app(succ, y)) → APP(app(ack, app(succ, x)), y)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

app(app(ack, 0), y) → app(succ, y)
app(app(ack, app(succ, x)), y) → app(app(ack, x), app(succ, 0))
app(app(ack, app(succ, x)), app(succ, y)) → app(app(ack, x), app(app(ack, app(succ, x)), y))
app(app(map, f), nil) → nil
app(app(map, f), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → app(app(cons, app(f, x)), app(app(map, f), xs))
app(app(filter, f), nil) → nil
app(app(filter, f), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → app(app(app(app(filter2, app(f, x)), f), x), xs)
app(app(app(app(filter2, true), f), x), xs) → app(app(cons, x), app(app(filter, f), xs))
app(app(app(app(filter2, false), f), x), xs) → app(app(filter, f), xs)

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

(6) QDPOrderProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

We use the reduction pair processor [LPAR04,JAR06]. Here, we combined the reduction pair processor with the A-transformation [FROCOS05] which results in the following intermediate Q-DP Problem.
The a-transformed P is

ack1(succ(x), succ(y)) → ack1(x, ack(succ(x), y))
ack1(succ(x), y) → ack1(x, succ(0))
ack1(succ(x), succ(y)) → ack1(succ(x), y)

The a-transformed usable rules are

ack(succ(x), succ(y)) → ack(x, ack(succ(x), y))
ack(succ(x), y) → ack(x, succ(0))
ack(0, y) → succ(y)


The following pairs can be oriented strictly and are deleted.


APP(app(ack, app(succ, x)), app(succ, y)) → APP(app(ack, x), app(app(ack, app(succ, x)), y))
APP(app(ack, app(succ, x)), y) → APP(app(ack, x), app(succ, 0))
APP(app(ack, app(succ, x)), app(succ, y)) → APP(app(ack, app(succ, x)), y)
The remaining pairs can at least be oriented weakly.
Used ordering: Recursive path order with status [RPO].
Quasi-Precedence:
ack12 > ack2 > succ1 > 0

Status:
ack12: [1,2]
succ1: multiset
ack2: [1,2]
0: multiset


The following usable rules [FROCOS05] with respect to the argument filtering of the ordering [JAR06] were oriented:

app(app(ack, app(succ, x)), app(succ, y)) → app(app(ack, x), app(app(ack, app(succ, x)), y))
app(app(ack, app(succ, x)), y) → app(app(ack, x), app(succ, 0))
app(app(ack, 0), y) → app(succ, y)

(7) Obligation:

Q DP problem:
P is empty.
The TRS R consists of the following rules:

app(app(ack, 0), y) → app(succ, y)
app(app(ack, app(succ, x)), y) → app(app(ack, x), app(succ, 0))
app(app(ack, app(succ, x)), app(succ, y)) → app(app(ack, x), app(app(ack, app(succ, x)), y))
app(app(map, f), nil) → nil
app(app(map, f), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → app(app(cons, app(f, x)), app(app(map, f), xs))
app(app(filter, f), nil) → nil
app(app(filter, f), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → app(app(app(app(filter2, app(f, x)), f), x), xs)
app(app(app(app(filter2, true), f), x), xs) → app(app(cons, x), app(app(filter, f), xs))
app(app(app(app(filter2, false), f), x), xs) → app(app(filter, f), xs)

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

(8) PisEmptyProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

The TRS P is empty. Hence, there is no (P,Q,R) chain.

(9) YES

(10) Obligation:

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

APP(app(map, f), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → APP(app(map, f), xs)
APP(app(map, f), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → APP(f, x)
APP(app(filter, f), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → APP(f, x)
APP(app(app(app(filter2, true), f), x), xs) → APP(app(filter, f), xs)
APP(app(app(app(filter2, false), f), x), xs) → APP(app(filter, f), xs)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

app(app(ack, 0), y) → app(succ, y)
app(app(ack, app(succ, x)), y) → app(app(ack, x), app(succ, 0))
app(app(ack, app(succ, x)), app(succ, y)) → app(app(ack, x), app(app(ack, app(succ, x)), y))
app(app(map, f), nil) → nil
app(app(map, f), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → app(app(cons, app(f, x)), app(app(map, f), xs))
app(app(filter, f), nil) → nil
app(app(filter, f), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → app(app(app(app(filter2, app(f, x)), f), x), xs)
app(app(app(app(filter2, true), f), x), xs) → app(app(cons, x), app(app(filter, f), xs))
app(app(app(app(filter2, false), f), x), xs) → app(app(filter, f), xs)

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

(11) UsableRulesProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

We can use the usable rules and reduction pair processor [LPAR04] with the Ce-compatible extension of the polynomial order that maps every function symbol to the sum of its arguments. Then, we can delete all non-usable rules [FROCOS05] from R.

(12) Obligation:

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

APP(app(map, f), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → APP(app(map, f), xs)
APP(app(map, f), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → APP(f, x)
APP(app(filter, f), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → APP(f, x)
APP(app(app(app(filter2, true), f), x), xs) → APP(app(filter, f), xs)
APP(app(app(app(filter2, false), f), x), xs) → APP(app(filter, f), xs)

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

(13) 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:

  • APP(app(filter, f), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → APP(f, x)
    The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1, 2 > 2

  • APP(app(map, f), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → APP(f, x)
    The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1, 2 > 2

  • APP(app(map, f), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → APP(app(map, f), xs)
    The graph contains the following edges 1 >= 1, 2 > 2

  • APP(app(app(app(filter2, true), f), x), xs) → APP(app(filter, f), xs)
    The graph contains the following edges 2 >= 2

  • APP(app(app(app(filter2, false), f), x), xs) → APP(app(filter, f), xs)
    The graph contains the following edges 2 >= 2

(14) YES