Termination w.r.t. Q proof of CiME_04

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 UsableRulesProof (⇔, 0 ms)

        ↳7 QDP

        ↳8 MRRProof (⇔, 0 ms)

        ↳9 QDP

        ↳10 PisEmptyProof (⇔, 0 ms)

        ↳11 YES

    ↳12 QDP

        ↳13 MNOCProof (⇔, 0 ms)

        ↳14 QDP

        ↳15 UsableRulesProof (⇔, 0 ms)

        ↳16 QDP

        ↳17 QReductionProof (⇔, 0 ms)

        ↳18 QDP

        ↳19 QDPSizeChangeProof (⇔, 0 ms)

        ↳20 YES

    ↳21 QDP

        ↳22 UsableRulesProof (⇔, 0 ms)

        ↳23 QDP

        ↳24 QDPSizeChangeProof (⇔, 0 ms)

        ↳25 YES

    ↳26 QDP

        ↳27 MNOCProof (⇔, 0 ms)

        ↳28 QDP

        ↳29 UsableRulesProof (⇔, 0 ms)

        ↳30 QDP

        ↳31 QReductionProof (⇔, 0 ms)

        ↳32 QDP

        ↳33 QDPSizeChangeProof (⇔, 0 ms)

        ↳34 YES

(0) Obligation:

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

0(#) → #
+(x, #) → x
+(#, x) → x
+(0(x), 0(y)) → 0(+(x, y))
+(0(x), 1(y)) → 1(+(x, y))
+(1(x), 0(y)) → 1(+(x, y))
+(1(x), 1(y)) → 0(+(+(x, y), 1(#)))
*(#, x) → #
*(0(x), y) → 0(*(x, y))
*(1(x), y) → +(0(*(x, y)), y)
sum(nil) → 0(#)
sum(cons(x, l)) → +(x, sum(l))
prod(nil) → 1(#)
prod(cons(x, l)) → *(x, prod(l))

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:

+¹(0(x), 0(y)) → 0¹(+(x, y))
+¹(0(x), 0(y)) → +¹(x, y)
+¹(0(x), 1(y)) → +¹(x, y)
+¹(1(x), 0(y)) → +¹(x, y)
+¹(1(x), 1(y)) → 0¹(+(+(x, y), 1(#)))
+¹(1(x), 1(y)) → +¹(+(x, y), 1(#))
+¹(1(x), 1(y)) → +¹(x, y)
*¹(0(x), y) → 0¹(*(x, y))
*¹(0(x), y) → *¹(x, y)
*¹(1(x), y) → +¹(0(*(x, y)), y)
*¹(1(x), y) → 0¹(*(x, y))
*¹(1(x), y) → *¹(x, y)
SUM(nil) → 0¹(#)
SUM(cons(x, l)) → +¹(x, sum(l))
SUM(cons(x, l)) → SUM(l)
PROD(cons(x, l)) → *¹(x, prod(l))
PROD(cons(x, l)) → PROD(l)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

0(#) → #
+(x, #) → x
+(#, x) → x
+(0(x), 0(y)) → 0(+(x, y))
+(0(x), 1(y)) → 1(+(x, y))
+(1(x), 0(y)) → 1(+(x, y))
+(1(x), 1(y)) → 0(+(+(x, y), 1(#)))
*(#, x) → #
*(0(x), y) → 0(*(x, y))
*(1(x), y) → +(0(*(x, y)), y)
sum(nil) → 0(#)
sum(cons(x, l)) → +(x, sum(l))
prod(nil) → 1(#)
prod(cons(x, l)) → *(x, prod(l))

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 4 SCCs with 8 less nodes.

(4) Complex Obligation (AND)

(5) Obligation:

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

+¹(0(x), 1(y)) → +¹(x, y)
+¹(0(x), 0(y)) → +¹(x, y)
+¹(1(x), 0(y)) → +¹(x, y)
+¹(1(x), 1(y)) → +¹(+(x, y), 1(#))
+¹(1(x), 1(y)) → +¹(x, y)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

0(#) → #
+(x, #) → x
+(#, x) → x
+(0(x), 0(y)) → 0(+(x, y))
+(0(x), 1(y)) → 1(+(x, y))
+(1(x), 0(y)) → 1(+(x, y))
+(1(x), 1(y)) → 0(+(+(x, y), 1(#)))
*(#, x) → #
*(0(x), y) → 0(*(x, y))
*(1(x), y) → +(0(*(x, y)), y)
sum(nil) → 0(#)
sum(cons(x, l)) → +(x, sum(l))
prod(nil) → 1(#)
prod(cons(x, l)) → *(x, prod(l))

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

(6) 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.

(7) Obligation:

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

+¹(0(x), 1(y)) → +¹(x, y)
+¹(0(x), 0(y)) → +¹(x, y)
+¹(1(x), 0(y)) → +¹(x, y)
+¹(1(x), 1(y)) → +¹(+(x, y), 1(#))
+¹(1(x), 1(y)) → +¹(x, y)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

+(x, #) → x
+(#, x) → x
+(0(x), 0(y)) → 0(+(x, y))
+(0(x), 1(y)) → 1(+(x, y))
+(1(x), 0(y)) → 1(+(x, y))
+(1(x), 1(y)) → 0(+(+(x, y), 1(#)))
0(#) → #

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

(8) MRRProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

By using the rule removal processor [LPAR04] with the following ordering, at least one Dependency Pair or term rewrite system rule of this QDP problem can be strictly oriented.
Strictly oriented dependency pairs:

+¹(0(x), 1(y)) → +¹(x, y)
+¹(0(x), 0(y)) → +¹(x, y)
+¹(1(x), 0(y)) → +¹(x, y)
+¹(1(x), 1(y)) → +¹(+(x, y), 1(#))
+¹(1(x), 1(y)) → +¹(x, y)

Strictly oriented rules of the TRS R:

+(x, #) → x
+(#, x) → x
+(0(x), 0(y)) → 0(+(x, y))
+(0(x), 1(y)) → 1(+(x, y))
+(1(x), 0(y)) → 1(+(x, y))
+(1(x), 1(y)) → 0(+(+(x, y), 1(#)))
0(#) → #

Used ordering: Knuth-Bendix order [KBO] with precedence:

# > +^1₂ > +₂ > 1₁ > 0₁

and weight map:

#=2
0_1=1
1_1=3
+_2=0
+^1_2=0

The variable weight is 1

(9) Obligation:

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

(10) PisEmptyProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

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

(11) YES

(12) Obligation:

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

SUM(cons(x, l)) → SUM(l)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

0(#) → #
+(x, #) → x
+(#, x) → x
+(0(x), 0(y)) → 0(+(x, y))
+(0(x), 1(y)) → 1(+(x, y))
+(1(x), 0(y)) → 1(+(x, y))
+(1(x), 1(y)) → 0(+(+(x, y), 1(#)))
*(#, x) → #
*(0(x), y) → 0(*(x, y))
*(1(x), y) → +(0(*(x, y)), y)
sum(nil) → 0(#)
sum(cons(x, l)) → +(x, sum(l))
prod(nil) → 1(#)
prod(cons(x, l)) → *(x, prod(l))

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

(13) MNOCProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

We use the modular non-overlap check [LPAR04] to enlarge Q to all left-hand sides of R.

(14) Obligation:

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

SUM(cons(x, l)) → SUM(l)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

0(#) → #
+(x, #) → x
+(#, x) → x
+(0(x), 0(y)) → 0(+(x, y))
+(0(x), 1(y)) → 1(+(x, y))
+(1(x), 0(y)) → 1(+(x, y))
+(1(x), 1(y)) → 0(+(+(x, y), 1(#)))
*(#, x) → #
*(0(x), y) → 0(*(x, y))
*(1(x), y) → +(0(*(x, y)), y)
sum(nil) → 0(#)
sum(cons(x, l)) → +(x, sum(l))
prod(nil) → 1(#)
prod(cons(x, l)) → *(x, prod(l))

The set Q consists of the following terms:

0(#)
+(x0, #)
+(#, x0)
+(0(x0), 0(x1))
+(0(x0), 1(x1))
+(1(x0), 0(x1))
+(1(x0), 1(x1))
*(#, x0)
*(0(x0), x1)
*(1(x0), x1)
sum(nil)
sum(cons(x0, x1))
prod(nil)
prod(cons(x0, x1))

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

(15) UsableRulesProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

As all Q-normal forms are R-normal forms we are in the innermost case. Hence, by the usable rules processor [LPAR04] we can delete all non-usable rules [FROCOS05] from R.

(16) Obligation:

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

SUM(cons(x, l)) → SUM(l)

R is empty.
The set Q consists of the following terms:

0(#)
+(x0, #)
+(#, x0)
+(0(x0), 0(x1))
+(0(x0), 1(x1))
+(1(x0), 0(x1))
+(1(x0), 1(x1))
*(#, x0)
*(0(x0), x1)
*(1(x0), x1)
sum(nil)
sum(cons(x0, x1))
prod(nil)
prod(cons(x0, x1))

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

(17) QReductionProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

We deleted the following terms from Q as each root-symbol of these terms does neither occur in P nor in R.[THIEMANN].

0(#)
+(x0, #)
+(#, x0)
+(0(x0), 0(x1))
+(0(x0), 1(x1))
+(1(x0), 0(x1))
+(1(x0), 1(x1))
*(#, x0)
*(0(x0), x1)
*(1(x0), x1)
sum(nil)
sum(cons(x0, x1))
prod(nil)
prod(cons(x0, x1))

(18) Obligation:

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

SUM(cons(x, l)) → SUM(l)

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

(19) 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:

SUM(cons(x, l)) → SUM(l)
The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1

(20) YES

(21) Obligation:

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

*¹(1(x), y) → *¹(x, y)
*¹(0(x), y) → *¹(x, y)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

0(#) → #
+(x, #) → x
+(#, x) → x
+(0(x), 0(y)) → 0(+(x, y))
+(0(x), 1(y)) → 1(+(x, y))
+(1(x), 0(y)) → 1(+(x, y))
+(1(x), 1(y)) → 0(+(+(x, y), 1(#)))
*(#, x) → #
*(0(x), y) → 0(*(x, y))
*(1(x), y) → +(0(*(x, y)), y)
sum(nil) → 0(#)
sum(cons(x, l)) → +(x, sum(l))
prod(nil) → 1(#)
prod(cons(x, l)) → *(x, prod(l))

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

(22) UsableRulesProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

(23) Obligation:

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

*¹(1(x), y) → *¹(x, y)
*¹(0(x), y) → *¹(x, y)

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

(24) 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:

*¹(1(x), y) → *¹(x, y)
The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1, 2 >= 2
*¹(0(x), y) → *¹(x, y)
The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1, 2 >= 2

(25) YES

(26) Obligation:

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

PROD(cons(x, l)) → PROD(l)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

0(#) → #
+(x, #) → x
+(#, x) → x
+(0(x), 0(y)) → 0(+(x, y))
+(0(x), 1(y)) → 1(+(x, y))
+(1(x), 0(y)) → 1(+(x, y))
+(1(x), 1(y)) → 0(+(+(x, y), 1(#)))
*(#, x) → #
*(0(x), y) → 0(*(x, y))
*(1(x), y) → +(0(*(x, y)), y)
sum(nil) → 0(#)
sum(cons(x, l)) → +(x, sum(l))
prod(nil) → 1(#)
prod(cons(x, l)) → *(x, prod(l))

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

(27) MNOCProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

We use the modular non-overlap check [LPAR04] to enlarge Q to all left-hand sides of R.

(28) Obligation:

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

PROD(cons(x, l)) → PROD(l)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

0(#) → #
+(x, #) → x
+(#, x) → x
+(0(x), 0(y)) → 0(+(x, y))
+(0(x), 1(y)) → 1(+(x, y))
+(1(x), 0(y)) → 1(+(x, y))
+(1(x), 1(y)) → 0(+(+(x, y), 1(#)))
*(#, x) → #
*(0(x), y) → 0(*(x, y))
*(1(x), y) → +(0(*(x, y)), y)
sum(nil) → 0(#)
sum(cons(x, l)) → +(x, sum(l))
prod(nil) → 1(#)
prod(cons(x, l)) → *(x, prod(l))

The set Q consists of the following terms:

0(#)
+(x0, #)
+(#, x0)
+(0(x0), 0(x1))
+(0(x0), 1(x1))
+(1(x0), 0(x1))
+(1(x0), 1(x1))
*(#, x0)
*(0(x0), x1)
*(1(x0), x1)
sum(nil)
sum(cons(x0, x1))
prod(nil)
prod(cons(x0, x1))

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

(29) UsableRulesProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

As all Q-normal forms are R-normal forms we are in the innermost case. Hence, by the usable rules processor [LPAR04] we can delete all non-usable rules [FROCOS05] from R.

(30) Obligation:

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

PROD(cons(x, l)) → PROD(l)

R is empty.
The set Q consists of the following terms:

0(#)
+(x0, #)
+(#, x0)
+(0(x0), 0(x1))
+(0(x0), 1(x1))
+(1(x0), 0(x1))
+(1(x0), 1(x1))
*(#, x0)
*(0(x0), x1)
*(1(x0), x1)
sum(nil)
sum(cons(x0, x1))
prod(nil)
prod(cons(x0, x1))

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

(31) QReductionProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

We deleted the following terms from Q as each root-symbol of these terms does neither occur in P nor in R.[THIEMANN].

0(#)
+(x0, #)
+(#, x0)
+(0(x0), 0(x1))
+(0(x0), 1(x1))
+(1(x0), 0(x1))
+(1(x0), 1(x1))
*(#, x0)
*(0(x0), x1)
*(1(x0), x1)
sum(nil)
sum(cons(x0, x1))
prod(nil)
prod(cons(x0, x1))

(32) Obligation:

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

PROD(cons(x, l)) → PROD(l)

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

(33) 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:

PROD(cons(x, l)) → PROD(l)
The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1

(0) Obligation:

(1) DependencyPairsProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

(2) Obligation:

(3) DependencyGraphProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

(4) Complex Obligation (AND)

(5) Obligation:

(6) UsableRulesProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

(7) Obligation:

(8) MRRProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

(9) Obligation:

(10) PisEmptyProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

(11) YES

(12) Obligation:

(13) MNOCProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

(14) Obligation:

(15) UsableRulesProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

(16) Obligation:

(17) QReductionProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

(18) Obligation:

(19) QDPSizeChangeProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

(20) YES

(21) Obligation:

(22) UsableRulesProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

(23) Obligation:

(24) QDPSizeChangeProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

(25) YES

(26) Obligation:

(27) MNOCProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

(28) Obligation:

(29) UsableRulesProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

(30) Obligation:

(31) QReductionProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

(32) Obligation:

(33) QDPSizeChangeProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

(34) YES