YES Termination w.r.t. Q proof of Transformed_CSR_04_Ex14_AEGL02_GM.ari

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

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

(0) Obligation:

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

a__from(X) → cons(mark(X), from(s(X)))
a__length(nil) → 0
a__length(cons(X, Y)) → s(a__length1(Y))
a__length1(X) → a__length(X)
mark(from(X)) → a__from(mark(X))
mark(length(X)) → a__length(X)
mark(length1(X)) → a__length1(X)
mark(cons(X1, X2)) → cons(mark(X1), X2)
mark(s(X)) → s(mark(X))
mark(nil) → nil
mark(0) → 0
a__from(X) → from(X)
a__length(X) → length(X)
a__length1(X) → length1(X)

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:

A__FROM(X) → MARK(X)
A__LENGTH(cons(X, Y)) → A__LENGTH1(Y)
A__LENGTH1(X) → A__LENGTH(X)
MARK(from(X)) → A__FROM(mark(X))
MARK(from(X)) → MARK(X)
MARK(length(X)) → A__LENGTH(X)
MARK(length1(X)) → A__LENGTH1(X)
MARK(cons(X1, X2)) → MARK(X1)
MARK(s(X)) → MARK(X)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

a__from(X) → cons(mark(X), from(s(X)))
a__length(nil) → 0
a__length(cons(X, Y)) → s(a__length1(Y))
a__length1(X) → a__length(X)
mark(from(X)) → a__from(mark(X))
mark(length(X)) → a__length(X)
mark(length1(X)) → a__length1(X)
mark(cons(X1, X2)) → cons(mark(X1), X2)
mark(s(X)) → s(mark(X))
mark(nil) → nil
mark(0) → 0
a__from(X) → from(X)
a__length(X) → length(X)
a__length1(X) → length1(X)

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 2 less nodes.

(4) Complex Obligation (AND)

(5) Obligation:

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

A__LENGTH1(X) → A__LENGTH(X)
A__LENGTH(cons(X, Y)) → A__LENGTH1(Y)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

a__from(X) → cons(mark(X), from(s(X)))
a__length(nil) → 0
a__length(cons(X, Y)) → s(a__length1(Y))
a__length1(X) → a__length(X)
mark(from(X)) → a__from(mark(X))
mark(length(X)) → a__length(X)
mark(length1(X)) → a__length1(X)
mark(cons(X1, X2)) → cons(mark(X1), X2)
mark(s(X)) → s(mark(X))
mark(nil) → nil
mark(0) → 0
a__from(X) → from(X)
a__length(X) → length(X)
a__length1(X) → length1(X)

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:

A__LENGTH1(X) → A__LENGTH(X)
A__LENGTH(cons(X, Y)) → A__LENGTH1(Y)

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

(8) 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:

  • A__LENGTH(cons(X, Y)) → A__LENGTH1(Y)
    The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1

  • A__LENGTH1(X) → A__LENGTH(X)
    The graph contains the following edges 1 >= 1

(9) YES

(10) Obligation:

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

MARK(from(X)) → A__FROM(mark(X))
A__FROM(X) → MARK(X)
MARK(from(X)) → MARK(X)
MARK(cons(X1, X2)) → MARK(X1)
MARK(s(X)) → MARK(X)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

a__from(X) → cons(mark(X), from(s(X)))
a__length(nil) → 0
a__length(cons(X, Y)) → s(a__length1(Y))
a__length1(X) → a__length(X)
mark(from(X)) → a__from(mark(X))
mark(length(X)) → a__length(X)
mark(length1(X)) → a__length1(X)
mark(cons(X1, X2)) → cons(mark(X1), X2)
mark(s(X)) → s(mark(X))
mark(nil) → nil
mark(0) → 0
a__from(X) → from(X)
a__length(X) → length(X)
a__length1(X) → length1(X)

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

(11) QDPOrderProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

We use the reduction pair processor [LPAR04,JAR06].


The following pairs can be oriented strictly and are deleted.


MARK(from(X)) → A__FROM(mark(X))
MARK(from(X)) → MARK(X)
The remaining pairs can at least be oriented weakly.
Used ordering: Polynomial Order [NEGPOLO,POLO] with Interpretation:
POL( A__FROM(x1) ) = 2x1 + 1

POL( mark(x1) ) = x1

POL( from(x1) ) = 2x1 + 2

POL( a__from(x1) ) = 2x1 + 2

POL( length(x1) ) = 0

POL( a__length(x1) ) = 0

POL( length1(x1) ) = 0

POL( a__length1(x1) ) = 0

POL( cons(x1, x2) ) = 2x1

POL( s(x1) ) = x1

POL( nil ) = 0

POL( 0 ) = 0

POL( MARK(x1) ) = 2x1 + 1


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

mark(from(X)) → a__from(mark(X))
mark(length(X)) → a__length(X)
mark(length1(X)) → a__length1(X)
mark(cons(X1, X2)) → cons(mark(X1), X2)
mark(s(X)) → s(mark(X))
mark(nil) → nil
mark(0) → 0
a__from(X) → from(X)
a__from(X) → cons(mark(X), from(s(X)))
a__length(nil) → 0
a__length(cons(X, Y)) → s(a__length1(Y))
a__length(X) → length(X)
a__length1(X) → a__length(X)
a__length1(X) → length1(X)

(12) Obligation:

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

A__FROM(X) → MARK(X)
MARK(cons(X1, X2)) → MARK(X1)
MARK(s(X)) → MARK(X)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

a__from(X) → cons(mark(X), from(s(X)))
a__length(nil) → 0
a__length(cons(X, Y)) → s(a__length1(Y))
a__length1(X) → a__length(X)
mark(from(X)) → a__from(mark(X))
mark(length(X)) → a__length(X)
mark(length1(X)) → a__length1(X)
mark(cons(X1, X2)) → cons(mark(X1), X2)
mark(s(X)) → s(mark(X))
mark(nil) → nil
mark(0) → 0
a__from(X) → from(X)
a__length(X) → length(X)
a__length1(X) → length1(X)

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

(13) DependencyGraphProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

The approximation of the Dependency Graph [LPAR04,FROCOS05,EDGSTAR] contains 1 SCC with 1 less node.

(14) Obligation:

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

MARK(s(X)) → MARK(X)
MARK(cons(X1, X2)) → MARK(X1)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

a__from(X) → cons(mark(X), from(s(X)))
a__length(nil) → 0
a__length(cons(X, Y)) → s(a__length1(Y))
a__length1(X) → a__length(X)
mark(from(X)) → a__from(mark(X))
mark(length(X)) → a__length(X)
mark(length1(X)) → a__length1(X)
mark(cons(X1, X2)) → cons(mark(X1), X2)
mark(s(X)) → s(mark(X))
mark(nil) → nil
mark(0) → 0
a__from(X) → from(X)
a__length(X) → length(X)
a__length1(X) → length1(X)

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

(15) 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.

(16) Obligation:

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

MARK(s(X)) → MARK(X)
MARK(cons(X1, X2)) → MARK(X1)

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

(17) 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:

  • MARK(s(X)) → MARK(X)
    The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1

  • MARK(cons(X1, X2)) → MARK(X1)
    The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1

(18) YES