YES Termination w.r.t. Q proof of Transformed_CSR_04_Ex1_2_Luc02c_iGM.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 UsableRulesProof (⇔, 0 ms)
        ↳7 QDP
        ↳8 QDPSizeChangeProof (⇔, 0 ms)
        ↳9 YES
    ↳10 QDP
        ↳11 UsableRulesProof (⇔, 0 ms)
        ↳12 QDP
        ↳13 QDPSizeChangeProof (⇔, 0 ms)
        ↳14 YES
    ↳15 QDP
        ↳16 UsableRulesProof (⇔, 0 ms)
        ↳17 QDP
        ↳18 QDPSizeChangeProof (⇔, 0 ms)
        ↳19 YES
    ↳20 QDP
        ↳21 UsableRulesProof (⇔, 0 ms)
        ↳22 QDP
        ↳23 QDPSizeChangeProof (⇔, 0 ms)
        ↳24 YES
    ↳25 QDP
        ↳26 QDPOrderProof (⇔, 0 ms)
        ↳27 QDP
        ↳28 QDPOrderProof (⇔, 93 ms)
        ↳29 QDP
        ↳30 QDPOrderProof (⇔, 22 ms)
        ↳31 QDP
        ↳32 QDPOrderProof (⇔, 50 ms)
        ↳33 QDP
        ↳34 QDPOrderProof (⇔, 59 ms)
        ↳35 QDP
        ↳36 DependencyGraphProof (⇔, 0 ms)
        ↳37 QDP
        ↳38 UsableRulesProof (⇔, 0 ms)
        ↳39 QDP
        ↳40 QDPSizeChangeProof (⇔, 0 ms)
        ↳41 YES

(0) Obligation:

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

active(2nd(cons(X, cons(Y, Z)))) → mark(Y)
active(from(X)) → mark(cons(X, from(s(X))))
mark(2nd(X)) → active(2nd(mark(X)))
mark(cons(X1, X2)) → active(cons(mark(X1), X2))
mark(from(X)) → active(from(mark(X)))
mark(s(X)) → active(s(mark(X)))
2nd(mark(X)) → 2nd(X)
2nd(active(X)) → 2nd(X)
cons(mark(X1), X2) → cons(X1, X2)
cons(X1, mark(X2)) → cons(X1, X2)
cons(active(X1), X2) → cons(X1, X2)
cons(X1, active(X2)) → cons(X1, X2)
from(mark(X)) → from(X)
from(active(X)) → from(X)
s(mark(X)) → s(X)
s(active(X)) → s(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:

ACTIVE(2nd(cons(X, cons(Y, Z)))) → MARK(Y)
ACTIVE(from(X)) → MARK(cons(X, from(s(X))))
ACTIVE(from(X)) → CONS(X, from(s(X)))
ACTIVE(from(X)) → FROM(s(X))
ACTIVE(from(X)) → S(X)
MARK(2nd(X)) → ACTIVE(2nd(mark(X)))
MARK(2nd(X)) → 2ND(mark(X))
MARK(2nd(X)) → MARK(X)
MARK(cons(X1, X2)) → ACTIVE(cons(mark(X1), X2))
MARK(cons(X1, X2)) → CONS(mark(X1), X2)
MARK(cons(X1, X2)) → MARK(X1)
MARK(from(X)) → ACTIVE(from(mark(X)))
MARK(from(X)) → FROM(mark(X))
MARK(from(X)) → MARK(X)
MARK(s(X)) → ACTIVE(s(mark(X)))
MARK(s(X)) → S(mark(X))
MARK(s(X)) → MARK(X)
2ND(mark(X)) → 2ND(X)
2ND(active(X)) → 2ND(X)
CONS(mark(X1), X2) → CONS(X1, X2)
CONS(X1, mark(X2)) → CONS(X1, X2)
CONS(active(X1), X2) → CONS(X1, X2)
CONS(X1, active(X2)) → CONS(X1, X2)
FROM(mark(X)) → FROM(X)
FROM(active(X)) → FROM(X)
S(mark(X)) → S(X)
S(active(X)) → S(X)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

active(2nd(cons(X, cons(Y, Z)))) → mark(Y)
active(from(X)) → mark(cons(X, from(s(X))))
mark(2nd(X)) → active(2nd(mark(X)))
mark(cons(X1, X2)) → active(cons(mark(X1), X2))
mark(from(X)) → active(from(mark(X)))
mark(s(X)) → active(s(mark(X)))
2nd(mark(X)) → 2nd(X)
2nd(active(X)) → 2nd(X)
cons(mark(X1), X2) → cons(X1, X2)
cons(X1, mark(X2)) → cons(X1, X2)
cons(active(X1), X2) → cons(X1, X2)
cons(X1, active(X2)) → cons(X1, X2)
from(mark(X)) → from(X)
from(active(X)) → from(X)
s(mark(X)) → s(X)
s(active(X)) → s(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 5 SCCs with 7 less nodes.

(4) Complex Obligation (AND)

(5) Obligation:

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

S(active(X)) → S(X)
S(mark(X)) → S(X)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

active(2nd(cons(X, cons(Y, Z)))) → mark(Y)
active(from(X)) → mark(cons(X, from(s(X))))
mark(2nd(X)) → active(2nd(mark(X)))
mark(cons(X1, X2)) → active(cons(mark(X1), X2))
mark(from(X)) → active(from(mark(X)))
mark(s(X)) → active(s(mark(X)))
2nd(mark(X)) → 2nd(X)
2nd(active(X)) → 2nd(X)
cons(mark(X1), X2) → cons(X1, X2)
cons(X1, mark(X2)) → cons(X1, X2)
cons(active(X1), X2) → cons(X1, X2)
cons(X1, active(X2)) → cons(X1, X2)
from(mark(X)) → from(X)
from(active(X)) → from(X)
s(mark(X)) → s(X)
s(active(X)) → s(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:

S(active(X)) → S(X)
S(mark(X)) → S(X)

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:

  • S(active(X)) → S(X)
    The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1

  • S(mark(X)) → S(X)
    The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1

(9) YES

(10) Obligation:

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

FROM(active(X)) → FROM(X)
FROM(mark(X)) → FROM(X)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

active(2nd(cons(X, cons(Y, Z)))) → mark(Y)
active(from(X)) → mark(cons(X, from(s(X))))
mark(2nd(X)) → active(2nd(mark(X)))
mark(cons(X1, X2)) → active(cons(mark(X1), X2))
mark(from(X)) → active(from(mark(X)))
mark(s(X)) → active(s(mark(X)))
2nd(mark(X)) → 2nd(X)
2nd(active(X)) → 2nd(X)
cons(mark(X1), X2) → cons(X1, X2)
cons(X1, mark(X2)) → cons(X1, X2)
cons(active(X1), X2) → cons(X1, X2)
cons(X1, active(X2)) → cons(X1, X2)
from(mark(X)) → from(X)
from(active(X)) → from(X)
s(mark(X)) → s(X)
s(active(X)) → s(X)

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:

FROM(active(X)) → FROM(X)
FROM(mark(X)) → FROM(X)

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:

  • FROM(active(X)) → FROM(X)
    The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1

  • FROM(mark(X)) → FROM(X)
    The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1

(14) YES

(15) Obligation:

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

CONS(X1, mark(X2)) → CONS(X1, X2)
CONS(mark(X1), X2) → CONS(X1, X2)
CONS(active(X1), X2) → CONS(X1, X2)
CONS(X1, active(X2)) → CONS(X1, X2)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

active(2nd(cons(X, cons(Y, Z)))) → mark(Y)
active(from(X)) → mark(cons(X, from(s(X))))
mark(2nd(X)) → active(2nd(mark(X)))
mark(cons(X1, X2)) → active(cons(mark(X1), X2))
mark(from(X)) → active(from(mark(X)))
mark(s(X)) → active(s(mark(X)))
2nd(mark(X)) → 2nd(X)
2nd(active(X)) → 2nd(X)
cons(mark(X1), X2) → cons(X1, X2)
cons(X1, mark(X2)) → cons(X1, X2)
cons(active(X1), X2) → cons(X1, X2)
cons(X1, active(X2)) → cons(X1, X2)
from(mark(X)) → from(X)
from(active(X)) → from(X)
s(mark(X)) → s(X)
s(active(X)) → s(X)

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

(16) 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.

(17) Obligation:

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

CONS(X1, mark(X2)) → CONS(X1, X2)
CONS(mark(X1), X2) → CONS(X1, X2)
CONS(active(X1), X2) → CONS(X1, X2)
CONS(X1, active(X2)) → CONS(X1, X2)

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

(18) 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:

  • CONS(X1, mark(X2)) → CONS(X1, X2)
    The graph contains the following edges 1 >= 1, 2 > 2

  • CONS(mark(X1), X2) → CONS(X1, X2)
    The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1, 2 >= 2

  • CONS(active(X1), X2) → CONS(X1, X2)
    The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1, 2 >= 2

  • CONS(X1, active(X2)) → CONS(X1, X2)
    The graph contains the following edges 1 >= 1, 2 > 2

(19) YES

(20) Obligation:

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

2ND(active(X)) → 2ND(X)
2ND(mark(X)) → 2ND(X)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

active(2nd(cons(X, cons(Y, Z)))) → mark(Y)
active(from(X)) → mark(cons(X, from(s(X))))
mark(2nd(X)) → active(2nd(mark(X)))
mark(cons(X1, X2)) → active(cons(mark(X1), X2))
mark(from(X)) → active(from(mark(X)))
mark(s(X)) → active(s(mark(X)))
2nd(mark(X)) → 2nd(X)
2nd(active(X)) → 2nd(X)
cons(mark(X1), X2) → cons(X1, X2)
cons(X1, mark(X2)) → cons(X1, X2)
cons(active(X1), X2) → cons(X1, X2)
cons(X1, active(X2)) → cons(X1, X2)
from(mark(X)) → from(X)
from(active(X)) → from(X)
s(mark(X)) → s(X)
s(active(X)) → s(X)

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

(21) 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.

(22) Obligation:

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

2ND(active(X)) → 2ND(X)
2ND(mark(X)) → 2ND(X)

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

(23) 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:

  • 2ND(active(X)) → 2ND(X)
    The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1

  • 2ND(mark(X)) → 2ND(X)
    The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1

(24) YES

(25) Obligation:

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

MARK(2nd(X)) → ACTIVE(2nd(mark(X)))
ACTIVE(2nd(cons(X, cons(Y, Z)))) → MARK(Y)
MARK(2nd(X)) → MARK(X)
MARK(cons(X1, X2)) → ACTIVE(cons(mark(X1), X2))
ACTIVE(from(X)) → MARK(cons(X, from(s(X))))
MARK(cons(X1, X2)) → MARK(X1)
MARK(from(X)) → ACTIVE(from(mark(X)))
MARK(from(X)) → MARK(X)
MARK(s(X)) → ACTIVE(s(mark(X)))
MARK(s(X)) → MARK(X)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

active(2nd(cons(X, cons(Y, Z)))) → mark(Y)
active(from(X)) → mark(cons(X, from(s(X))))
mark(2nd(X)) → active(2nd(mark(X)))
mark(cons(X1, X2)) → active(cons(mark(X1), X2))
mark(from(X)) → active(from(mark(X)))
mark(s(X)) → active(s(mark(X)))
2nd(mark(X)) → 2nd(X)
2nd(active(X)) → 2nd(X)
cons(mark(X1), X2) → cons(X1, X2)
cons(X1, mark(X2)) → cons(X1, X2)
cons(active(X1), X2) → cons(X1, X2)
cons(X1, active(X2)) → cons(X1, X2)
from(mark(X)) → from(X)
from(active(X)) → from(X)
s(mark(X)) → s(X)
s(active(X)) → s(X)

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

(26) QDPOrderProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

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


The following pairs can be oriented strictly and are deleted.


MARK(cons(X1, X2)) → ACTIVE(cons(mark(X1), X2))
MARK(s(X)) → ACTIVE(s(mark(X)))
The remaining pairs can at least be oriented weakly.
Used ordering: Polynomial interpretation [POLO]:

POL(2nd(x1)) = 1   
POL(ACTIVE(x1)) = x1   
POL(MARK(x1)) = 1   
POL(active(x1)) = 0   
POL(cons(x1, x2)) = 0   
POL(from(x1)) = 1   
POL(mark(x1)) = 1   
POL(s(x1)) = 0   

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

2nd(active(X)) → 2nd(X)
2nd(mark(X)) → 2nd(X)
cons(X1, mark(X2)) → cons(X1, X2)
cons(mark(X1), X2) → cons(X1, X2)
cons(active(X1), X2) → cons(X1, X2)
cons(X1, active(X2)) → cons(X1, X2)
s(active(X)) → s(X)
s(mark(X)) → s(X)
from(active(X)) → from(X)
from(mark(X)) → from(X)

(27) Obligation:

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

MARK(2nd(X)) → ACTIVE(2nd(mark(X)))
ACTIVE(2nd(cons(X, cons(Y, Z)))) → MARK(Y)
MARK(2nd(X)) → MARK(X)
ACTIVE(from(X)) → MARK(cons(X, from(s(X))))
MARK(cons(X1, X2)) → MARK(X1)
MARK(from(X)) → ACTIVE(from(mark(X)))
MARK(from(X)) → MARK(X)
MARK(s(X)) → MARK(X)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

active(2nd(cons(X, cons(Y, Z)))) → mark(Y)
active(from(X)) → mark(cons(X, from(s(X))))
mark(2nd(X)) → active(2nd(mark(X)))
mark(cons(X1, X2)) → active(cons(mark(X1), X2))
mark(from(X)) → active(from(mark(X)))
mark(s(X)) → active(s(mark(X)))
2nd(mark(X)) → 2nd(X)
2nd(active(X)) → 2nd(X)
cons(mark(X1), X2) → cons(X1, X2)
cons(X1, mark(X2)) → cons(X1, X2)
cons(active(X1), X2) → cons(X1, X2)
cons(X1, active(X2)) → cons(X1, X2)
from(mark(X)) → from(X)
from(active(X)) → from(X)
s(mark(X)) → s(X)
s(active(X)) → s(X)

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

(28) QDPOrderProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

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


The following pairs can be oriented strictly and are deleted.


ACTIVE(2nd(cons(X, cons(Y, Z)))) → MARK(Y)
The remaining pairs can at least be oriented weakly.
Used ordering: Matrix interpretation [MATRO] with arctic natural numbers [ARCTIC]:

POL(MARK(x1)) = 0A + 0A·x1

POL(2nd(x1)) = -I + 1A·x1

POL(ACTIVE(x1)) = -I + 0A·x1

POL(mark(x1)) = -I + 0A·x1

POL(cons(x1, x2)) = 0A + 0A·x1 + 0A·x2

POL(from(x1)) = 1A + 0A·x1

POL(s(x1)) = 1A + 0A·x1

POL(active(x1)) = -I + 0A·x1

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

mark(2nd(X)) → active(2nd(mark(X)))
active(2nd(cons(X, cons(Y, Z)))) → mark(Y)
mark(cons(X1, X2)) → active(cons(mark(X1), X2))
active(from(X)) → mark(cons(X, from(s(X))))
mark(from(X)) → active(from(mark(X)))
mark(s(X)) → active(s(mark(X)))
2nd(active(X)) → 2nd(X)
2nd(mark(X)) → 2nd(X)
s(active(X)) → s(X)
s(mark(X)) → s(X)
from(active(X)) → from(X)
from(mark(X)) → from(X)
cons(X1, mark(X2)) → cons(X1, X2)
cons(mark(X1), X2) → cons(X1, X2)
cons(active(X1), X2) → cons(X1, X2)
cons(X1, active(X2)) → cons(X1, X2)

(29) Obligation:

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

MARK(2nd(X)) → ACTIVE(2nd(mark(X)))
MARK(2nd(X)) → MARK(X)
ACTIVE(from(X)) → MARK(cons(X, from(s(X))))
MARK(cons(X1, X2)) → MARK(X1)
MARK(from(X)) → ACTIVE(from(mark(X)))
MARK(from(X)) → MARK(X)
MARK(s(X)) → MARK(X)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

active(2nd(cons(X, cons(Y, Z)))) → mark(Y)
active(from(X)) → mark(cons(X, from(s(X))))
mark(2nd(X)) → active(2nd(mark(X)))
mark(cons(X1, X2)) → active(cons(mark(X1), X2))
mark(from(X)) → active(from(mark(X)))
mark(s(X)) → active(s(mark(X)))
2nd(mark(X)) → 2nd(X)
2nd(active(X)) → 2nd(X)
cons(mark(X1), X2) → cons(X1, X2)
cons(X1, mark(X2)) → cons(X1, X2)
cons(active(X1), X2) → cons(X1, X2)
cons(X1, active(X2)) → cons(X1, X2)
from(mark(X)) → from(X)
from(active(X)) → from(X)
s(mark(X)) → s(X)
s(active(X)) → s(X)

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

(30) QDPOrderProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

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


The following pairs can be oriented strictly and are deleted.


MARK(2nd(X)) → ACTIVE(2nd(mark(X)))
The remaining pairs can at least be oriented weakly.
Used ordering: Polynomial Order [NEGPOLO,POLO] with Interpretation:
POL( 2nd(x1) ) = max{0, -2}

POL( ACTIVE(x1) ) = max{0, 2x1 - 1}

POL( from(x1) ) = 1

POL( mark(x1) ) = max{0, x1 - 1}

POL( active(x1) ) = 2x1

POL( cons(x1, x2) ) = x1 + x2 + 1

POL( s(x1) ) = 0

POL( MARK(x1) ) = 1


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

2nd(active(X)) → 2nd(X)
2nd(mark(X)) → 2nd(X)
from(active(X)) → from(X)
from(mark(X)) → from(X)

(31) Obligation:

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

MARK(2nd(X)) → MARK(X)
ACTIVE(from(X)) → MARK(cons(X, from(s(X))))
MARK(cons(X1, X2)) → MARK(X1)
MARK(from(X)) → ACTIVE(from(mark(X)))
MARK(from(X)) → MARK(X)
MARK(s(X)) → MARK(X)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

active(2nd(cons(X, cons(Y, Z)))) → mark(Y)
active(from(X)) → mark(cons(X, from(s(X))))
mark(2nd(X)) → active(2nd(mark(X)))
mark(cons(X1, X2)) → active(cons(mark(X1), X2))
mark(from(X)) → active(from(mark(X)))
mark(s(X)) → active(s(mark(X)))
2nd(mark(X)) → 2nd(X)
2nd(active(X)) → 2nd(X)
cons(mark(X1), X2) → cons(X1, X2)
cons(X1, mark(X2)) → cons(X1, X2)
cons(active(X1), X2) → cons(X1, X2)
cons(X1, active(X2)) → cons(X1, X2)
from(mark(X)) → from(X)
from(active(X)) → from(X)
s(mark(X)) → s(X)
s(active(X)) → s(X)

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

(32) QDPOrderProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

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


The following pairs can be oriented strictly and are deleted.


MARK(2nd(X)) → MARK(X)
The remaining pairs can at least be oriented weakly.
Used ordering: Polynomial interpretation [POLO,RATPOLO]:

POL(2nd(x1)) = [4] + [4]x1   
POL(ACTIVE(x1)) = [4] + [2]x1   
POL(MARK(x1)) = [4] + [4]x1   
POL(active(x1)) = x1   
POL(cons(x1, x2)) = x1 + [1/4]x2   
POL(from(x1)) = [4]x1   
POL(mark(x1)) = x1   
POL(s(x1)) = x1   
The value of delta used in the strict ordering is 16.
The following usable rules [FROCOS05] with respect to the argument filtering of the ordering [JAR06] were oriented:

s(active(X)) → s(X)
s(mark(X)) → s(X)
from(active(X)) → from(X)
from(mark(X)) → from(X)
cons(X1, mark(X2)) → cons(X1, X2)
cons(mark(X1), X2) → cons(X1, X2)
cons(active(X1), X2) → cons(X1, X2)
cons(X1, active(X2)) → cons(X1, X2)
mark(2nd(X)) → active(2nd(mark(X)))
active(2nd(cons(X, cons(Y, Z)))) → mark(Y)
mark(cons(X1, X2)) → active(cons(mark(X1), X2))
active(from(X)) → mark(cons(X, from(s(X))))
mark(from(X)) → active(from(mark(X)))
mark(s(X)) → active(s(mark(X)))
2nd(active(X)) → 2nd(X)
2nd(mark(X)) → 2nd(X)

(33) Obligation:

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

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

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

active(2nd(cons(X, cons(Y, Z)))) → mark(Y)
active(from(X)) → mark(cons(X, from(s(X))))
mark(2nd(X)) → active(2nd(mark(X)))
mark(cons(X1, X2)) → active(cons(mark(X1), X2))
mark(from(X)) → active(from(mark(X)))
mark(s(X)) → active(s(mark(X)))
2nd(mark(X)) → 2nd(X)
2nd(active(X)) → 2nd(X)
cons(mark(X1), X2) → cons(X1, X2)
cons(X1, mark(X2)) → cons(X1, X2)
cons(active(X1), X2) → cons(X1, X2)
cons(X1, active(X2)) → cons(X1, X2)
from(mark(X)) → from(X)
from(active(X)) → from(X)
s(mark(X)) → s(X)
s(active(X)) → s(X)

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

(34) QDPOrderProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

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


The following pairs can be oriented strictly and are deleted.


ACTIVE(from(X)) → MARK(cons(X, from(s(X))))
MARK(from(X)) → MARK(X)
MARK(s(X)) → MARK(X)
The remaining pairs can at least be oriented weakly.
Used ordering: Polynomial interpretation [POLO,RATPOLO]:

POL(2nd(x1)) = [4]x1   
POL(ACTIVE(x1)) = [2] + [2]x1   
POL(MARK(x1)) = [2] + [2]x1   
POL(active(x1)) = x1   
POL(cons(x1, x2)) = x1 + [1/4]x2   
POL(from(x1)) = [4] + [2]x1   
POL(mark(x1)) = x1   
POL(s(x1)) = [2] + [2]x1   
The value of delta used in the strict ordering is 4.
The following usable rules [FROCOS05] with respect to the argument filtering of the ordering [JAR06] were oriented:

s(active(X)) → s(X)
s(mark(X)) → s(X)
from(active(X)) → from(X)
from(mark(X)) → from(X)
cons(X1, mark(X2)) → cons(X1, X2)
cons(mark(X1), X2) → cons(X1, X2)
cons(active(X1), X2) → cons(X1, X2)
cons(X1, active(X2)) → cons(X1, X2)
mark(2nd(X)) → active(2nd(mark(X)))
active(2nd(cons(X, cons(Y, Z)))) → mark(Y)
mark(cons(X1, X2)) → active(cons(mark(X1), X2))
active(from(X)) → mark(cons(X, from(s(X))))
mark(from(X)) → active(from(mark(X)))
mark(s(X)) → active(s(mark(X)))
2nd(active(X)) → 2nd(X)
2nd(mark(X)) → 2nd(X)

(35) Obligation:

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

MARK(cons(X1, X2)) → MARK(X1)
MARK(from(X)) → ACTIVE(from(mark(X)))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

active(2nd(cons(X, cons(Y, Z)))) → mark(Y)
active(from(X)) → mark(cons(X, from(s(X))))
mark(2nd(X)) → active(2nd(mark(X)))
mark(cons(X1, X2)) → active(cons(mark(X1), X2))
mark(from(X)) → active(from(mark(X)))
mark(s(X)) → active(s(mark(X)))
2nd(mark(X)) → 2nd(X)
2nd(active(X)) → 2nd(X)
cons(mark(X1), X2) → cons(X1, X2)
cons(X1, mark(X2)) → cons(X1, X2)
cons(active(X1), X2) → cons(X1, X2)
cons(X1, active(X2)) → cons(X1, X2)
from(mark(X)) → from(X)
from(active(X)) → from(X)
s(mark(X)) → s(X)
s(active(X)) → s(X)

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

(36) DependencyGraphProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

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

(37) Obligation:

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

MARK(cons(X1, X2)) → MARK(X1)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

active(2nd(cons(X, cons(Y, Z)))) → mark(Y)
active(from(X)) → mark(cons(X, from(s(X))))
mark(2nd(X)) → active(2nd(mark(X)))
mark(cons(X1, X2)) → active(cons(mark(X1), X2))
mark(from(X)) → active(from(mark(X)))
mark(s(X)) → active(s(mark(X)))
2nd(mark(X)) → 2nd(X)
2nd(active(X)) → 2nd(X)
cons(mark(X1), X2) → cons(X1, X2)
cons(X1, mark(X2)) → cons(X1, X2)
cons(active(X1), X2) → cons(X1, X2)
cons(X1, active(X2)) → cons(X1, X2)
from(mark(X)) → from(X)
from(active(X)) → from(X)
s(mark(X)) → s(X)
s(active(X)) → s(X)

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

(38) 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.

(39) Obligation:

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

MARK(cons(X1, X2)) → MARK(X1)

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

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

(41) YES