YES Termination w.r.t. Q proof of Transformed_CSR_04_Ex7_BLR02_FR.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 (⇔, 20 ms)
        ↳7 QDP
        ↳8 DependencyGraphProof (⇔, 0 ms)
        ↳9 QDP
        ↳10 UsableRulesProof (⇔, 0 ms)
        ↳11 QDP
        ↳12 QDPSizeChangeProof (⇔, 0 ms)
        ↳13 YES
    ↳14 QDP
        ↳15 QDPSizeChangeProof (⇔, 0 ms)
        ↳16 YES

(0) Obligation:

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

from(X) → cons(X, n__from(n__s(X)))
head(cons(X, XS)) → X
2nd(cons(X, XS)) → head(activate(XS))
take(0, XS) → nil
take(s(N), cons(X, XS)) → cons(X, n__take(N, activate(XS)))
sel(0, cons(X, XS)) → X
sel(s(N), cons(X, XS)) → sel(N, activate(XS))
from(X) → n__from(X)
s(X) → n__s(X)
take(X1, X2) → n__take(X1, X2)
activate(n__from(X)) → from(activate(X))
activate(n__s(X)) → s(activate(X))
activate(n__take(X1, X2)) → take(activate(X1), activate(X2))
activate(X) → 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:

2ND(cons(X, XS)) → HEAD(activate(XS))
2ND(cons(X, XS)) → ACTIVATE(XS)
TAKE(s(N), cons(X, XS)) → ACTIVATE(XS)
SEL(s(N), cons(X, XS)) → SEL(N, activate(XS))
SEL(s(N), cons(X, XS)) → ACTIVATE(XS)
ACTIVATE(n__from(X)) → FROM(activate(X))
ACTIVATE(n__from(X)) → ACTIVATE(X)
ACTIVATE(n__s(X)) → S(activate(X))
ACTIVATE(n__s(X)) → ACTIVATE(X)
ACTIVATE(n__take(X1, X2)) → TAKE(activate(X1), activate(X2))
ACTIVATE(n__take(X1, X2)) → ACTIVATE(X1)
ACTIVATE(n__take(X1, X2)) → ACTIVATE(X2)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

from(X) → cons(X, n__from(n__s(X)))
head(cons(X, XS)) → X
2nd(cons(X, XS)) → head(activate(XS))
take(0, XS) → nil
take(s(N), cons(X, XS)) → cons(X, n__take(N, activate(XS)))
sel(0, cons(X, XS)) → X
sel(s(N), cons(X, XS)) → sel(N, activate(XS))
from(X) → n__from(X)
s(X) → n__s(X)
take(X1, X2) → n__take(X1, X2)
activate(n__from(X)) → from(activate(X))
activate(n__s(X)) → s(activate(X))
activate(n__take(X1, X2)) → take(activate(X1), activate(X2))
activate(X) → 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 5 less nodes.

(4) Complex Obligation (AND)

(5) Obligation:

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

ACTIVATE(n__from(X)) → ACTIVATE(X)
ACTIVATE(n__s(X)) → ACTIVATE(X)
ACTIVATE(n__take(X1, X2)) → TAKE(activate(X1), activate(X2))
TAKE(s(N), cons(X, XS)) → ACTIVATE(XS)
ACTIVATE(n__take(X1, X2)) → ACTIVATE(X1)
ACTIVATE(n__take(X1, X2)) → ACTIVATE(X2)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

from(X) → cons(X, n__from(n__s(X)))
head(cons(X, XS)) → X
2nd(cons(X, XS)) → head(activate(XS))
take(0, XS) → nil
take(s(N), cons(X, XS)) → cons(X, n__take(N, activate(XS)))
sel(0, cons(X, XS)) → X
sel(s(N), cons(X, XS)) → sel(N, activate(XS))
from(X) → n__from(X)
s(X) → n__s(X)
take(X1, X2) → n__take(X1, X2)
activate(n__from(X)) → from(activate(X))
activate(n__s(X)) → s(activate(X))
activate(n__take(X1, X2)) → take(activate(X1), activate(X2))
activate(X) → X

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].


The following pairs can be oriented strictly and are deleted.


ACTIVATE(n__take(X1, X2)) → TAKE(activate(X1), activate(X2))
ACTIVATE(n__take(X1, X2)) → ACTIVATE(X1)
ACTIVATE(n__take(X1, X2)) → ACTIVATE(X2)
The remaining pairs can at least be oriented weakly.
Used ordering: Combined order from the following AFS and order.
ACTIVATE(x1)  =  x1
n__from(x1)  =  x1
n__s(x1)  =  x1
n__take(x1, x2)  =  n__take(x1, x2)
TAKE(x1, x2)  =  x2
activate(x1)  =  activate(x1)
cons(x1, x2)  =  x2
from(x1)  =  x1
s(x1)  =  x1
take(x1, x2)  =  take(x1, x2)
0  =  0
nil  =  nil

Knuth-Bendix order [KBO] with precedence:
activate1 > take2 > ntake2
activate1 > 0
activate1 > nil

and weight map:

0=2
n__take_2=2
activate_1=0
take_2=2
nil=4

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

activate(n__from(X)) → from(activate(X))
activate(n__s(X)) → s(activate(X))
activate(n__take(X1, X2)) → take(activate(X1), activate(X2))
activate(X) → X
take(s(N), cons(X, XS)) → cons(X, n__take(N, activate(XS)))
s(X) → n__s(X)
from(X) → cons(X, n__from(n__s(X)))
from(X) → n__from(X)
take(0, XS) → nil
take(X1, X2) → n__take(X1, X2)

(7) Obligation:

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

ACTIVATE(n__from(X)) → ACTIVATE(X)
ACTIVATE(n__s(X)) → ACTIVATE(X)
TAKE(s(N), cons(X, XS)) → ACTIVATE(XS)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

from(X) → cons(X, n__from(n__s(X)))
head(cons(X, XS)) → X
2nd(cons(X, XS)) → head(activate(XS))
take(0, XS) → nil
take(s(N), cons(X, XS)) → cons(X, n__take(N, activate(XS)))
sel(0, cons(X, XS)) → X
sel(s(N), cons(X, XS)) → sel(N, activate(XS))
from(X) → n__from(X)
s(X) → n__s(X)
take(X1, X2) → n__take(X1, X2)
activate(n__from(X)) → from(activate(X))
activate(n__s(X)) → s(activate(X))
activate(n__take(X1, X2)) → take(activate(X1), activate(X2))
activate(X) → X

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

(8) DependencyGraphProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

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

(9) Obligation:

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

ACTIVATE(n__s(X)) → ACTIVATE(X)
ACTIVATE(n__from(X)) → ACTIVATE(X)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

from(X) → cons(X, n__from(n__s(X)))
head(cons(X, XS)) → X
2nd(cons(X, XS)) → head(activate(XS))
take(0, XS) → nil
take(s(N), cons(X, XS)) → cons(X, n__take(N, activate(XS)))
sel(0, cons(X, XS)) → X
sel(s(N), cons(X, XS)) → sel(N, activate(XS))
from(X) → n__from(X)
s(X) → n__s(X)
take(X1, X2) → n__take(X1, X2)
activate(n__from(X)) → from(activate(X))
activate(n__s(X)) → s(activate(X))
activate(n__take(X1, X2)) → take(activate(X1), activate(X2))
activate(X) → X

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

(10) 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.

(11) Obligation:

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

ACTIVATE(n__s(X)) → ACTIVATE(X)
ACTIVATE(n__from(X)) → ACTIVATE(X)

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

(12) 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:

  • ACTIVATE(n__s(X)) → ACTIVATE(X)
    The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1

  • ACTIVATE(n__from(X)) → ACTIVATE(X)
    The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1

(13) YES

(14) Obligation:

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

SEL(s(N), cons(X, XS)) → SEL(N, activate(XS))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

from(X) → cons(X, n__from(n__s(X)))
head(cons(X, XS)) → X
2nd(cons(X, XS)) → head(activate(XS))
take(0, XS) → nil
take(s(N), cons(X, XS)) → cons(X, n__take(N, activate(XS)))
sel(0, cons(X, XS)) → X
sel(s(N), cons(X, XS)) → sel(N, activate(XS))
from(X) → n__from(X)
s(X) → n__s(X)
take(X1, X2) → n__take(X1, X2)
activate(n__from(X)) → from(activate(X))
activate(n__s(X)) → s(activate(X))
activate(n__take(X1, X2)) → take(activate(X1), activate(X2))
activate(X) → X

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

(15) 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:

  • SEL(s(N), cons(X, XS)) → SEL(N, activate(XS))
    The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1

(16) YES