/export/starexec/sandbox2/solver/bin/starexec_run_standard /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.xml /export/starexec/sandbox2/output/output_files


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


YES
proof of /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.xml
# AProVE Commit ID: 48fb2092695e11cc9f56e44b17a92a5f88ffb256 marcel 20180622 unpublished dirty


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

(0) QTRS
(1) Overlay + Local Confluence [EQUIVALENT, 0 ms]
(2) QTRS
(3) DependencyPairsProof [EQUIVALENT, 0 ms]
(4) QDP
(5) UsableRulesProof [EQUIVALENT, 0 ms]
(6) QDP
(7) QReductionProof [EQUIVALENT, 0 ms]
(8) QDP
(9) QDPSizeChangeProof [EQUIVALENT, 0 ms]
(10) YES


----------------------------------------

(0)
Obligation:
Q restricted rewrite system:
The TRS R consists of the following rules:

   f(empty, l) -> l
   f(cons(x, k), l) -> g(k, l, cons(x, k))
   g(a, b, c) -> f(a, cons(b, c))

Q is empty.

----------------------------------------

(1) Overlay + Local Confluence (EQUIVALENT)
The TRS is overlay and locally confluent. By [NOC] we can switch to innermost.
----------------------------------------

(2)
Obligation:
Q restricted rewrite system:
The TRS R consists of the following rules:

   f(empty, l) -> l
   f(cons(x, k), l) -> g(k, l, cons(x, k))
   g(a, b, c) -> f(a, cons(b, c))

The set Q consists of the following terms:

   f(empty, x0)
   f(cons(x0, x1), x2)
   g(x0, x1, x2)


----------------------------------------

(3) DependencyPairsProof (EQUIVALENT)
Using Dependency Pairs [AG00,LPAR04] we result in the following initial DP problem.
----------------------------------------

(4)
Obligation:
Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:

   F(cons(x, k), l) -> G(k, l, cons(x, k))
   G(a, b, c) -> F(a, cons(b, c))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

   f(empty, l) -> l
   f(cons(x, k), l) -> g(k, l, cons(x, k))
   g(a, b, c) -> f(a, cons(b, c))

The set Q consists of the following terms:

   f(empty, x0)
   f(cons(x0, x1), x2)
   g(x0, x1, x2)

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

(5) UsableRulesProof (EQUIVALENT)
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.
----------------------------------------

(6)
Obligation:
Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:

   F(cons(x, k), l) -> G(k, l, cons(x, k))
   G(a, b, c) -> F(a, cons(b, c))

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

   f(empty, x0)
   f(cons(x0, x1), x2)
   g(x0, x1, x2)

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

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

   f(empty, x0)
   f(cons(x0, x1), x2)
   g(x0, x1, x2)


----------------------------------------

(8)
Obligation:
Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:

   F(cons(x, k), l) -> G(k, l, cons(x, k))
   G(a, b, c) -> F(a, cons(b, c))

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

(9) QDPSizeChangeProof (EQUIVALENT)
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:
*G(a, b, c) -> F(a, cons(b, c))
The graph contains the following edges 1 >= 1


*F(cons(x, k), l) -> G(k, l, cons(x, k))
The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1, 2 >= 2, 1 >= 3


----------------------------------------

(10)
YES