/export/starexec/sandbox/solver/bin/starexec_run_standard /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.pl /export/starexec/sandbox/output/output_files


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


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# AProVE Commit ID: 48fb2092695e11cc9f56e44b17a92a5f88ffb256 marcel 20180622 unpublished dirty


Left Termination of the query pattern

list(g)

w.r.t. the given Prolog program could successfully be proven:

(0) Prolog
(1) PrologToPiTRSProof [SOUND, 0 ms]
(2) PiTRS
(3) DependencyPairsProof [EQUIVALENT, 0 ms]
(4) PiDP
(5) DependencyGraphProof [EQUIVALENT, 0 ms]
(6) PiDP
(7) UsableRulesProof [EQUIVALENT, 0 ms]
(8) PiDP
(9) PiDPToQDPProof [EQUIVALENT, 0 ms]
(10) QDP
(11) QDPSizeChangeProof [EQUIVALENT, 0 ms]
(12) YES


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

(0)
Obligation:
Clauses:

list(.(H, Ts)) :- list(Ts).
list([]).


Query: list(g)
----------------------------------------

(1) PrologToPiTRSProof (SOUND)
We use the technique of [TOCL09]. With regard to the inferred argument filtering the predicates were used in the following modes:

list_in_1: (b)

Transforming Prolog into the following Term Rewriting System:

Pi-finite rewrite system:
The TRS R consists of the following rules:

   list_in_g(.(H, Ts)) -> U1_g(H, Ts, list_in_g(Ts))
   list_in_g([]) -> list_out_g([])
   U1_g(H, Ts, list_out_g(Ts)) -> list_out_g(.(H, Ts))

The argument filtering Pi contains the following mapping:
list_in_g(x1)  =  list_in_g(x1)

.(x1, x2)  =  .(x1, x2)

U1_g(x1, x2, x3)  =  U1_g(x3)

[]  =  []

list_out_g(x1)  =  list_out_g





Infinitary Constructor Rewriting Termination of PiTRS implies Termination of Prolog



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

(2)
Obligation:
Pi-finite rewrite system:
The TRS R consists of the following rules:

   list_in_g(.(H, Ts)) -> U1_g(H, Ts, list_in_g(Ts))
   list_in_g([]) -> list_out_g([])
   U1_g(H, Ts, list_out_g(Ts)) -> list_out_g(.(H, Ts))

The argument filtering Pi contains the following mapping:
list_in_g(x1)  =  list_in_g(x1)

.(x1, x2)  =  .(x1, x2)

U1_g(x1, x2, x3)  =  U1_g(x3)

[]  =  []

list_out_g(x1)  =  list_out_g



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

(3) DependencyPairsProof (EQUIVALENT)
Using Dependency Pairs [AG00,LOPSTR] we result in the following initial DP problem:
Pi DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:

   LIST_IN_G(.(H, Ts)) -> U1_G(H, Ts, list_in_g(Ts))
   LIST_IN_G(.(H, Ts)) -> LIST_IN_G(Ts)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

   list_in_g(.(H, Ts)) -> U1_g(H, Ts, list_in_g(Ts))
   list_in_g([]) -> list_out_g([])
   U1_g(H, Ts, list_out_g(Ts)) -> list_out_g(.(H, Ts))

The argument filtering Pi contains the following mapping:
list_in_g(x1)  =  list_in_g(x1)

.(x1, x2)  =  .(x1, x2)

U1_g(x1, x2, x3)  =  U1_g(x3)

[]  =  []

list_out_g(x1)  =  list_out_g

LIST_IN_G(x1)  =  LIST_IN_G(x1)

U1_G(x1, x2, x3)  =  U1_G(x3)


We have to consider all (P,R,Pi)-chains
----------------------------------------

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

   LIST_IN_G(.(H, Ts)) -> U1_G(H, Ts, list_in_g(Ts))
   LIST_IN_G(.(H, Ts)) -> LIST_IN_G(Ts)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

   list_in_g(.(H, Ts)) -> U1_g(H, Ts, list_in_g(Ts))
   list_in_g([]) -> list_out_g([])
   U1_g(H, Ts, list_out_g(Ts)) -> list_out_g(.(H, Ts))

The argument filtering Pi contains the following mapping:
list_in_g(x1)  =  list_in_g(x1)

.(x1, x2)  =  .(x1, x2)

U1_g(x1, x2, x3)  =  U1_g(x3)

[]  =  []

list_out_g(x1)  =  list_out_g

LIST_IN_G(x1)  =  LIST_IN_G(x1)

U1_G(x1, x2, x3)  =  U1_G(x3)


We have to consider all (P,R,Pi)-chains
----------------------------------------

(5) DependencyGraphProof (EQUIVALENT)
The approximation of the Dependency Graph [LOPSTR] contains 1 SCC with 1 less node.
----------------------------------------

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

   LIST_IN_G(.(H, Ts)) -> LIST_IN_G(Ts)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

   list_in_g(.(H, Ts)) -> U1_g(H, Ts, list_in_g(Ts))
   list_in_g([]) -> list_out_g([])
   U1_g(H, Ts, list_out_g(Ts)) -> list_out_g(.(H, Ts))

The argument filtering Pi contains the following mapping:
list_in_g(x1)  =  list_in_g(x1)

.(x1, x2)  =  .(x1, x2)

U1_g(x1, x2, x3)  =  U1_g(x3)

[]  =  []

list_out_g(x1)  =  list_out_g

LIST_IN_G(x1)  =  LIST_IN_G(x1)


We have to consider all (P,R,Pi)-chains
----------------------------------------

(7) UsableRulesProof (EQUIVALENT)
For (infinitary) constructor rewriting [LOPSTR] we can delete all non-usable rules from R.
----------------------------------------

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

   LIST_IN_G(.(H, Ts)) -> LIST_IN_G(Ts)

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

(9) PiDPToQDPProof (EQUIVALENT)
Transforming (infinitary) constructor rewriting Pi-DP problem [LOPSTR] into ordinary QDP problem [LPAR04] by application of Pi.
----------------------------------------

(10)
Obligation:
Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:

   LIST_IN_G(.(H, Ts)) -> LIST_IN_G(Ts)

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

(11) 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:
*LIST_IN_G(.(H, Ts)) -> LIST_IN_G(Ts)
The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1


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

(12)
YES