/export/starexec/sandbox2/solver/bin/starexec_run_standard /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.pl /export/starexec/sandbox2/output/output_files -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- YES proof of /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.pl # AProVE Commit ID: 48fb2092695e11cc9f56e44b17a92a5f88ffb256 marcel 20180622 unpublished dirty Left Termination of the query pattern prefix(g,a) w.r.t. the given Prolog program could successfully be proven: (0) Prolog (1) PrologToPiTRSProof [SOUND,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 [SOUND, 0 ms] (10) QDP (11) QDPSizeChangeProof [EQUIVALENT, 2 ms] (12) YES ---------------------------------------- (0) Obligation: Clauses: prefix(Xs, Ys) :- app(Xs, X1, Ys). app([], X, X). app(.(X, Xs), Ys, .(X, Zs)) :- app(Xs, Ys, Zs). Query: prefix(g,a) ---------------------------------------- (1) PrologToPiTRSProof (SOUND) We use the technique of [TOCL09]. With regard to the inferred argument filtering the predicates were used in the following modes: prefix_in_2: (b,f) app_in_3: (b,f,f) Transforming Prolog into the following Term Rewriting System: Pi-finite rewrite system: The TRS R consists of the following rules: prefix_in_ga(Xs, Ys) -> U1_ga(Xs, Ys, app_in_gaa(Xs, X1, Ys)) app_in_gaa([], X, X) -> app_out_gaa([], X, X) app_in_gaa(.(X, Xs), Ys, .(X, Zs)) -> U2_gaa(X, Xs, Ys, Zs, app_in_gaa(Xs, Ys, Zs)) U2_gaa(X, Xs, Ys, Zs, app_out_gaa(Xs, Ys, Zs)) -> app_out_gaa(.(X, Xs), Ys, .(X, Zs)) U1_ga(Xs, Ys, app_out_gaa(Xs, X1, Ys)) -> prefix_out_ga(Xs, Ys) The argument filtering Pi contains the following mapping: prefix_in_ga(x1, x2) = prefix_in_ga(x1) U1_ga(x1, x2, x3) = U1_ga(x3) app_in_gaa(x1, x2, x3) = app_in_gaa(x1) [] = [] app_out_gaa(x1, x2, x3) = app_out_gaa .(x1, x2) = .(x1, x2) U2_gaa(x1, x2, x3, x4, x5) = U2_gaa(x5) prefix_out_ga(x1, x2) = prefix_out_ga Infinitary Constructor Rewriting Termination of PiTRS implies Termination of Prolog ---------------------------------------- (2) Obligation: Pi-finite rewrite system: The TRS R consists of the following rules: prefix_in_ga(Xs, Ys) -> U1_ga(Xs, Ys, app_in_gaa(Xs, X1, Ys)) app_in_gaa([], X, X) -> app_out_gaa([], X, X) app_in_gaa(.(X, Xs), Ys, .(X, Zs)) -> U2_gaa(X, Xs, Ys, Zs, app_in_gaa(Xs, Ys, Zs)) U2_gaa(X, Xs, Ys, Zs, app_out_gaa(Xs, Ys, Zs)) -> app_out_gaa(.(X, Xs), Ys, .(X, Zs)) U1_ga(Xs, Ys, app_out_gaa(Xs, X1, Ys)) -> prefix_out_ga(Xs, Ys) The argument filtering Pi contains the following mapping: prefix_in_ga(x1, x2) = prefix_in_ga(x1) U1_ga(x1, x2, x3) = U1_ga(x3) app_in_gaa(x1, x2, x3) = app_in_gaa(x1) [] = [] app_out_gaa(x1, x2, x3) = app_out_gaa .(x1, x2) = .(x1, x2) U2_gaa(x1, x2, x3, x4, x5) = U2_gaa(x5) prefix_out_ga(x1, x2) = prefix_out_ga ---------------------------------------- (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: PREFIX_IN_GA(Xs, Ys) -> U1_GA(Xs, Ys, app_in_gaa(Xs, X1, Ys)) PREFIX_IN_GA(Xs, Ys) -> APP_IN_GAA(Xs, X1, Ys) APP_IN_GAA(.(X, Xs), Ys, .(X, Zs)) -> U2_GAA(X, Xs, Ys, Zs, app_in_gaa(Xs, Ys, Zs)) APP_IN_GAA(.(X, Xs), Ys, .(X, Zs)) -> APP_IN_GAA(Xs, Ys, Zs) The TRS R consists of the following rules: prefix_in_ga(Xs, Ys) -> U1_ga(Xs, Ys, app_in_gaa(Xs, X1, Ys)) app_in_gaa([], X, X) -> app_out_gaa([], X, X) app_in_gaa(.(X, Xs), Ys, .(X, Zs)) -> U2_gaa(X, Xs, Ys, Zs, app_in_gaa(Xs, Ys, Zs)) U2_gaa(X, Xs, Ys, Zs, app_out_gaa(Xs, Ys, Zs)) -> app_out_gaa(.(X, Xs), Ys, .(X, Zs)) U1_ga(Xs, Ys, app_out_gaa(Xs, X1, Ys)) -> prefix_out_ga(Xs, Ys) The argument filtering Pi contains the following mapping: prefix_in_ga(x1, x2) = prefix_in_ga(x1) U1_ga(x1, x2, x3) = U1_ga(x3) app_in_gaa(x1, x2, x3) = app_in_gaa(x1) [] = [] app_out_gaa(x1, x2, x3) = app_out_gaa .(x1, x2) = .(x1, x2) U2_gaa(x1, x2, x3, x4, x5) = U2_gaa(x5) prefix_out_ga(x1, x2) = prefix_out_ga PREFIX_IN_GA(x1, x2) = PREFIX_IN_GA(x1) U1_GA(x1, x2, x3) = U1_GA(x3) APP_IN_GAA(x1, x2, x3) = APP_IN_GAA(x1) U2_GAA(x1, x2, x3, x4, x5) = U2_GAA(x5) We have to consider all (P,R,Pi)-chains ---------------------------------------- (4) Obligation: Pi DP problem: The TRS P consists of the following rules: PREFIX_IN_GA(Xs, Ys) -> U1_GA(Xs, Ys, app_in_gaa(Xs, X1, Ys)) PREFIX_IN_GA(Xs, Ys) -> APP_IN_GAA(Xs, X1, Ys) APP_IN_GAA(.(X, Xs), Ys, .(X, Zs)) -> U2_GAA(X, Xs, Ys, Zs, app_in_gaa(Xs, Ys, Zs)) APP_IN_GAA(.(X, Xs), Ys, .(X, Zs)) -> APP_IN_GAA(Xs, Ys, Zs) The TRS R consists of the following rules: prefix_in_ga(Xs, Ys) -> U1_ga(Xs, Ys, app_in_gaa(Xs, X1, Ys)) app_in_gaa([], X, X) -> app_out_gaa([], X, X) app_in_gaa(.(X, Xs), Ys, .(X, Zs)) -> U2_gaa(X, Xs, Ys, Zs, app_in_gaa(Xs, Ys, Zs)) U2_gaa(X, Xs, Ys, Zs, app_out_gaa(Xs, Ys, Zs)) -> app_out_gaa(.(X, Xs), Ys, .(X, Zs)) U1_ga(Xs, Ys, app_out_gaa(Xs, X1, Ys)) -> prefix_out_ga(Xs, Ys) The argument filtering Pi contains the following mapping: prefix_in_ga(x1, x2) = prefix_in_ga(x1) U1_ga(x1, x2, x3) = U1_ga(x3) app_in_gaa(x1, x2, x3) = app_in_gaa(x1) [] = [] app_out_gaa(x1, x2, x3) = app_out_gaa .(x1, x2) = .(x1, x2) U2_gaa(x1, x2, x3, x4, x5) = U2_gaa(x5) prefix_out_ga(x1, x2) = prefix_out_ga PREFIX_IN_GA(x1, x2) = PREFIX_IN_GA(x1) U1_GA(x1, x2, x3) = U1_GA(x3) APP_IN_GAA(x1, x2, x3) = APP_IN_GAA(x1) U2_GAA(x1, x2, x3, x4, x5) = U2_GAA(x5) We have to consider all (P,R,Pi)-chains ---------------------------------------- (5) DependencyGraphProof (EQUIVALENT) The approximation of the Dependency Graph [LOPSTR] contains 1 SCC with 3 less nodes. ---------------------------------------- (6) Obligation: Pi DP problem: The TRS P consists of the following rules: APP_IN_GAA(.(X, Xs), Ys, .(X, Zs)) -> APP_IN_GAA(Xs, Ys, Zs) The TRS R consists of the following rules: prefix_in_ga(Xs, Ys) -> U1_ga(Xs, Ys, app_in_gaa(Xs, X1, Ys)) app_in_gaa([], X, X) -> app_out_gaa([], X, X) app_in_gaa(.(X, Xs), Ys, .(X, Zs)) -> U2_gaa(X, Xs, Ys, Zs, app_in_gaa(Xs, Ys, Zs)) U2_gaa(X, Xs, Ys, Zs, app_out_gaa(Xs, Ys, Zs)) -> app_out_gaa(.(X, Xs), Ys, .(X, Zs)) U1_ga(Xs, Ys, app_out_gaa(Xs, X1, Ys)) -> prefix_out_ga(Xs, Ys) The argument filtering Pi contains the following mapping: prefix_in_ga(x1, x2) = prefix_in_ga(x1) U1_ga(x1, x2, x3) = U1_ga(x3) app_in_gaa(x1, x2, x3) = app_in_gaa(x1) [] = [] app_out_gaa(x1, x2, x3) = app_out_gaa .(x1, x2) = .(x1, x2) U2_gaa(x1, x2, x3, x4, x5) = U2_gaa(x5) prefix_out_ga(x1, x2) = prefix_out_ga APP_IN_GAA(x1, x2, x3) = APP_IN_GAA(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: APP_IN_GAA(.(X, Xs), Ys, .(X, Zs)) -> APP_IN_GAA(Xs, Ys, Zs) R is empty. The argument filtering Pi contains the following mapping: .(x1, x2) = .(x1, x2) APP_IN_GAA(x1, x2, x3) = APP_IN_GAA(x1) We have to consider all (P,R,Pi)-chains ---------------------------------------- (9) PiDPToQDPProof (SOUND) 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: APP_IN_GAA(.(X, Xs)) -> APP_IN_GAA(Xs) 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: *APP_IN_GAA(.(X, Xs)) -> APP_IN_GAA(Xs) The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1 ---------------------------------------- (12) YES