/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# AProVE Commit ID: 48fb2092695e11cc9f56e44b17a92a5f88ffb256 marcel 20180622 unpublished dirty Left Termination of the query pattern select(a,a,g) w.r.t. the given Prolog program could successfully be proven: (0) Prolog (1) PrologToPiTRSProof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 [SOUND, 0 ms] (10) QDP (11) QDPSizeChangeProof [EQUIVALENT, 0 ms] (12) YES ---------------------------------------- (0) Obligation: Clauses: select(X, .(X, Xs), Xs). select(X, .(Y, Xs), .(Y, Zs)) :- select(X, Xs, Zs). Query: select(a,a,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: select_in_3: (f,f,b) Transforming Prolog into the following Term Rewriting System: Pi-finite rewrite system: The TRS R consists of the following rules: select_in_aag(X, .(X, Xs), Xs) -> select_out_aag(X, .(X, Xs), Xs) select_in_aag(X, .(Y, Xs), .(Y, Zs)) -> U1_aag(X, Y, Xs, Zs, select_in_aag(X, Xs, Zs)) U1_aag(X, Y, Xs, Zs, select_out_aag(X, Xs, Zs)) -> select_out_aag(X, .(Y, Xs), .(Y, Zs)) The argument filtering Pi contains the following mapping: select_in_aag(x1, x2, x3) = select_in_aag(x3) select_out_aag(x1, x2, x3) = select_out_aag(x2) .(x1, x2) = .(x2) U1_aag(x1, x2, x3, x4, x5) = U1_aag(x5) Infinitary Constructor Rewriting Termination of PiTRS implies Termination of Prolog ---------------------------------------- (2) Obligation: Pi-finite rewrite system: The TRS R consists of the following rules: select_in_aag(X, .(X, Xs), Xs) -> select_out_aag(X, .(X, Xs), Xs) select_in_aag(X, .(Y, Xs), .(Y, Zs)) -> U1_aag(X, Y, Xs, Zs, select_in_aag(X, Xs, Zs)) U1_aag(X, Y, Xs, Zs, select_out_aag(X, Xs, Zs)) -> select_out_aag(X, .(Y, Xs), .(Y, Zs)) The argument filtering Pi contains the following mapping: select_in_aag(x1, x2, x3) = select_in_aag(x3) select_out_aag(x1, x2, x3) = select_out_aag(x2) .(x1, x2) = .(x2) U1_aag(x1, x2, x3, x4, x5) = U1_aag(x5) ---------------------------------------- (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: SELECT_IN_AAG(X, .(Y, Xs), .(Y, Zs)) -> U1_AAG(X, Y, Xs, Zs, select_in_aag(X, Xs, Zs)) SELECT_IN_AAG(X, .(Y, Xs), .(Y, Zs)) -> SELECT_IN_AAG(X, Xs, Zs) The TRS R consists of the following rules: select_in_aag(X, .(X, Xs), Xs) -> select_out_aag(X, .(X, Xs), Xs) select_in_aag(X, .(Y, Xs), .(Y, Zs)) -> U1_aag(X, Y, Xs, Zs, select_in_aag(X, Xs, Zs)) U1_aag(X, Y, Xs, Zs, select_out_aag(X, Xs, Zs)) -> select_out_aag(X, .(Y, Xs), .(Y, Zs)) The argument filtering Pi contains the following mapping: select_in_aag(x1, x2, x3) = select_in_aag(x3) select_out_aag(x1, x2, x3) = select_out_aag(x2) .(x1, x2) = .(x2) U1_aag(x1, x2, x3, x4, x5) = U1_aag(x5) SELECT_IN_AAG(x1, x2, x3) = SELECT_IN_AAG(x3) U1_AAG(x1, x2, x3, x4, x5) = U1_AAG(x5) We have to consider all (P,R,Pi)-chains ---------------------------------------- (4) Obligation: Pi DP problem: The TRS P consists of the following rules: SELECT_IN_AAG(X, .(Y, Xs), .(Y, Zs)) -> U1_AAG(X, Y, Xs, Zs, select_in_aag(X, Xs, Zs)) SELECT_IN_AAG(X, .(Y, Xs), .(Y, Zs)) -> SELECT_IN_AAG(X, Xs, Zs) The TRS R consists of the following rules: select_in_aag(X, .(X, Xs), Xs) -> select_out_aag(X, .(X, Xs), Xs) select_in_aag(X, .(Y, Xs), .(Y, Zs)) -> U1_aag(X, Y, Xs, Zs, select_in_aag(X, Xs, Zs)) U1_aag(X, Y, Xs, Zs, select_out_aag(X, Xs, Zs)) -> select_out_aag(X, .(Y, Xs), .(Y, Zs)) The argument filtering Pi contains the following mapping: select_in_aag(x1, x2, x3) = select_in_aag(x3) select_out_aag(x1, x2, x3) = select_out_aag(x2) .(x1, x2) = .(x2) U1_aag(x1, x2, x3, x4, x5) = U1_aag(x5) SELECT_IN_AAG(x1, x2, x3) = SELECT_IN_AAG(x3) U1_AAG(x1, x2, x3, x4, x5) = U1_AAG(x5) 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: SELECT_IN_AAG(X, .(Y, Xs), .(Y, Zs)) -> SELECT_IN_AAG(X, Xs, Zs) The TRS R consists of the following rules: select_in_aag(X, .(X, Xs), Xs) -> select_out_aag(X, .(X, Xs), Xs) select_in_aag(X, .(Y, Xs), .(Y, Zs)) -> U1_aag(X, Y, Xs, Zs, select_in_aag(X, Xs, Zs)) U1_aag(X, Y, Xs, Zs, select_out_aag(X, Xs, Zs)) -> select_out_aag(X, .(Y, Xs), .(Y, Zs)) The argument filtering Pi contains the following mapping: select_in_aag(x1, x2, x3) = select_in_aag(x3) select_out_aag(x1, x2, x3) = select_out_aag(x2) .(x1, x2) = .(x2) U1_aag(x1, x2, x3, x4, x5) = U1_aag(x5) SELECT_IN_AAG(x1, x2, x3) = SELECT_IN_AAG(x3) 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: SELECT_IN_AAG(X, .(Y, Xs), .(Y, Zs)) -> SELECT_IN_AAG(X, Xs, Zs) R is empty. The argument filtering Pi contains the following mapping: .(x1, x2) = .(x2) SELECT_IN_AAG(x1, x2, x3) = SELECT_IN_AAG(x3) 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: SELECT_IN_AAG(.(Zs)) -> SELECT_IN_AAG(Zs) 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: *SELECT_IN_AAG(.(Zs)) -> SELECT_IN_AAG(Zs) The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1 ---------------------------------------- (12) YES