/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# AProVE Commit ID: 794c25de1cacf0d048858bcd21c9a779e1221865 marcel 20200619 unpublished dirty Left Termination of the query pattern duplicate(g,a) w.r.t. the given Prolog program could successfully be proven: (0) Prolog (1) PrologToPiTRSProof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, 1 ms] (10) QDP (11) QDPSizeChangeProof [EQUIVALENT, 0 ms] (12) YES ---------------------------------------- (0) Obligation: Clauses: duplicate([], []). duplicate(.(X, Y), .(X, .(X, Z))) :- duplicate(Y, Z). Query: duplicate(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: duplicate_in_2: (b,f) Transforming Prolog into the following Term Rewriting System: Pi-finite rewrite system: The TRS R consists of the following rules: duplicate_in_ga([], []) -> duplicate_out_ga([], []) duplicate_in_ga(.(X, Y), .(X, .(X, Z))) -> U1_ga(X, Y, Z, duplicate_in_ga(Y, Z)) U1_ga(X, Y, Z, duplicate_out_ga(Y, Z)) -> duplicate_out_ga(.(X, Y), .(X, .(X, Z))) The argument filtering Pi contains the following mapping: duplicate_in_ga(x1, x2) = duplicate_in_ga(x1) [] = [] duplicate_out_ga(x1, x2) = duplicate_out_ga(x2) .(x1, x2) = .(x1, x2) U1_ga(x1, x2, x3, x4) = U1_ga(x1, x4) Infinitary Constructor Rewriting Termination of PiTRS implies Termination of Prolog ---------------------------------------- (2) Obligation: Pi-finite rewrite system: The TRS R consists of the following rules: duplicate_in_ga([], []) -> duplicate_out_ga([], []) duplicate_in_ga(.(X, Y), .(X, .(X, Z))) -> U1_ga(X, Y, Z, duplicate_in_ga(Y, Z)) U1_ga(X, Y, Z, duplicate_out_ga(Y, Z)) -> duplicate_out_ga(.(X, Y), .(X, .(X, Z))) The argument filtering Pi contains the following mapping: duplicate_in_ga(x1, x2) = duplicate_in_ga(x1) [] = [] duplicate_out_ga(x1, x2) = duplicate_out_ga(x2) .(x1, x2) = .(x1, x2) U1_ga(x1, x2, x3, x4) = U1_ga(x1, x4) ---------------------------------------- (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: DUPLICATE_IN_GA(.(X, Y), .(X, .(X, Z))) -> U1_GA(X, Y, Z, duplicate_in_ga(Y, Z)) DUPLICATE_IN_GA(.(X, Y), .(X, .(X, Z))) -> DUPLICATE_IN_GA(Y, Z) The TRS R consists of the following rules: duplicate_in_ga([], []) -> duplicate_out_ga([], []) duplicate_in_ga(.(X, Y), .(X, .(X, Z))) -> U1_ga(X, Y, Z, duplicate_in_ga(Y, Z)) U1_ga(X, Y, Z, duplicate_out_ga(Y, Z)) -> duplicate_out_ga(.(X, Y), .(X, .(X, Z))) The argument filtering Pi contains the following mapping: duplicate_in_ga(x1, x2) = duplicate_in_ga(x1) [] = [] duplicate_out_ga(x1, x2) = duplicate_out_ga(x2) .(x1, x2) = .(x1, x2) U1_ga(x1, x2, x3, x4) = U1_ga(x1, x4) DUPLICATE_IN_GA(x1, x2) = DUPLICATE_IN_GA(x1) U1_GA(x1, x2, x3, x4) = U1_GA(x1, x4) We have to consider all (P,R,Pi)-chains ---------------------------------------- (4) Obligation: Pi DP problem: The TRS P consists of the following rules: DUPLICATE_IN_GA(.(X, Y), .(X, .(X, Z))) -> U1_GA(X, Y, Z, duplicate_in_ga(Y, Z)) DUPLICATE_IN_GA(.(X, Y), .(X, .(X, Z))) -> DUPLICATE_IN_GA(Y, Z) The TRS R consists of the following rules: duplicate_in_ga([], []) -> duplicate_out_ga([], []) duplicate_in_ga(.(X, Y), .(X, .(X, Z))) -> U1_ga(X, Y, Z, duplicate_in_ga(Y, Z)) U1_ga(X, Y, Z, duplicate_out_ga(Y, Z)) -> duplicate_out_ga(.(X, Y), .(X, .(X, Z))) The argument filtering Pi contains the following mapping: duplicate_in_ga(x1, x2) = duplicate_in_ga(x1) [] = [] duplicate_out_ga(x1, x2) = duplicate_out_ga(x2) .(x1, x2) = .(x1, x2) U1_ga(x1, x2, x3, x4) = U1_ga(x1, x4) DUPLICATE_IN_GA(x1, x2) = DUPLICATE_IN_GA(x1) U1_GA(x1, x2, x3, x4) = U1_GA(x1, x4) 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: DUPLICATE_IN_GA(.(X, Y), .(X, .(X, Z))) -> DUPLICATE_IN_GA(Y, Z) The TRS R consists of the following rules: duplicate_in_ga([], []) -> duplicate_out_ga([], []) duplicate_in_ga(.(X, Y), .(X, .(X, Z))) -> U1_ga(X, Y, Z, duplicate_in_ga(Y, Z)) U1_ga(X, Y, Z, duplicate_out_ga(Y, Z)) -> duplicate_out_ga(.(X, Y), .(X, .(X, Z))) The argument filtering Pi contains the following mapping: duplicate_in_ga(x1, x2) = duplicate_in_ga(x1) [] = [] duplicate_out_ga(x1, x2) = duplicate_out_ga(x2) .(x1, x2) = .(x1, x2) U1_ga(x1, x2, x3, x4) = U1_ga(x1, x4) DUPLICATE_IN_GA(x1, x2) = DUPLICATE_IN_GA(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: DUPLICATE_IN_GA(.(X, Y), .(X, .(X, Z))) -> DUPLICATE_IN_GA(Y, Z) R is empty. The argument filtering Pi contains the following mapping: .(x1, x2) = .(x1, x2) DUPLICATE_IN_GA(x1, x2) = DUPLICATE_IN_GA(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: DUPLICATE_IN_GA(.(X, Y)) -> DUPLICATE_IN_GA(Y) 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: *DUPLICATE_IN_GA(.(X, Y)) -> DUPLICATE_IN_GA(Y) The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1 ---------------------------------------- (12) YES