We consider the system AotoYamada_05__013. Alphabet: append : [c * c] --> c cons : [b * c] --> c flatwith : [a -> b * b] --> c flatwithsub : [a -> b * c] --> c leaf : [a] --> b nil : [] --> c node : [c] --> b Rules: append(nil, x) => x append(cons(x, y), z) => cons(x, append(y, z)) flatwith(f, leaf(x)) => cons(f x, nil) flatwith(f, node(x)) => flatwithsub(f, x) flatwithsub(f, nil) => nil flatwithsub(f, cons(x, y)) => append(flatwith(f, x), flatwithsub(f, y)) This AFS is converted to an AFSM simply by replacing all free variables by meta-variables (with arity 0). We use the dependency pair framework as described in [Kop12, Ch. 6/7], with static dependency pairs (see [KusIsoSakBla09] and the adaptation for AFSMs and accessible arguments in [Kop13]). We thus obtain the following dependency pair problem (P_0, R_0, static, formative): Dependency Pairs P_0: 0] append#(cons(X, Y), Z) =#> append#(Y, Z) 1] flatwith#(F, node(X)) =#> flatwithsub#(F, X) 2] flatwithsub#(F, cons(X, Y)) =#> append#(flatwith(F, X), flatwithsub(F, Y)) 3] flatwithsub#(F, cons(X, Y)) =#> flatwith#(F, X) 4] flatwithsub#(F, cons(X, Y)) =#> flatwithsub#(F, Y) Rules R_0: append(nil, X) => X append(cons(X, Y), Z) => cons(X, append(Y, Z)) flatwith(F, leaf(X)) => cons(F X, nil) flatwith(F, node(X)) => flatwithsub(F, X) flatwithsub(F, nil) => nil flatwithsub(F, cons(X, Y)) => append(flatwith(F, X), flatwithsub(F, Y)) Thus, the original system is terminating if (P_0, R_0, static, formative) is finite. We consider the dependency pair problem (P_0, R_0, static, formative). We place the elements of P in a dependency graph approximation G (see e.g. [Kop12, Thm. 7.27, 7.29], as follows: * 0 : 0 * 1 : 2, 3, 4 * 2 : 0 * 3 : 1 * 4 : 2, 3, 4 This graph has the following strongly connected components: P_1: append#(cons(X, Y), Z) =#> append#(Y, Z) P_2: flatwith#(F, node(X)) =#> flatwithsub#(F, X) flatwithsub#(F, cons(X, Y)) =#> flatwith#(F, X) flatwithsub#(F, cons(X, Y)) =#> flatwithsub#(F, Y) By [Kop12, Thm. 7.31], we may replace any dependency pair problem (P_0, R_0, m, f) by (P_1, R_0, m, f) and (P_2, R_0, m, f). Thus, the original system is terminating if each of (P_1, R_0, static, formative) and (P_2, R_0, static, formative) is finite. We consider the dependency pair problem (P_2, R_0, static, formative). We apply the subterm criterion with the following projection function: nu(flatwith#) = 2 nu(flatwithsub#) = 2 Thus, we can orient the dependency pairs as follows: nu(flatwith#(F, node(X))) = node(X) |> X = nu(flatwithsub#(F, X)) nu(flatwithsub#(F, cons(X, Y))) = cons(X, Y) |> X = nu(flatwith#(F, X)) nu(flatwithsub#(F, cons(X, Y))) = cons(X, Y) |> Y = nu(flatwithsub#(F, Y)) By [Kop12, Thm. 7.35] and [Kop13, Thm. 5], we may replace a dependency pair problem (P_2, R_0, static, f) by ({}, R_0, static, f). By the empty set processor [Kop12, Thm. 7.15] this problem may be immediately removed. Thus, the original system is terminating if (P_1, R_0, static, formative) is finite. We consider the dependency pair problem (P_1, R_0, static, formative). We apply the subterm criterion with the following projection function: nu(append#) = 1 Thus, we can orient the dependency pairs as follows: nu(append#(cons(X, Y), Z)) = cons(X, Y) |> Y = nu(append#(Y, Z)) By [Kop12, Thm. 7.35] and [Kop13, Thm. 5], we may replace a dependency pair problem (P_1, R_0, static, f) by ({}, R_0, static, f). By the empty set processor [Kop12, Thm. 7.15] this problem may be immediately removed. As all dependency pair problems were succesfully simplified with sound (and complete) processors until nothing remained, we conclude termination. +++ Citations +++ [Kop12] C. Kop. Higher Order Termination. PhD Thesis, 2012. [Kop13] C. Kop. Static Dependency Pairs with Accessibility. Unpublished manuscript, http://cl-informatik.uibk.ac.at/users/kop/static.pdf, 2013. [KusIsoSakBla09] K. Kusakari, Y. Isogai, M. Sakai, and F. Blanqui. Static Dependency Pair Method Based On Strong Computability for Higher-Order Rewrite Systems. In volume 92(10) of IEICE Transactions on Information and Systems. 2007--2015, 2009.