We consider the system fuhkop12rta1.

  Alphabet:

    app : [list * list] --> list 
    cons : [nat * list] --> list 
    hshuffle : [nat -> nat * list] --> list 
    nil : [] --> list 
    reverse : [list] --> list 

  Rules:

    app(nil, x) => x 
    app(cons(x, y), z) => cons(x, app(y, z)) 
    reverse(nil) => nil 
    reverse(cons(x, y)) => app(reverse(y), cons(x, nil)) 
    hshuffle(f, nil) => nil 
    hshuffle(f, cons(x, y)) => cons(f x, hshuffle(f, reverse(y))) 

This AFS is converted to an AFSM simply by replacing all free variables by meta-variables (with arity 0).

We observe that the rules contain a first-order subset:

  app(nil, X) => X 
  app(cons(X, Y), Z) => cons(X, app(Y, Z)) 
  reverse(nil) => nil 
  reverse(cons(X, Y)) => app(reverse(Y), cons(X, nil)) 

Moreover, the system is orthogonal.  Thus, by [Kop12, Thm. 7.55], we may omit all first-order dependency pairs from the dependency pair problem (DP(R), R) if this first-order part is terminating when seen as a many-sorted first-order TRS.

According to the external first-order termination prover, this system is indeed terminating:

 || proof of resources/system.trs
 || # AProVE Commit ID: d84c10301d352dfd14de2104819581f4682260f5 fuhs 20130616
 || 
 || 
 || Termination w.r.t. Q of the given QTRS could be proven:
 || 
 || (0) QTRS
 || (1) QTRSRRRProof [EQUIVALENT]
 || (2) QTRS
 || (3) QTRSRRRProof [EQUIVALENT]
 || (4) QTRS
 || (5) QTRSRRRProof [EQUIVALENT]
 || (6) QTRS
 || (7) RisEmptyProof [EQUIVALENT]
 || (8) YES
 || 
 || 
 || ----------------------------------------
 || 
 || (0)
 || Obligation:
 || Q restricted rewrite system:
 || The TRS R consists of the following rules:
 || 
 ||    app(nil, %X) -> %X
 ||    app(cons(%X, %Y), %Z) -> cons(%X, app(%Y, %Z))
 ||    reverse(nil) -> nil
 ||    reverse(cons(%X, %Y)) -> app(reverse(%Y), cons(%X, nil))
 || 
 || Q is empty.
 || 
 || ----------------------------------------
 || 
 || (1) QTRSRRRProof (EQUIVALENT)
 || Used ordering:
 || Polynomial interpretation [POLO]:
 || 
 ||    POL(app(x_1, x_2)) = x_1 + x_2
 ||    POL(cons(x_1, x_2)) = 1 + 2*x_1 + x_2
 ||    POL(nil) = 0
 ||    POL(reverse(x_1)) = 1 + x_1
 || With this ordering the following rules can be removed by the rule removal processor [LPAR04] because they are oriented strictly:
 || 
 ||    reverse(nil) -> nil
 || 
 || 
 || 
 || 
 || ----------------------------------------
 || 
 || (2)
 || Obligation:
 || Q restricted rewrite system:
 || The TRS R consists of the following rules:
 || 
 ||    app(nil, %X) -> %X
 ||    app(cons(%X, %Y), %Z) -> cons(%X, app(%Y, %Z))
 ||    reverse(cons(%X, %Y)) -> app(reverse(%Y), cons(%X, nil))
 || 
 || Q is empty.
 || 
 || ----------------------------------------
 || 
 || (3) QTRSRRRProof (EQUIVALENT)
 || Used ordering:
 || Polynomial interpretation [POLO]:
 || 
 ||    POL(app(x_1, x_2)) = x_1 + x_2
 ||    POL(cons(x_1, x_2)) = 1 + 2*x_1 + x_2
 ||    POL(nil) = 0
 ||    POL(reverse(x_1)) = 2*x_1
 || With this ordering the following rules can be removed by the rule removal processor [LPAR04] because they are oriented strictly:
 || 
 ||    reverse(cons(%X, %Y)) -> app(reverse(%Y), cons(%X, nil))
 || 
 || 
 || 
 || 
 || ----------------------------------------
 || 
 || (4)
 || Obligation:
 || Q restricted rewrite system:
 || The TRS R consists of the following rules:
 || 
 ||    app(nil, %X) -> %X
 ||    app(cons(%X, %Y), %Z) -> cons(%X, app(%Y, %Z))
 || 
 || Q is empty.
 || 
 || ----------------------------------------
 || 
 || (5) QTRSRRRProof (EQUIVALENT)
 || Used ordering:
 || Polynomial interpretation [POLO]:
 || 
 ||    POL(app(x_1, x_2)) = 2 + 2*x_1 + x_2
 ||    POL(cons(x_1, x_2)) = 1 + 2*x_1 + x_2
 ||    POL(nil) = 1
 || With this ordering the following rules can be removed by the rule removal processor [LPAR04] because they are oriented strictly:
 || 
 ||    app(nil, %X) -> %X
 ||    app(cons(%X, %Y), %Z) -> cons(%X, app(%Y, %Z))
 || 
 || 
 || 
 || 
 || ----------------------------------------
 || 
 || (6)
 || Obligation:
 || Q restricted rewrite system:
 || R is empty.
 || Q is empty.
 || 
 || ----------------------------------------
 || 
 || (7) RisEmptyProof (EQUIVALENT)
 || The TRS R is empty. Hence, termination is trivially proven.
 || ----------------------------------------
 || 
 || (8)
 || YES
 || 
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 [FuhKop19]).

We thus obtain the following dependency pair problem (P_0, R_0, computable, formative):

  Dependency Pairs P_0:

    0] hshuffle#(F, cons(X, Y)) =#> hshuffle#(F, reverse(Y))   
    1] hshuffle#(F, cons(X, Y)) =#> reverse#(Y)   

  Rules R_0:

    app(nil, X) => X 
    app(cons(X, Y), Z) => cons(X, app(Y, Z)) 
    reverse(nil) => nil 
    reverse(cons(X, Y)) => app(reverse(Y), cons(X, nil)) 
    hshuffle(F, nil) => nil 
    hshuffle(F, cons(X, Y)) => cons(F X, hshuffle(F, reverse(Y))) 

Thus, the original system is terminating if (P_0, R_0, computable, formative) is finite.

We consider the dependency pair problem (P_0, R_0, computable, 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 
    * 1 :  

This graph has the following strongly connected components:

  P_1:

    hshuffle#(F, cons(X, Y)) =#> hshuffle#(F, reverse(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).

Thus, the original system is terminating if (P_1, R_0, computable, formative) is finite.

We consider the dependency pair problem (P_1, R_0, computable, formative).

We will use the reduction pair processor with usable rules [Kop12, Thm. 7.44].  The usable rules of (P_1, R_0) are:

  app(nil, X) => X 
  app(cons(X, Y), Z) => cons(X, app(Y, Z)) 
  reverse(nil) => nil 
  reverse(cons(X, Y)) => app(reverse(Y), cons(X, nil)) 

It suffices to find a standard reduction pair [Kop12, Def. 6.69].  Thus, we must orient:

  hshuffle#(F, cons(X, Y)) >? hshuffle#(F, reverse(Y)) 
  app(nil, X) >= X 
  app(cons(X, Y), Z) >= cons(X, app(Y, Z)) 
  reverse(nil) >= nil 
  reverse(cons(X, Y)) >= app(reverse(Y), cons(X, nil)) 

We orient these requirements with a polynomial interpretation in the natural numbers.

The following interpretation satisfies the requirements:

  app = \y0y1.y0 + y1 
  cons = \y0y1.2 + y1 
  hshuffle# = \G0y1.2y1 
  nil = 0 
  reverse = \y0.y0 

Using this interpretation, the requirements translate to:

  [[hshuffle#(_F0, cons(_x1, _x2))]] = 4 + 2x2 > 2x2 = [[hshuffle#(_F0, reverse(_x2))]] 
  [[app(nil, _x0)]] = x0 >= x0 = [[_x0]] 
  [[app(cons(_x0, _x1), _x2)]] = 2 + x1 + x2 >= 2 + x1 + x2 = [[cons(_x0, app(_x1, _x2))]] 
  [[reverse(nil)]] = 0 >= 0 = [[nil]] 
  [[reverse(cons(_x0, _x1))]] = 2 + x1 >= 2 + x1 = [[app(reverse(_x1), cons(_x0, nil))]] 

By the observations in [Kop12, Sec. 6.6], this reduction pair suffices; we may thus replace a dependency pair problem (P_1, R_0) by ({}, R_0).  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 +++

[FuhKop19]  C. Fuhs, and C. Kop.  A static higher-order dependency pair framework.  In Proceedings of ESOP 2019, 2019.
[Kop12]  C. Kop.  Higher Order Termination.  PhD Thesis, 2012.
[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.