We consider the system Applicative_first_order_05__#3.48.

  Alphabet:

    0 : [] --> b 
    1 : [] --> b 
    c : [b] --> b 
    cons : [c * d] --> d 
    f : [b] --> a 
    false : [] --> a 
    filter : [c -> a * d] --> d 
    filter2 : [a * c -> a * c * d] --> d 
    g : [b * b] --> b 
    if : [a * b * b] --> b 
    map : [c -> c * d] --> d 
    nil : [] --> d 
    s : [b] --> b 
    true : [] --> a 

  Rules:

    f(0) => true 
    f(1) => false 
    f(s(x)) => f(x) 
    if(true, s(x), s(y)) => s(x) 
    if(false, s(x), s(y)) => s(y) 
    g(x, c(y)) => c(g(x, y)) 
    g(x, c(y)) => g(x, if(f(x), c(g(s(x), y)), c(y))) 
    map(h, nil) => nil 
    map(h, cons(x, y)) => cons(h x, map(h, y)) 
    filter(h, nil) => nil 
    filter(h, cons(x, y)) => filter2(h x, h, x, y) 
    filter2(true, h, x, y) => cons(x, filter(h, y)) 
    filter2(false, h, x, y) => filter(h, 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:

  f(0) => true 
  f(1) => false 
  f(s(X)) => f(X) 
  if(true, s(X), s(Y)) => s(X) 
  if(false, s(X), s(Y)) => s(Y) 
  g(X, c(Y)) => c(g(X, Y)) 
  g(X, c(Y)) => g(X, if(f(X), c(g(s(X), Y)), c(Y))) 

Moreover, the system is finitely branching.  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 Ce-terminating when seen as a many-sorted first-order TRS.

According to nattprover, this system is indeed Ce-terminating:

 || Input TRS:
 ||     1: f(0()) -> true()
 ||     2: f(1()) -> false()
 ||     3: f(s(PeRCenTX)) -> f(PeRCenTX)
 ||     4: if(true(),s(PeRCenTX),s(PeRCenTY)) -> s(PeRCenTX)
 ||     5: if(false(),s(PeRCenTX),s(PeRCenTY)) -> s(PeRCenTY)
 ||     6: g(PeRCenTX,c(PeRCenTY)) -> c(g(PeRCenTX,PeRCenTY))
 ||     7: g(PeRCenTX,c(PeRCenTY)) -> g(PeRCenTX,if(f(PeRCenTX),c(g(s(PeRCenTX),PeRCenTY)),c(PeRCenTY)))
 ||     8: TIlDePAIR(PeRCenTX,PeRCenTY) -> PeRCenTX
 ||     9: TIlDePAIR(PeRCenTX,PeRCenTY) -> PeRCenTY
 || Number of strict rules: 9
 || Direct POLO(bPol) ... failed.
 || Uncurrying ... failed.
 || Dependency Pairs:
 ||    #1: #g(PeRCenTX,c(PeRCenTY)) -> #g(PeRCenTX,PeRCenTY)
 ||    #2: #g(PeRCenTX,c(PeRCenTY)) -> #g(PeRCenTX,if(f(PeRCenTX),c(g(s(PeRCenTX),PeRCenTY)),c(PeRCenTY)))
 ||    #3: #g(PeRCenTX,c(PeRCenTY)) -> #if(f(PeRCenTX),c(g(s(PeRCenTX),PeRCenTY)),c(PeRCenTY))
 ||    #4: #g(PeRCenTX,c(PeRCenTY)) -> #f(PeRCenTX)
 ||    #5: #g(PeRCenTX,c(PeRCenTY)) -> #g(s(PeRCenTX),PeRCenTY)
 ||    #6: #f(s(PeRCenTX)) -> #f(PeRCenTX)
 || Number of SCCs: 2, DPs: 3
 ||   SCC { #6 }
 || POLO(Sum)... succeeded.
 ||       1 	w: 0
 ||       TIlDePAIR	w: 0
 ||       s 	w: x1 + 1
 ||       false	w: 0
 ||       c 	w: 0
 ||       true	w: 0
 ||       f 	w: 0
 ||       0 	w: 0
 ||       if	w: 0
 ||       #TIlDePAIR	w: 0
 ||       #f 	w: x1
 ||       #g 	w: 0
 ||       #if	w: 0
 ||       g 	w: 0
 ||     USABLE RULES: { }
 ||     Removed DPs: #6
 || Number of SCCs: 1, DPs: 2
 ||   SCC { #1 #5 }
 || POLO(Sum)... succeeded.
 ||       1 	w: 0
 ||       TIlDePAIR	w: 0
 ||       s 	w: 1
 ||       false	w: 0
 ||       c 	w: x1 + 1
 ||       true	w: 0
 ||       f 	w: 0
 ||       0 	w: 0
 ||       if	w: 0
 ||       #TIlDePAIR	w: 0
 ||       #f 	w: 0
 ||       #g 	w: x2
 ||       #if	w: 0
 ||       g 	w: 0
 ||     USABLE RULES: { }
 ||     Removed DPs: #1 #5
 || Number of SCCs: 0, DPs: 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 [FuhKop19]).

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

  Dependency Pairs P_0:

    0] map#(F, cons(X, Y)) =#> map#(F, Y)   
    1] filter#(F, cons(X, Y)) =#> filter2#(F X, F, X, Y)   
    2] filter2#(true, F, X, Y) =#> filter#(F, Y)   
    3] filter2#(false, F, X, Y) =#> filter#(F, Y)   

  Rules R_0:

    f(0) => true 
    f(1) => false 
    f(s(X)) => f(X) 
    if(true, s(X), s(Y)) => s(X) 
    if(false, s(X), s(Y)) => s(Y) 
    g(X, c(Y)) => c(g(X, Y)) 
    g(X, c(Y)) => g(X, if(f(X), c(g(s(X), Y)), c(Y))) 
    map(F, nil) => nil 
    map(F, cons(X, Y)) => cons(F X, map(F, Y)) 
    filter(F, nil) => nil 
    filter(F, cons(X, Y)) => filter2(F X, F, X, Y) 
    filter2(true, F, X, Y) => cons(X, filter(F, Y)) 
    filter2(false, F, X, Y) => filter(F, 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 : 2, 3 
    * 2 : 1 
    * 3 : 1 

This graph has the following strongly connected components:

  P_1:

    map#(F, cons(X, Y)) =#> map#(F, Y)   

  P_2:

    filter#(F, cons(X, Y)) =#> filter2#(F X, F, X, Y)   
    filter2#(true, F, X, Y) =#> filter#(F, Y)   
    filter2#(false, F, X, Y) =#> filter#(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, computable, formative) and (P_2, R_0, computable, formative) is finite.

We consider the dependency pair problem (P_2, R_0, computable, formative).

We apply the subterm criterion with the following projection function:

  nu(filter2#) = 4 
  nu(filter#) = 2 

Thus, we can orient the dependency pairs as follows:

  nu(filter#(F, cons(X, Y))) = cons(X, Y) |> Y = nu(filter2#(F X, F, X, Y)) 
  nu(filter2#(true, F, X, Y)) = Y = Y = nu(filter#(F, Y)) 
  nu(filter2#(false, F, X, Y)) = Y = Y = nu(filter#(F, Y)) 

By [FuhKop19, Thm. 61], we may replace a dependency pair problem (P_2, R_0, computable, f) by (P_3, R_0, computable, f), where P_3 contains:

  filter2#(true, F, X, Y) =#> filter#(F, Y)   
  filter2#(false, F, X, Y) =#> filter#(F, Y)   

Thus, the original system is terminating if each of (P_1, R_0, computable, formative) and (P_3, R_0, computable, formative) is finite.

We consider the dependency pair problem (P_3, 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 :  
    * 1 :  

This graph has no strongly connected components.  By [Kop12, Thm. 7.31], this implies finiteness of the dependency pair problem.

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 apply the subterm criterion with the following projection function:

  nu(map#) = 2 

Thus, we can orient the dependency pairs as follows:

  nu(map#(F, cons(X, Y))) = cons(X, Y) |> Y = nu(map#(F, Y)) 

By [FuhKop19, Thm. 61], we may replace a dependency pair problem (P_1, R_0, computable, f) by ({}, R_0, computable, 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 +++

[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.