We consider the system AotoYamada_05__027. Alphabet: 0 : [] --> a cons : [a * b] --> b inc : [b] --> b map : [a -> a * b] --> b nil : [] --> b plus : [a] --> a -> a s : [a] --> a Rules: plus(0) x => x plus(s(x)) y => s(plus(x) y) inc(x) => map(plus(s(0)), x) map(f, nil) => nil map(f, cons(x, y)) => cons(f x, map(f, 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: plus(0) X => X plus(s(X)) Y => s(plus(X) Y) 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) RisEmptyProof [EQUIVALENT] || (4) YES || || || ---------------------------------------- || || (0) || Obligation: || Q restricted rewrite system: || The TRS R consists of the following rules: || || plus(0, %X) -> %X || plus(s(%X), %Y) -> s(plus(%X, %Y)) || || Q is empty. || || ---------------------------------------- || || (1) QTRSRRRProof (EQUIVALENT) || Used ordering: || Polynomial interpretation [POLO]: || || POL(0) = 2 || POL(plus(x_1, x_2)) = 2 + 2*x_1 + 2*x_2 || POL(s(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: || || plus(0, %X) -> %X || plus(s(%X), %Y) -> s(plus(%X, %Y)) || || || || || ---------------------------------------- || || (2) || Obligation: || Q restricted rewrite system: || R is empty. || Q is empty. || || ---------------------------------------- || || (3) RisEmptyProof (EQUIVALENT) || The TRS R is empty. Hence, termination is trivially proven. || ---------------------------------------- || || (4) || YES || We use the dependency pair framework as described in [Kop12, Ch. 6/7], with dynamic dependency pairs. After applying [Kop12, Thm. 7.22] to denote collapsing dependency pairs in an extended form, we thus obtain the following dependency pair problem (P_0, R_0, minimal, formative): Dependency Pairs P_0: 0] inc#(X) =#> map#(plus(s(0)), X) 1] inc#(X) =#> plus#(s(0)) 2] map#(F, cons(X, Y)) =#> F(X) 3] map#(F, cons(X, Y)) =#> map#(F, Y) Rules R_0: plus(0) X => X plus(s(X)) Y => s(plus(X) Y) inc(X) => map(plus(s(0)), X) map(F, nil) => nil map(F, cons(X, Y)) => cons(F X, map(F, Y)) Thus, the original system is terminating if (P_0, R_0, minimal, formative) is finite. We consider the dependency pair problem (P_0, R_0, minimal, 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 : 2, 3 * 1 : * 2 : 0, 1, 2, 3 * 3 : 2, 3 This graph has the following strongly connected components: P_1: inc#(X) =#> map#(plus(s(0)), X) map#(F, cons(X, Y)) =#> F(X) map#(F, cons(X, Y)) =#> map#(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). Thus, the original system is terminating if (P_1, R_0, minimal, formative) is finite. We consider the dependency pair problem (P_1, R_0, minimal, formative). The formative rules of (P_1, R_0) are R_1 ::= inc(X) => map(plus(s(0)), X) map(F, cons(X, Y)) => cons(F X, map(F, Y)) By [Kop12, Thm. 7.17], we may replace the dependency pair problem (P_1, R_0, minimal, formative) by (P_1, R_1, minimal, formative). Thus, the original system is terminating if (P_1, R_1, minimal, formative) is finite. We consider the dependency pair problem (P_1, R_1, minimal, formative). We will use the reduction pair processor [Kop12, Thm. 7.16]. As the system is abstraction-simple and the formative flag is set, it suffices to find a tagged reduction pair [Kop12, Def. 6.70]. Thus, we must orient: inc#(X) >? map#(plus(s(0)), X) map#(F, cons(X, Y)) >? F(X) map#(F, cons(X, Y)) >? map#(F, Y) inc(X) >= map(plus(s(0)), X) map(F, cons(X, Y)) >= cons(F X, map(F, Y)) We apply [Kop12, Thm. 6.75] and use the following argument functions: pi( inc(X) ) = #argfun-inc#(map(plus(s(0)), X)) pi( inc#(X) ) = #argfun-inc##(map#(plus(s(0)), X)) We orient these requirements with a polynomial interpretation in the natural numbers. The following interpretation satisfies the requirements: #argfun-inc# = \y0.3 + y0 #argfun-inc## = \y0.3 + y0 0 = 0 cons = \y0y1.3 + y0 + y1 inc = \y0.0 inc# = \y0.0 map = \G0y1.1 + y1 + 3y1G0(y1) map# = \G0y1.3 + y1 + y1G0(y1) plus = \y0y1.0 s = \y0.0 Using this interpretation, the requirements translate to: [[#argfun-inc##(map#(plus(s(0)), _x0))]] = 6 + x0 > 3 + x0 = [[map#(plus(s(0)), _x0)]] [[map#(_F0, cons(_x1, _x2))]] = 6 + x1 + x2 + 3F0(3 + x1 + x2) + x1F0(3 + x1 + x2) + x2F0(3 + x1 + x2) > F0(x1) = [[_F0(_x1)]] [[map#(_F0, cons(_x1, _x2))]] = 6 + x1 + x2 + 3F0(3 + x1 + x2) + x1F0(3 + x1 + x2) + x2F0(3 + x1 + x2) > 3 + x2 + x2F0(x2) = [[map#(_F0, _x2)]] [[#argfun-inc#(map(plus(s(0)), _x0))]] = 4 + x0 >= 1 + x0 = [[map(plus(s(0)), _x0)]] [[map(_F0, cons(_x1, _x2))]] = 4 + x1 + x2 + 3x1F0(3 + x1 + x2) + 3x2F0(3 + x1 + x2) + 9F0(3 + x1 + x2) >= 4 + x2 + 3x2F0(x2) + max(x1, F0(x1)) = [[cons(_F0 _x1, map(_F0, _x2))]] By the observations in [Kop12, Sec. 6.6], this reduction pair suffices; we may thus replace a dependency pair problem (P_1, R_1) by ({}, R_1). 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.