YES

The TRS could be proven terminating. The proof took 19 ms.

The following DP Processors were used


Problem 1 was processed with processor DependencyGraph (5ms).
 | – Problem 2 was processed with processor SubtermCriterion (1ms).
 | – Problem 3 was processed with processor SubtermCriterion (1ms).

Problem 1: DependencyGraph



Dependency Pair Problem

Dependency Pairs

rev#(.(x, y)) → rev#(y)++#(.(x, y), z) → ++#(y, z)
rev#(.(x, y)) → ++#(rev(y), .(x, nil))

Rewrite Rules

rev(nil) → nilrev(.(x, y)) → ++(rev(y), .(x, nil))
car(.(x, y)) → xcdr(.(x, y)) → y
null(nil) → truenull(.(x, y)) → false
++(nil, y) → y++(.(x, y), z) → .(x, ++(y, z))

Original Signature

Termination of terms over the following signature is verified: car, rev, true, false, cdr, ++, ., null, nil

Strategy


The following SCCs where found

rev#(.(x, y)) → rev#(y)

++#(.(x, y), z) → ++#(y, z)

Problem 2: SubtermCriterion



Dependency Pair Problem

Dependency Pairs

rev#(.(x, y)) → rev#(y)

Rewrite Rules

rev(nil) → nilrev(.(x, y)) → ++(rev(y), .(x, nil))
car(.(x, y)) → xcdr(.(x, y)) → y
null(nil) → truenull(.(x, y)) → false
++(nil, y) → y++(.(x, y), z) → .(x, ++(y, z))

Original Signature

Termination of terms over the following signature is verified: car, rev, true, false, cdr, ++, ., null, nil

Strategy


Projection

The following projection was used:

Thus, the following dependency pairs are removed:

rev#(.(x, y)) → rev#(y)

Problem 3: SubtermCriterion



Dependency Pair Problem

Dependency Pairs

++#(.(x, y), z) → ++#(y, z)

Rewrite Rules

rev(nil) → nilrev(.(x, y)) → ++(rev(y), .(x, nil))
car(.(x, y)) → xcdr(.(x, y)) → y
null(nil) → truenull(.(x, y)) → false
++(nil, y) → y++(.(x, y), z) → .(x, ++(y, z))

Original Signature

Termination of terms over the following signature is verified: car, rev, true, false, cdr, ++, ., null, nil

Strategy


Projection

The following projection was used:

Thus, the following dependency pairs are removed:

++#(.(x, y), z) → ++#(y, z)