YES
The TRS could be proven terminating. The proof took 20 ms.
The following DP Processors were used
Problem 1 was processed with processor DependencyGraph (5ms).
| – Problem 2 was processed with processor SubtermCriterion (1ms).
Problem 1: DependencyGraph
Dependency Pair Problem
Dependency Pairs
| after#(s(N), cons(X, XS)) | → | after#(N, activate(XS)) | | after#(s(N), cons(X, XS)) | → | activate#(XS) |
| activate#(n__from(X)) | → | from#(X) |
Rewrite Rules
| from(X) | → | cons(X, n__from(s(X))) | | after(0, XS) | → | XS |
| after(s(N), cons(X, XS)) | → | after(N, activate(XS)) | | from(X) | → | n__from(X) |
| activate(n__from(X)) | → | from(X) | | activate(X) | → | X |
Original Signature
Termination of terms over the following signature is verified: after, activate, 0, s, n__from, from, cons
Strategy
The following SCCs where found
| after#(s(N), cons(X, XS)) → after#(N, activate(XS)) |
Problem 2: SubtermCriterion
Dependency Pair Problem
Dependency Pairs
| after#(s(N), cons(X, XS)) | → | after#(N, activate(XS)) |
Rewrite Rules
| from(X) | → | cons(X, n__from(s(X))) | | after(0, XS) | → | XS |
| after(s(N), cons(X, XS)) | → | after(N, activate(XS)) | | from(X) | → | n__from(X) |
| activate(n__from(X)) | → | from(X) | | activate(X) | → | X |
Original Signature
Termination of terms over the following signature is verified: after, activate, 0, s, n__from, from, cons
Strategy
Projection
The following projection was used:
Thus, the following dependency pairs are removed:
| after#(s(N), cons(X, XS)) | → | after#(N, activate(XS)) |