Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Termination of Nested and Mutually Recursive Algorithms

  • Published:
Journal of Automated Reasoning Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper deals with automated termination analysis for functional programs. Previously developed methods for automated termination proofs of functional programs often fail for algorithms with nested recursion and they cannot handle algorithms with mutual recursion.

We show that termination proofs for nested and mutually recursive algorithms can be performed without having to prove the correctness of the algorithms simultaneously. Using this result, nested and mutually recursive algorithms do no longer constitute a special problem and the existing methods for automated termination analysis can be extended to nested and mutual recursion in a straightforward way. We give some examples of algorithms whose termination can now be proved automatically (including well-known challenge problems such as McCarthy’s f_91 function).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Arts, T. and Giesl, J., ‘Termination of Constructor Systems’, in Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Rewriting Techniques and Applications, New Brunswick, NJ, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 1103, Springer-Verlag (1996).

  2. Bellegarde, F. and Lescanne, P., ‘Termination by Completion’, Applicable Algebra in Engineering, Communication and Computing 1, 79–96 (1990).

    Google Scholar 

  3. Ben Cherifa, A. and Lescanne, P., ‘Termination of Rewriting Systems by Polynomial Interpretations and its Implementation’, Science of Computer Programming 9(2), 137–59 (1987).

    Google Scholar 

  4. Bevers, E. and Lewi, J., ‘Proving Termination of (Conditional) Rewrite Systems’,Acta Informatica 30, 537–568 (1993).

    Google Scholar 

  5. Boyer, R. S. and Moore, J S., A Computational Logic, Academic Press (1979).

  6. Boyer, R. S. and Moore, J. S., ‘The Addition of Bounded Quantification and Partial Functions to A Computational Logic and Its Theorem Prover’,Journal of Automated Reasoning 4, 117–172 (1988).

    Google Scholar 

  7. 7. Bundy, A., Stevens, A., van Harmelen, F., Ireland, A., and Smaill, A., ‘Rippling: A Heuristic for Guiding Inductive Proofs’, Artificial Intelligence 62, 185–253 (1993).

    Google Scholar 

  8. Burstall, R. M., ‘Program Proving as Hand Simulation with a little Induction’, in Proc. IFIP Congress 74, Stockholm, Sweden, North-Holland (1974).

  9. Collins, G. E., ‘Quantifier Elimination for Real Closed Fields by Cylindrical Algebraic Decomposition’, in Proceedings of the Second GI Conference on Automata Theory and Formal Languages, Kaiserslautern, Germany, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 33, Springer-Verlag (1975).

  10. Dershowitz, N., ‘Orderings for Term-Rewriting Systems’, Theoretical Computer Science 17, 279–301 (1982).

    Google Scholar 

  11. Dershowitz, N., ‘Termination of Rewriting’, Journal of Symbolic Computation 3(1, 2), 69–115 (1987).

    Google Scholar 

  12. Feferman, S., ‘Proofs of Termination and the "91" Function’, in Artificial Intelligence and Mathematical Theory of Computation: Papers in Honor of John McCarthy(ed. V. Lifschitz), Academic Press (1991).

  13. Giesl, J., ‘Generating Polynomial Orderings for Termination Proofs’, in Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Rewriting Techniques and Applications, Kaiserslautern, Germany, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 914, Springer-Verlag (1995).

  14. Giesl, J., ‘Automated Termination Proofs with Measure Functions’, in Proceedings of the 19th Annual German Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Bielefeld, Germany, Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence 981, Springer-Verlag (1995).

  15. Giesl, J., ‘Termination Analysis for Functional Programs using Term Orderings’, in Proceedings of the Second International Static Analysis Symposium, Glasgow, Scotland, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 983, Springer-Verlag (1995).

  16. Huet, G. and Hullot, J.-M., ‘Proofs by Induction in Equational Theories with Constructors’, Journal of Computer and System Sciences 25, 239–299 (1982).

    Google Scholar 

  17. Kamin, S. and Levy, J.-J., ‘Two Generalizations of the Recursive Path Ordering’, Unpublished Note, Department of Computer Science, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL (1980).

  18. Katz, S. and Manna, Z., ‘A Closer Look at Termination’, Acta Informatica 5, 333–352 (1975).

    Google Scholar 

  19. Knuth, D. E., ‘Textbook Examples of Recursion’, in Artificial Intelligence and Mathematical Theory of Computation: Papers in Honor of John McCarthy(ed. V. Lifschitz), Academic Press (1991).

  20. Lankford, D. S., ‘On Proving Term Rewriting Systems are Noetherian’, Technical Report Memo MTP-3, Mathematics Department, Louisiana Technical University (1979).

  21. Manoury, P. and Simonot, M., ‘Automatizing Termination Proofs of Recursively Defined Functions’, Theoretical Computer Science 135, 319–343 (1994).

    Google Scholar 

  22. Manna, Z. and McCarthy, J., ‘Properties of Programs and Partial Function Logic’, Machine Intelligence 5, 27–37 (1970).

    Google Scholar 

  23. Moore, J, ‘A Mechanical Proof of the Termination of Takeuchi’s Function’, Information Processing Letters 9(4), 176–181 (1979).

    Google Scholar 

  24. Nielson, F. and Nielson, H. R., ‘Termination Analysis based on Operational Semantics’, Technical Report, Aarhus University, Denmark (1995).

    Google Scholar 

  25. Paulson, L. C., ‘Proving Termination of Normalization Functions for Conditional Expressions’, Journal of Automated Reasoning 2(1), 63–74 (1986).

    Google Scholar 

  26. Plümer, L., Termination Proofs for Logic Programs, Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence 446, Springer–Verlag (1990).

  27. De Schreye, D. and Decorte, S., ‘Termination of Logic Programs: The Never-Ending Story’, Journal of Logic Programming 19, 20, 199–260 (1994).

    Google Scholar 

  28. Steinbach, J., Termination of Rewriting — Extensions, Comparison and Automatic Generation of Simplification Orderings, Doctoral Dissertation, Universität Kaiserslautern, Germany (1994).

  29. Steinbach, J., ‘Automatic Termination Proofs with Transformation Orderings’, in Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Rewriting Techniques and Applications, Kaiserslautern, Germany, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 914, Springer-Verlag (1995).

  30. Ullman, J. D. and van Gelder, A., ‘Efficient Tests for Top-Down Termination of Logical Rules’, Journal of the ACM 35(2), 345–373 (1988).

    Google Scholar 

  31. Walther, C., ‘Argument-Bounded Algorithms as as Basis for Automated Termination Proofs’, in Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Automated Deduction, Argonne, IL, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 310, Springer-Verlag (1988).

  32. Walther, C., ‘Mathematical Induction’, in Handbook of Logic in Artificial Intelligence and Logic Programming, Vol.2(eds. D. M. Gabbay, C. J. Hogger, and J. A. Robinson), Oxford University Press (1994).

  33. Walther, C., ‘On Proving the Termination of Algorithms by Machine’, Artificial Intelligence 71(1), 101–157 (1994).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. FB Informatik, TH Darmstadt, Alexanderstr. 10, 64283, Darmstadt, Germany

    Jürgen Giesl

Authors
  1. Jürgen Giesl
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Giesl, J. Termination of Nested and Mutually Recursive Algorithms. Journal of Automated Reasoning 19, 1–29 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005797629953

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005797629953

Search

Navigation