Termination w.r.t. Q proof of /tmp/tmpkkjK6X/gcd.trs

Termination w.r.t. Q of the following Term Rewriting System could be proven:

Q restricted rewrite system:
The TRS R consists of the following rules:

minus(s(x), y) → if(gt(s(x), y), x, y)
if(true, x, y) → s(minus(x, y))
if(false, x, y) → 0
gcd(x, y) → if1(ge(x, y), x, y)
if1(true, x, y) → if2(gt(y, 0), x, y)
if1(false, x, y) → gcd(y, x)
if2(true, x, y) → gcd(minus(x, y), y)
if2(false, x, y) → x
gt(0, y) → false
gt(s(x), 0) → true
gt(s(x), s(y)) → gt(x, y)
ge(x, 0) → true
ge(0, s(x)) → false
ge(s(x), s(y)) → ge(x, y)

Q is empty.

↳ QTRS

  ↳ Overlay + Local Confluence

Q restricted rewrite system:
The TRS R consists of the following rules:

minus(s(x), y) → if(gt(s(x), y), x, y)
if(true, x, y) → s(minus(x, y))
if(false, x, y) → 0
gcd(x, y) → if1(ge(x, y), x, y)
if1(true, x, y) → if2(gt(y, 0), x, y)
if1(false, x, y) → gcd(y, x)
if2(true, x, y) → gcd(minus(x, y), y)
if2(false, x, y) → x
gt(0, y) → false
gt(s(x), 0) → true
gt(s(x), s(y)) → gt(x, y)
ge(x, 0) → true
ge(0, s(x)) → false
ge(s(x), s(y)) → ge(x, y)

Q is empty.

The TRS is overlay and locally confluent. By [NOC] we can switch to innermost.

↳ QTRS

  ↳ Overlay + Local Confluence

    ↳ QTRS

      ↳ DependencyPairsProof

Q restricted rewrite system:
The TRS R consists of the following rules:

minus(s(x), y) → if(gt(s(x), y), x, y)
if(true, x, y) → s(minus(x, y))
if(false, x, y) → 0
gcd(x, y) → if1(ge(x, y), x, y)
if1(true, x, y) → if2(gt(y, 0), x, y)
if1(false, x, y) → gcd(y, x)
if2(true, x, y) → gcd(minus(x, y), y)
if2(false, x, y) → x
gt(0, y) → false
gt(s(x), 0) → true
gt(s(x), s(y)) → gt(x, y)
ge(x, 0) → true
ge(0, s(x)) → false
ge(s(x), s(y)) → ge(x, y)

The set Q consists of the following terms:

minus(s(x0), x1)
if(true, x0, x1)
if(false, x0, x1)
gcd(x0, x1)
if1(true, x0, x1)
if1(false, x0, x1)
if2(true, x0, x1)
if2(false, x0, x1)
gt(0, x0)
gt(s(x0), 0)
gt(s(x0), s(x1))
ge(x0, 0)
ge(0, s(x0))
ge(s(x0), s(x1))

Using Dependency Pairs [AG00,LPAR04] we result in the following initial DP problem:
Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:

MINUS(s(x), y) → IF(gt(s(x), y), x, y)
MINUS(s(x), y) → GT(s(x), y)
IF(true, x, y) → MINUS(x, y)
GCD(x, y) → IF1(ge(x, y), x, y)
GCD(x, y) → GE(x, y)
IF1(true, x, y) → IF2(gt(y, 0), x, y)
IF1(true, x, y) → GT(y, 0)
IF1(false, x, y) → GCD(y, x)
IF2(true, x, y) → GCD(minus(x, y), y)
IF2(true, x, y) → MINUS(x, y)
GT(s(x), s(y)) → GT(x, y)
GE(s(x), s(y)) → GE(x, y)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

minus(s(x), y) → if(gt(s(x), y), x, y)
if(true, x, y) → s(minus(x, y))
if(false, x, y) → 0
gcd(x, y) → if1(ge(x, y), x, y)
if1(true, x, y) → if2(gt(y, 0), x, y)
if1(false, x, y) → gcd(y, x)
if2(true, x, y) → gcd(minus(x, y), y)
if2(false, x, y) → x
gt(0, y) → false
gt(s(x), 0) → true
gt(s(x), s(y)) → gt(x, y)
ge(x, 0) → true
ge(0, s(x)) → false
ge(s(x), s(y)) → ge(x, y)

The set Q consists of the following terms:

minus(s(x0), x1)
if(true, x0, x1)
if(false, x0, x1)
gcd(x0, x1)
if1(true, x0, x1)
if1(false, x0, x1)
if2(true, x0, x1)
if2(false, x0, x1)
gt(0, x0)
gt(s(x0), 0)
gt(s(x0), s(x1))
ge(x0, 0)
ge(0, s(x0))
ge(s(x0), s(x1))

We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.

↳ QTRS

  ↳ Overlay + Local Confluence

    ↳ QTRS

      ↳ DependencyPairsProof

        ↳ QDP

          ↳ DependencyGraphProof

Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:

MINUS(s(x), y) → IF(gt(s(x), y), x, y)
MINUS(s(x), y) → GT(s(x), y)
IF(true, x, y) → MINUS(x, y)
GCD(x, y) → IF1(ge(x, y), x, y)
GCD(x, y) → GE(x, y)
IF1(true, x, y) → IF2(gt(y, 0), x, y)
IF1(true, x, y) → GT(y, 0)
IF1(false, x, y) → GCD(y, x)
IF2(true, x, y) → GCD(minus(x, y), y)
IF2(true, x, y) → MINUS(x, y)
GT(s(x), s(y)) → GT(x, y)
GE(s(x), s(y)) → GE(x, y)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

minus(s(x), y) → if(gt(s(x), y), x, y)
if(true, x, y) → s(minus(x, y))
if(false, x, y) → 0
gcd(x, y) → if1(ge(x, y), x, y)
if1(true, x, y) → if2(gt(y, 0), x, y)
if1(false, x, y) → gcd(y, x)
if2(true, x, y) → gcd(minus(x, y), y)
if2(false, x, y) → x
gt(0, y) → false
gt(s(x), 0) → true
gt(s(x), s(y)) → gt(x, y)
ge(x, 0) → true
ge(0, s(x)) → false
ge(s(x), s(y)) → ge(x, y)

The set Q consists of the following terms:

minus(s(x0), x1)
if(true, x0, x1)
if(false, x0, x1)
gcd(x0, x1)
if1(true, x0, x1)
if1(false, x0, x1)
if2(true, x0, x1)
if2(false, x0, x1)
gt(0, x0)
gt(s(x0), 0)
gt(s(x0), s(x1))
ge(x0, 0)
ge(0, s(x0))
ge(s(x0), s(x1))

We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
The approximation of the Dependency Graph [LPAR04,FROCOS05,EDGSTAR] contains 4 SCCs with 4 less nodes.

↳ QTRS

  ↳ Overlay + Local Confluence

    ↳ QTRS

      ↳ DependencyPairsProof

        ↳ QDP

          ↳ DependencyGraphProof

            ↳ AND

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ UsableRulesProof

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:

GE(s(x), s(y)) → GE(x, y)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

minus(s(x), y) → if(gt(s(x), y), x, y)
if(true, x, y) → s(minus(x, y))
if(false, x, y) → 0
gcd(x, y) → if1(ge(x, y), x, y)
if1(true, x, y) → if2(gt(y, 0), x, y)
if1(false, x, y) → gcd(y, x)
if2(true, x, y) → gcd(minus(x, y), y)
if2(false, x, y) → x
gt(0, y) → false
gt(s(x), 0) → true
gt(s(x), s(y)) → gt(x, y)
ge(x, 0) → true
ge(0, s(x)) → false
ge(s(x), s(y)) → ge(x, y)

The set Q consists of the following terms:

minus(s(x0), x1)
if(true, x0, x1)
if(false, x0, x1)
gcd(x0, x1)
if1(true, x0, x1)
if1(false, x0, x1)
if2(true, x0, x1)
if2(false, x0, x1)
gt(0, x0)
gt(s(x0), 0)
gt(s(x0), s(x1))
ge(x0, 0)
ge(0, s(x0))
ge(s(x0), s(x1))

We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
As all Q-normal forms are R-normal forms we are in the innermost case. Hence, by the usable rules processor [LPAR04] we can delete all non-usable rules [FROCOS05] from R.

↳ QTRS

  ↳ Overlay + Local Confluence

    ↳ QTRS

      ↳ DependencyPairsProof

        ↳ QDP

          ↳ DependencyGraphProof

            ↳ AND

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ UsableRulesProof

                  ↳ QDP

                    ↳ QReductionProof

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:

GE(s(x), s(y)) → GE(x, y)

R is empty.
The set Q consists of the following terms:

minus(s(x0), x1)
if(true, x0, x1)
if(false, x0, x1)
gcd(x0, x1)
if1(true, x0, x1)
if1(false, x0, x1)
if2(true, x0, x1)
if2(false, x0, x1)
gt(0, x0)
gt(s(x0), 0)
gt(s(x0), s(x1))
ge(x0, 0)
ge(0, s(x0))
ge(s(x0), s(x1))

We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
We deleted the following terms from Q as each root-symbol of these terms does neither occur in P nor in R.[THIEMANN].

minus(s(x0), x1)
if(true, x0, x1)
if(false, x0, x1)
gcd(x0, x1)
if1(true, x0, x1)
if1(false, x0, x1)
if2(true, x0, x1)
if2(false, x0, x1)
gt(0, x0)
gt(s(x0), 0)
gt(s(x0), s(x1))
ge(x0, 0)
ge(0, s(x0))
ge(s(x0), s(x1))

↳ QTRS

  ↳ Overlay + Local Confluence

    ↳ QTRS

      ↳ DependencyPairsProof

        ↳ QDP

          ↳ DependencyGraphProof

            ↳ AND

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ UsableRulesProof

                  ↳ QDP

                    ↳ QReductionProof

                      ↳ QDP

                        ↳ QDPSizeChangeProof

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:

GE(s(x), s(y)) → GE(x, y)

R is empty.
Q is empty.
We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
By using the subterm criterion [SUBTERM_CRITERION] together with the size-change analysis [AAECC05] we have proven that there are no infinite chains for this DP problem.

From the DPs we obtained the following set of size-change graphs:

GE(s(x), s(y)) → GE(x, y)
The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1, 2 > 2

↳ QTRS

  ↳ Overlay + Local Confluence

    ↳ QTRS

      ↳ DependencyPairsProof

        ↳ QDP

          ↳ DependencyGraphProof

            ↳ AND

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ UsableRulesProof

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:

GT(s(x), s(y)) → GT(x, y)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

minus(s(x), y) → if(gt(s(x), y), x, y)
if(true, x, y) → s(minus(x, y))
if(false, x, y) → 0
gcd(x, y) → if1(ge(x, y), x, y)
if1(true, x, y) → if2(gt(y, 0), x, y)
if1(false, x, y) → gcd(y, x)
if2(true, x, y) → gcd(minus(x, y), y)
if2(false, x, y) → x
gt(0, y) → false
gt(s(x), 0) → true
gt(s(x), s(y)) → gt(x, y)
ge(x, 0) → true
ge(0, s(x)) → false
ge(s(x), s(y)) → ge(x, y)

The set Q consists of the following terms:

minus(s(x0), x1)
if(true, x0, x1)
if(false, x0, x1)
gcd(x0, x1)
if1(true, x0, x1)
if1(false, x0, x1)
if2(true, x0, x1)
if2(false, x0, x1)
gt(0, x0)
gt(s(x0), 0)
gt(s(x0), s(x1))
ge(x0, 0)
ge(0, s(x0))
ge(s(x0), s(x1))

↳ QTRS

  ↳ Overlay + Local Confluence

    ↳ QTRS

      ↳ DependencyPairsProof

        ↳ QDP

          ↳ DependencyGraphProof

            ↳ AND

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ UsableRulesProof

                  ↳ QDP

                    ↳ QReductionProof

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:

GT(s(x), s(y)) → GT(x, y)

R is empty.
The set Q consists of the following terms:

minus(s(x0), x1)
if(true, x0, x1)
if(false, x0, x1)
gcd(x0, x1)
if1(true, x0, x1)
if1(false, x0, x1)
if2(true, x0, x1)
if2(false, x0, x1)
gt(0, x0)
gt(s(x0), 0)
gt(s(x0), s(x1))
ge(x0, 0)
ge(0, s(x0))
ge(s(x0), s(x1))

We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
We deleted the following terms from Q as each root-symbol of these terms does neither occur in P nor in R.[THIEMANN].

minus(s(x0), x1)
if(true, x0, x1)
if(false, x0, x1)
gcd(x0, x1)
if1(true, x0, x1)
if1(false, x0, x1)
if2(true, x0, x1)
if2(false, x0, x1)
gt(0, x0)
gt(s(x0), 0)
gt(s(x0), s(x1))
ge(x0, 0)
ge(0, s(x0))
ge(s(x0), s(x1))

↳ QTRS

  ↳ Overlay + Local Confluence

    ↳ QTRS

      ↳ DependencyPairsProof

        ↳ QDP

          ↳ DependencyGraphProof

            ↳ AND

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ UsableRulesProof

                  ↳ QDP

                    ↳ QReductionProof

                      ↳ QDP

                        ↳ QDPSizeChangeProof

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:

GT(s(x), s(y)) → GT(x, y)

From the DPs we obtained the following set of size-change graphs:

GT(s(x), s(y)) → GT(x, y)
The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1, 2 > 2

↳ QTRS

  ↳ Overlay + Local Confluence

    ↳ QTRS

      ↳ DependencyPairsProof

        ↳ QDP

          ↳ DependencyGraphProof

            ↳ AND

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ UsableRulesProof

              ↳ QDP

Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:

IF(true, x, y) → MINUS(x, y)
MINUS(s(x), y) → IF(gt(s(x), y), x, y)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

minus(s(x), y) → if(gt(s(x), y), x, y)
if(true, x, y) → s(minus(x, y))
if(false, x, y) → 0
gcd(x, y) → if1(ge(x, y), x, y)
if1(true, x, y) → if2(gt(y, 0), x, y)
if1(false, x, y) → gcd(y, x)
if2(true, x, y) → gcd(minus(x, y), y)
if2(false, x, y) → x
gt(0, y) → false
gt(s(x), 0) → true
gt(s(x), s(y)) → gt(x, y)
ge(x, 0) → true
ge(0, s(x)) → false
ge(s(x), s(y)) → ge(x, y)

The set Q consists of the following terms:

minus(s(x0), x1)
if(true, x0, x1)
if(false, x0, x1)
gcd(x0, x1)
if1(true, x0, x1)
if1(false, x0, x1)
if2(true, x0, x1)
if2(false, x0, x1)
gt(0, x0)
gt(s(x0), 0)
gt(s(x0), s(x1))
ge(x0, 0)
ge(0, s(x0))
ge(s(x0), s(x1))

↳ QTRS

  ↳ Overlay + Local Confluence

    ↳ QTRS

      ↳ DependencyPairsProof

        ↳ QDP

          ↳ DependencyGraphProof

            ↳ AND

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ UsableRulesProof

                  ↳ QDP

                    ↳ QReductionProof

              ↳ QDP

Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:

IF(true, x, y) → MINUS(x, y)
MINUS(s(x), y) → IF(gt(s(x), y), x, y)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

gt(s(x), 0) → true
gt(s(x), s(y)) → gt(x, y)
gt(0, y) → false

The set Q consists of the following terms:

minus(s(x0), x1)
if(true, x0, x1)
if(false, x0, x1)
gcd(x0, x1)
if1(true, x0, x1)
if1(false, x0, x1)
if2(true, x0, x1)
if2(false, x0, x1)
gt(0, x0)
gt(s(x0), 0)
gt(s(x0), s(x1))
ge(x0, 0)
ge(0, s(x0))
ge(s(x0), s(x1))

We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
We deleted the following terms from Q as each root-symbol of these terms does neither occur in P nor in R.[THIEMANN].

minus(s(x0), x1)
if(true, x0, x1)
if(false, x0, x1)
gcd(x0, x1)
if1(true, x0, x1)
if1(false, x0, x1)
if2(true, x0, x1)
if2(false, x0, x1)
ge(x0, 0)
ge(0, s(x0))
ge(s(x0), s(x1))

↳ QTRS

  ↳ Overlay + Local Confluence

    ↳ QTRS

      ↳ DependencyPairsProof

        ↳ QDP

          ↳ DependencyGraphProof

            ↳ AND

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ UsableRulesProof

                  ↳ QDP

                    ↳ QReductionProof

                      ↳ QDP

                        ↳ QDPSizeChangeProof

              ↳ QDP

Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:

IF(true, x, y) → MINUS(x, y)
MINUS(s(x), y) → IF(gt(s(x), y), x, y)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

gt(s(x), 0) → true
gt(s(x), s(y)) → gt(x, y)
gt(0, y) → false

The set Q consists of the following terms:

gt(0, x0)
gt(s(x0), 0)
gt(s(x0), s(x1))

We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
By using the subterm criterion [SUBTERM_CRITERION] together with the size-change analysis [AAECC05] we have proven that there are no infinite chains for this DP problem.

From the DPs we obtained the following set of size-change graphs:

MINUS(s(x), y) → IF(gt(s(x), y), x, y)
The graph contains the following edges 1 > 2, 2 >= 3
IF(true, x, y) → MINUS(x, y)
The graph contains the following edges 2 >= 1, 3 >= 2

↳ QTRS

  ↳ Overlay + Local Confluence

    ↳ QTRS

      ↳ DependencyPairsProof

        ↳ QDP

          ↳ DependencyGraphProof

            ↳ AND

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ UsableRulesProof

Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:

IF2(true, x, y) → GCD(minus(x, y), y)
GCD(x, y) → IF1(ge(x, y), x, y)
IF1(true, x, y) → IF2(gt(y, 0), x, y)
IF1(false, x, y) → GCD(y, x)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

minus(s(x), y) → if(gt(s(x), y), x, y)
if(true, x, y) → s(minus(x, y))
if(false, x, y) → 0
gcd(x, y) → if1(ge(x, y), x, y)
if1(true, x, y) → if2(gt(y, 0), x, y)
if1(false, x, y) → gcd(y, x)
if2(true, x, y) → gcd(minus(x, y), y)
if2(false, x, y) → x
gt(0, y) → false
gt(s(x), 0) → true
gt(s(x), s(y)) → gt(x, y)
ge(x, 0) → true
ge(0, s(x)) → false
ge(s(x), s(y)) → ge(x, y)

The set Q consists of the following terms:

minus(s(x0), x1)
if(true, x0, x1)
if(false, x0, x1)
gcd(x0, x1)
if1(true, x0, x1)
if1(false, x0, x1)
if2(true, x0, x1)
if2(false, x0, x1)
gt(0, x0)
gt(s(x0), 0)
gt(s(x0), s(x1))
ge(x0, 0)
ge(0, s(x0))
ge(s(x0), s(x1))

↳ QTRS

  ↳ Overlay + Local Confluence

    ↳ QTRS

      ↳ DependencyPairsProof

        ↳ QDP

          ↳ DependencyGraphProof

            ↳ AND

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ UsableRulesProof

                  ↳ QDP

                    ↳ QReductionProof

Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:

IF2(true, x, y) → GCD(minus(x, y), y)
GCD(x, y) → IF1(ge(x, y), x, y)
IF1(true, x, y) → IF2(gt(y, 0), x, y)
IF1(false, x, y) → GCD(y, x)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

minus(s(x), y) → if(gt(s(x), y), x, y)
gt(s(x), 0) → true
gt(s(x), s(y)) → gt(x, y)
if(true, x, y) → s(minus(x, y))
if(false, x, y) → 0
gt(0, y) → false
ge(x, 0) → true
ge(0, s(x)) → false
ge(s(x), s(y)) → ge(x, y)

The set Q consists of the following terms:

minus(s(x0), x1)
if(true, x0, x1)
if(false, x0, x1)
gcd(x0, x1)
if1(true, x0, x1)
if1(false, x0, x1)
if2(true, x0, x1)
if2(false, x0, x1)
gt(0, x0)
gt(s(x0), 0)
gt(s(x0), s(x1))
ge(x0, 0)
ge(0, s(x0))
ge(s(x0), s(x1))

We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
We deleted the following terms from Q as each root-symbol of these terms does neither occur in P nor in R.[THIEMANN].

gcd(x0, x1)
if1(true, x0, x1)
if1(false, x0, x1)
if2(true, x0, x1)
if2(false, x0, x1)

↳ QTRS

  ↳ Overlay + Local Confluence

    ↳ QTRS

      ↳ DependencyPairsProof

        ↳ QDP

          ↳ DependencyGraphProof

            ↳ AND

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ UsableRulesProof

                  ↳ QDP

                    ↳ QReductionProof

                      ↳ QDP

                        ↳ NonInfProof

Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:

IF2(true, x, y) → GCD(minus(x, y), y)
GCD(x, y) → IF1(ge(x, y), x, y)
IF1(true, x, y) → IF2(gt(y, 0), x, y)
IF1(false, x, y) → GCD(y, x)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

minus(s(x), y) → if(gt(s(x), y), x, y)
gt(s(x), 0) → true
gt(s(x), s(y)) → gt(x, y)
if(true, x, y) → s(minus(x, y))
if(false, x, y) → 0
gt(0, y) → false
ge(x, 0) → true
ge(0, s(x)) → false
ge(s(x), s(y)) → ge(x, y)

The set Q consists of the following terms:

minus(s(x0), x1)
if(true, x0, x1)
if(false, x0, x1)
gt(0, x0)
gt(s(x0), 0)
gt(s(x0), s(x1))
ge(x0, 0)
ge(0, s(x0))
ge(s(x0), s(x1))

We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
The DP Problem is simplified using the Induction Calculus [NONINF] with the following steps:
Note that final constraints are written in bold face.

For Pair IF2(true, x, y) → GCD(minus(x, y), y) the following chains were created:

We consider the chain IF1(true, x, y) → IF2(gt(y, 0), x, y), IF2(true, x, y) → GCD(minus(x, y), y) which results in the following constraint:
(1)    (IF2(gt(x51, 0), x41, x51)=IF2(true, x61, x71) ⇒ IF2(true, x61, x71)≥GCD(minus(x61, x71), x71))

We simplified constraint (1) using rules (I), (II), (III), (VII) which results in the following new constraint:
(2)    (0=x421∧gt(x51, x421)=true ⇒ IF2(true, x41, x51)≥GCD(minus(x41, x51), x51))

We simplified constraint (2) using rule (V) (with possible (I) afterwards) using induction on gt(x51, x421)=true which results in the following new constraints:
(3)    (true=true∧0=0 ⇒ IF2(true, x41, s(x431))≥GCD(minus(x41, s(x431)), s(x431)))

(4)    (gt(x451, x441)=true∧0=s(x441)∧(∀x461:gt(x451, x441)=true∧0=x441 ⇒ IF2(true, x461, x451)≥GCD(minus(x461, x451), x451)) ⇒ IF2(true, x41, s(x451))≥GCD(minus(x41, s(x451)), s(x451)))

We simplified constraint (3) using rules (I), (II) which results in the following new constraint:
(5)    (IF2(true, x41, s(x431))≥GCD(minus(x41, s(x431)), s(x431)))

We solved constraint (4) using rules (I), (II).

For Pair GCD(x, y) → IF1(ge(x, y), x, y) the following chains were created:

We consider the chain IF2(true, x, y) → GCD(minus(x, y), y), GCD(x, y) → IF1(ge(x, y), x, y) which results in the following constraint:
(6) (GCD(minus(x101, x111), x111)=GCD(x121, x131) ⇒ GCD(x121, x131)≥IF1(ge(x121, x131), x121, x131))

We simplified constraint (6) using rules (I), (II), (III), (IV) which results in the following new constraint:
(7) (GCD(x121, x111)≥IF1(ge(x121, x111), x121, x111))
We consider the chain IF1(false, x, y) → GCD(y, x), GCD(x, y) → IF1(ge(x, y), x, y) which results in the following constraint:
(8) (GCD(x191, x181)=GCD(x201, x211) ⇒ GCD(x201, x211)≥IF1(ge(x201, x211), x201, x211))

We simplified constraint (8) using rules (I), (II), (III) which results in the following new constraint:
(9) (GCD(x191, x181)≥IF1(ge(x191, x181), x191, x181))

For Pair IF1(true, x, y) → IF2(gt(y, 0), x, y) the following chains were created:

We consider the chain GCD(x, y) → IF1(ge(x, y), x, y), IF1(true, x, y) → IF2(gt(y, 0), x, y) which results in the following constraint:
(10)    (IF1(ge(x241, x251), x241, x251)=IF1(true, x261, x271) ⇒ IF1(true, x261, x271)≥IF2(gt(x271, 0), x261, x271))

We simplified constraint (10) using rules (I), (II), (III) which results in the following new constraint:
(11)    (ge(x241, x251)=true ⇒ IF1(true, x241, x251)≥IF2(gt(x251, 0), x241, x251))

We simplified constraint (11) using rule (V) (with possible (I) afterwards) using induction on ge(x241, x251)=true which results in the following new constraints:
(12)    (true=true ⇒ IF1(true, x481, 0)≥IF2(gt(0, 0), x481, 0))

(13)    (ge(x511, x501)=true∧(ge(x511, x501)=true ⇒ IF1(true, x511, x501)≥IF2(gt(x501, 0), x511, x501)) ⇒ IF1(true, s(x511), s(x501))≥IF2(gt(s(x501), 0), s(x511), s(x501)))

We simplified constraint (12) using rules (I), (II) which results in the following new constraint:
(14)    (IF1(true, x481, 0)≥IF2(gt(0, 0), x481, 0))

We simplified constraint (13) using rule (VI) where we applied the induction hypothesis (ge(x511, x501)=true ⇒ IF1(true, x511, x501)≥IF2(gt(x501, 0), x511, x501)) with σ = [ ] which results in the following new constraint:
(15)    (IF1(true, x511, x501)≥IF2(gt(x501, 0), x511, x501) ⇒ IF1(true, s(x511), s(x501))≥IF2(gt(s(x501), 0), s(x511), s(x501)))

For Pair IF1(false, x, y) → GCD(y, x) the following chains were created:

We consider the chain GCD(x, y) → IF1(ge(x, y), x, y), IF1(false, x, y) → GCD(y, x) which results in the following constraint:
(16)    (IF1(ge(x341, x351), x341, x351)=IF1(false, x361, x371) ⇒ IF1(false, x361, x371)≥GCD(x371, x361))

We simplified constraint (16) using rules (I), (II), (III) which results in the following new constraint:
(17)    (ge(x341, x351)=false ⇒ IF1(false, x341, x351)≥GCD(x351, x341))

We simplified constraint (17) using rule (V) (with possible (I) afterwards) using induction on ge(x341, x351)=false which results in the following new constraints:
(18)    (false=false ⇒ IF1(false, 0, s(x531))≥GCD(s(x531), 0))

(19)    (ge(x551, x541)=false∧(ge(x551, x541)=false ⇒ IF1(false, x551, x541)≥GCD(x541, x551)) ⇒ IF1(false, s(x551), s(x541))≥GCD(s(x541), s(x551)))

We simplified constraint (18) using rules (I), (II) which results in the following new constraint:
(20)    (IF1(false, 0, s(x531))≥GCD(s(x531), 0))

We simplified constraint (19) using rule (VI) where we applied the induction hypothesis (ge(x551, x541)=false ⇒ IF1(false, x551, x541)≥GCD(x541, x551)) with σ = [ ] which results in the following new constraint:
(21)    (IF1(false, x551, x541)≥GCD(x541, x551) ⇒ IF1(false, s(x551), s(x541))≥GCD(s(x541), s(x551)))

To summarize, we get the following constraints P_≥ for the following pairs.

IF2(true, x, y) → GCD(minus(x, y), y)
- (IF2(true, x41, s(x431))≥GCD(minus(x41, s(x431)), s(x431)))
GCD(x, y) → IF1(ge(x, y), x, y)
- (GCD(x121, x111)≥IF1(ge(x121, x111), x121, x111))
- (GCD(x191, x181)≥IF1(ge(x191, x181), x191, x181))
IF1(true, x, y) → IF2(gt(y, 0), x, y)
- (IF1(true, x481, 0)≥IF2(gt(0, 0), x481, 0))
- (IF1(true, x511, x501)≥IF2(gt(x501, 0), x511, x501) ⇒ IF1(true, s(x511), s(x501))≥IF2(gt(s(x501), 0), s(x511), s(x501)))
IF1(false, x, y) → GCD(y, x)
- (IF1(false, 0, s(x531))≥GCD(s(x531), 0))
- (IF1(false, x551, x541)≥GCD(x541, x551) ⇒ IF1(false, s(x551), s(x541))≥GCD(s(x541), s(x551)))

The constraints for P_> respective P_bound are constructed from P_≥ where we just replace every occurence of "t ≥ s" in P_≥ by "t > s" respective "t ≥ c". Here c stands for the fresh constant used for P_bound.
Using the following integer polynomial ordering the resulting constraints can be solved
Polynomial interpretation [NONINF]:

POL(0) = 0
POL(GCD(x₁, x₂)) = -1 + x₂
POL(IF1(x₁, x₂, x₃)) = -1 - x₁ + x₃
POL(IF2(x₁, x₂, x₃)) = -1 - x₁ + x₃
POL(c) = -1
POL(false) = 0
POL(ge(x₁, x₂)) = 0
POL(gt(x₁, x₂)) = 0
POL(if(x₁, x₂, x₃)) = 0
POL(minus(x₁, x₂)) = 0
POL(s(x₁)) = 1 + x₁
POL(true) = 0

The following pairs are in P_>:

IF1(false, x, y) → GCD(y, x)

The following pairs are in P_bound:

IF2(true, x, y) → GCD(minus(x, y), y)
GCD(x, y) → IF1(ge(x, y), x, y)
IF1(true, x, y) → IF2(gt(y, 0), x, y)
IF1(false, x, y) → GCD(y, x)

The following rules are usable:

false → gt(0, y)
true → ge(x, 0)
false → ge(0, s(x))
ge(x, y) → ge(s(x), s(y))
true → gt(s(x), 0)

↳ QTRS

  ↳ Overlay + Local Confluence

    ↳ QTRS

      ↳ DependencyPairsProof

        ↳ QDP

          ↳ DependencyGraphProof

            ↳ AND

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ UsableRulesProof

                  ↳ QDP

                    ↳ QReductionProof

                      ↳ QDP

                        ↳ NonInfProof

                          ↳ QDP

                            ↳ Narrowing

Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:

IF2(true, x, y) → GCD(minus(x, y), y)
GCD(x, y) → IF1(ge(x, y), x, y)
IF1(true, x, y) → IF2(gt(y, 0), x, y)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

minus(s(x), y) → if(gt(s(x), y), x, y)
gt(s(x), 0) → true
gt(s(x), s(y)) → gt(x, y)
if(true, x, y) → s(minus(x, y))
if(false, x, y) → 0
gt(0, y) → false
ge(x, 0) → true
ge(0, s(x)) → false
ge(s(x), s(y)) → ge(x, y)

The set Q consists of the following terms:

minus(s(x0), x1)
if(true, x0, x1)
if(false, x0, x1)
gt(0, x0)
gt(s(x0), 0)
gt(s(x0), s(x1))
ge(x0, 0)
ge(0, s(x0))
ge(s(x0), s(x1))

We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
By narrowing [LPAR04] the rule GCD(x, y) → IF1(ge(x, y), x, y) at position [0] we obtained the following new rules [LPAR04]:

GCD(0, s(x0)) → IF1(false, 0, s(x0))
GCD(x0, 0) → IF1(true, x0, 0)
GCD(s(x0), s(x1)) → IF1(ge(x0, x1), s(x0), s(x1))

↳ QTRS

  ↳ Overlay + Local Confluence

    ↳ QTRS

      ↳ DependencyPairsProof

        ↳ QDP

          ↳ DependencyGraphProof

            ↳ AND

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ UsableRulesProof

                  ↳ QDP

                    ↳ QReductionProof

                      ↳ QDP

                        ↳ NonInfProof

                          ↳ QDP

                            ↳ Narrowing

                              ↳ QDP

                                ↳ DependencyGraphProof

Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:

IF2(true, x, y) → GCD(minus(x, y), y)
IF1(true, x, y) → IF2(gt(y, 0), x, y)
GCD(0, s(x0)) → IF1(false, 0, s(x0))
GCD(x0, 0) → IF1(true, x0, 0)
GCD(s(x0), s(x1)) → IF1(ge(x0, x1), s(x0), s(x1))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

minus(s(x), y) → if(gt(s(x), y), x, y)
gt(s(x), 0) → true
gt(s(x), s(y)) → gt(x, y)
if(true, x, y) → s(minus(x, y))
if(false, x, y) → 0
gt(0, y) → false
ge(x, 0) → true
ge(0, s(x)) → false
ge(s(x), s(y)) → ge(x, y)

The set Q consists of the following terms:

minus(s(x0), x1)
if(true, x0, x1)
if(false, x0, x1)
gt(0, x0)
gt(s(x0), 0)
gt(s(x0), s(x1))
ge(x0, 0)
ge(0, s(x0))
ge(s(x0), s(x1))

We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
The approximation of the Dependency Graph [LPAR04,FROCOS05,EDGSTAR] contains 1 SCC with 1 less node.

↳ QTRS

  ↳ Overlay + Local Confluence

    ↳ QTRS

      ↳ DependencyPairsProof

        ↳ QDP

          ↳ DependencyGraphProof

            ↳ AND

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ UsableRulesProof

                  ↳ QDP

                    ↳ QReductionProof

                      ↳ QDP

                        ↳ NonInfProof

                          ↳ QDP

                            ↳ Narrowing

                              ↳ QDP

                                ↳ DependencyGraphProof

                                  ↳ QDP

                                    ↳ Narrowing

Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:

GCD(x0, 0) → IF1(true, x0, 0)
IF1(true, x, y) → IF2(gt(y, 0), x, y)
IF2(true, x, y) → GCD(minus(x, y), y)
GCD(s(x0), s(x1)) → IF1(ge(x0, x1), s(x0), s(x1))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

minus(s(x), y) → if(gt(s(x), y), x, y)
gt(s(x), 0) → true
gt(s(x), s(y)) → gt(x, y)
if(true, x, y) → s(minus(x, y))
if(false, x, y) → 0
gt(0, y) → false
ge(x, 0) → true
ge(0, s(x)) → false
ge(s(x), s(y)) → ge(x, y)

The set Q consists of the following terms:

minus(s(x0), x1)
if(true, x0, x1)
if(false, x0, x1)
gt(0, x0)
gt(s(x0), 0)
gt(s(x0), s(x1))
ge(x0, 0)
ge(0, s(x0))
ge(s(x0), s(x1))

We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
By narrowing [LPAR04] the rule IF1(true, x, y) → IF2(gt(y, 0), x, y) at position [0] we obtained the following new rules [LPAR04]:

IF1(true, y0, s(x0)) → IF2(true, y0, s(x0))
IF1(true, y0, 0) → IF2(false, y0, 0)

↳ QTRS

  ↳ Overlay + Local Confluence

    ↳ QTRS

      ↳ DependencyPairsProof

        ↳ QDP

          ↳ DependencyGraphProof

            ↳ AND

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ UsableRulesProof

                  ↳ QDP

                    ↳ QReductionProof

                      ↳ QDP

                        ↳ NonInfProof

                          ↳ QDP

                            ↳ Narrowing

                              ↳ QDP

                                ↳ DependencyGraphProof

                                  ↳ QDP

                                    ↳ Narrowing

                                      ↳ QDP

                                        ↳ DependencyGraphProof

Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:

GCD(x0, 0) → IF1(true, x0, 0)
IF2(true, x, y) → GCD(minus(x, y), y)
GCD(s(x0), s(x1)) → IF1(ge(x0, x1), s(x0), s(x1))
IF1(true, y0, s(x0)) → IF2(true, y0, s(x0))
IF1(true, y0, 0) → IF2(false, y0, 0)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

minus(s(x), y) → if(gt(s(x), y), x, y)
gt(s(x), 0) → true
gt(s(x), s(y)) → gt(x, y)
if(true, x, y) → s(minus(x, y))
if(false, x, y) → 0
gt(0, y) → false
ge(x, 0) → true
ge(0, s(x)) → false
ge(s(x), s(y)) → ge(x, y)

The set Q consists of the following terms:

minus(s(x0), x1)
if(true, x0, x1)
if(false, x0, x1)
gt(0, x0)
gt(s(x0), 0)
gt(s(x0), s(x1))
ge(x0, 0)
ge(0, s(x0))
ge(s(x0), s(x1))

We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
The approximation of the Dependency Graph [LPAR04,FROCOS05,EDGSTAR] contains 1 SCC with 2 less nodes.

↳ QTRS

  ↳ Overlay + Local Confluence

    ↳ QTRS

      ↳ DependencyPairsProof

        ↳ QDP

          ↳ DependencyGraphProof

            ↳ AND

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ UsableRulesProof

                  ↳ QDP

                    ↳ QReductionProof

                      ↳ QDP

                        ↳ NonInfProof

                          ↳ QDP

                            ↳ Narrowing

                              ↳ QDP

                                ↳ DependencyGraphProof

                                  ↳ QDP

                                    ↳ Narrowing

                                      ↳ QDP

                                        ↳ DependencyGraphProof

                                          ↳ QDP

                                            ↳ Narrowing

Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:

GCD(s(x0), s(x1)) → IF1(ge(x0, x1), s(x0), s(x1))
IF1(true, y0, s(x0)) → IF2(true, y0, s(x0))
IF2(true, x, y) → GCD(minus(x, y), y)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

minus(s(x), y) → if(gt(s(x), y), x, y)
gt(s(x), 0) → true
gt(s(x), s(y)) → gt(x, y)
if(true, x, y) → s(minus(x, y))
if(false, x, y) → 0
gt(0, y) → false
ge(x, 0) → true
ge(0, s(x)) → false
ge(s(x), s(y)) → ge(x, y)

The set Q consists of the following terms:

minus(s(x0), x1)
if(true, x0, x1)
if(false, x0, x1)
gt(0, x0)
gt(s(x0), 0)
gt(s(x0), s(x1))
ge(x0, 0)
ge(0, s(x0))
ge(s(x0), s(x1))

We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
By narrowing [LPAR04] the rule IF2(true, x, y) → GCD(minus(x, y), y) at position [0] we obtained the following new rules [LPAR04]:

IF2(true, s(x0), x1) → GCD(if(gt(s(x0), x1), x0, x1), x1)

↳ QTRS

  ↳ Overlay + Local Confluence

    ↳ QTRS

      ↳ DependencyPairsProof

        ↳ QDP

          ↳ DependencyGraphProof

            ↳ AND

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ UsableRulesProof

                  ↳ QDP

                    ↳ QReductionProof

                      ↳ QDP

                        ↳ NonInfProof

                          ↳ QDP

                            ↳ Narrowing

                              ↳ QDP

                                ↳ DependencyGraphProof

                                  ↳ QDP

                                    ↳ Narrowing

                                      ↳ QDP

                                        ↳ DependencyGraphProof

                                          ↳ QDP

                                            ↳ Narrowing

                                              ↳ QDP

                                                ↳ Instantiation

Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:

GCD(s(x0), s(x1)) → IF1(ge(x0, x1), s(x0), s(x1))
IF1(true, y0, s(x0)) → IF2(true, y0, s(x0))
IF2(true, s(x0), x1) → GCD(if(gt(s(x0), x1), x0, x1), x1)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

minus(s(x), y) → if(gt(s(x), y), x, y)
gt(s(x), 0) → true
gt(s(x), s(y)) → gt(x, y)
if(true, x, y) → s(minus(x, y))
if(false, x, y) → 0
gt(0, y) → false
ge(x, 0) → true
ge(0, s(x)) → false
ge(s(x), s(y)) → ge(x, y)

The set Q consists of the following terms:

minus(s(x0), x1)
if(true, x0, x1)
if(false, x0, x1)
gt(0, x0)
gt(s(x0), 0)
gt(s(x0), s(x1))
ge(x0, 0)
ge(0, s(x0))
ge(s(x0), s(x1))

We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
By instantiating [LPAR04] the rule IF1(true, y0, s(x0)) → IF2(true, y0, s(x0)) we obtained the following new rules [LPAR04]:

IF1(true, s(z0), s(z1)) → IF2(true, s(z0), s(z1))

↳ QTRS

  ↳ Overlay + Local Confluence

    ↳ QTRS

      ↳ DependencyPairsProof

        ↳ QDP

          ↳ DependencyGraphProof

            ↳ AND

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ UsableRulesProof

                  ↳ QDP

                    ↳ QReductionProof

                      ↳ QDP

                        ↳ NonInfProof

                          ↳ QDP

                            ↳ Narrowing

                              ↳ QDP

                                ↳ DependencyGraphProof

                                  ↳ QDP

                                    ↳ Narrowing

                                      ↳ QDP

                                        ↳ DependencyGraphProof

                                          ↳ QDP

                                            ↳ Narrowing

                                              ↳ QDP

                                                ↳ Instantiation

                                                  ↳ QDP

                                                    ↳ Instantiation

Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:

GCD(s(x0), s(x1)) → IF1(ge(x0, x1), s(x0), s(x1))
IF2(true, s(x0), x1) → GCD(if(gt(s(x0), x1), x0, x1), x1)
IF1(true, s(z0), s(z1)) → IF2(true, s(z0), s(z1))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

minus(s(x), y) → if(gt(s(x), y), x, y)
gt(s(x), 0) → true
gt(s(x), s(y)) → gt(x, y)
if(true, x, y) → s(minus(x, y))
if(false, x, y) → 0
gt(0, y) → false
ge(x, 0) → true
ge(0, s(x)) → false
ge(s(x), s(y)) → ge(x, y)

The set Q consists of the following terms:

minus(s(x0), x1)
if(true, x0, x1)
if(false, x0, x1)
gt(0, x0)
gt(s(x0), 0)
gt(s(x0), s(x1))
ge(x0, 0)
ge(0, s(x0))
ge(s(x0), s(x1))

We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
By instantiating [LPAR04] the rule IF2(true, s(x0), x1) → GCD(if(gt(s(x0), x1), x0, x1), x1) we obtained the following new rules [LPAR04]:

IF2(true, s(z0), s(z1)) → GCD(if(gt(s(z0), s(z1)), z0, s(z1)), s(z1))

↳ QTRS

  ↳ Overlay + Local Confluence

    ↳ QTRS

      ↳ DependencyPairsProof

        ↳ QDP

          ↳ DependencyGraphProof

            ↳ AND

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ UsableRulesProof

                  ↳ QDP

                    ↳ QReductionProof

                      ↳ QDP

                        ↳ NonInfProof

                          ↳ QDP

                            ↳ Narrowing

                              ↳ QDP

                                ↳ DependencyGraphProof

                                  ↳ QDP

                                    ↳ Narrowing

                                      ↳ QDP

                                        ↳ DependencyGraphProof

                                          ↳ QDP

                                            ↳ Narrowing

                                              ↳ QDP

                                                ↳ Instantiation

                                                  ↳ QDP

                                                    ↳ Instantiation

                                                      ↳ QDP

                                                        ↳ Rewriting

Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:

GCD(s(x0), s(x1)) → IF1(ge(x0, x1), s(x0), s(x1))
IF1(true, s(z0), s(z1)) → IF2(true, s(z0), s(z1))
IF2(true, s(z0), s(z1)) → GCD(if(gt(s(z0), s(z1)), z0, s(z1)), s(z1))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

minus(s(x), y) → if(gt(s(x), y), x, y)
gt(s(x), 0) → true
gt(s(x), s(y)) → gt(x, y)
if(true, x, y) → s(minus(x, y))
if(false, x, y) → 0
gt(0, y) → false
ge(x, 0) → true
ge(0, s(x)) → false
ge(s(x), s(y)) → ge(x, y)

The set Q consists of the following terms:

minus(s(x0), x1)
if(true, x0, x1)
if(false, x0, x1)
gt(0, x0)
gt(s(x0), 0)
gt(s(x0), s(x1))
ge(x0, 0)
ge(0, s(x0))
ge(s(x0), s(x1))

We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
By rewriting [LPAR04] the rule IF2(true, s(z0), s(z1)) → GCD(if(gt(s(z0), s(z1)), z0, s(z1)), s(z1)) at position [0,0] we obtained the following new rules [LPAR04]:

IF2(true, s(z0), s(z1)) → GCD(if(gt(z0, z1), z0, s(z1)), s(z1))

↳ QTRS

  ↳ Overlay + Local Confluence

    ↳ QTRS

      ↳ DependencyPairsProof

        ↳ QDP

          ↳ DependencyGraphProof

            ↳ AND

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ UsableRulesProof

                  ↳ QDP

                    ↳ QReductionProof

                      ↳ QDP

                        ↳ NonInfProof

                          ↳ QDP

                            ↳ Narrowing

                              ↳ QDP

                                ↳ DependencyGraphProof

                                  ↳ QDP

                                    ↳ Narrowing

                                      ↳ QDP

                                        ↳ DependencyGraphProof

                                          ↳ QDP

                                            ↳ Narrowing

                                              ↳ QDP

                                                ↳ Instantiation

                                                  ↳ QDP

                                                    ↳ Instantiation

                                                      ↳ QDP

                                                        ↳ Rewriting

                                                          ↳ QDP

                                                            ↳ Induction-Processor

Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:

GCD(s(x0), s(x1)) → IF1(ge(x0, x1), s(x0), s(x1))
IF1(true, s(z0), s(z1)) → IF2(true, s(z0), s(z1))
IF2(true, s(z0), s(z1)) → GCD(if(gt(z0, z1), z0, s(z1)), s(z1))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

minus(s(x), y) → if(gt(s(x), y), x, y)
gt(s(x), 0) → true
gt(s(x), s(y)) → gt(x, y)
if(true, x, y) → s(minus(x, y))
if(false, x, y) → 0
gt(0, y) → false
ge(x, 0) → true
ge(0, s(x)) → false
ge(s(x), s(y)) → ge(x, y)

The set Q consists of the following terms:

minus(s(x0), x1)
if(true, x0, x1)
if(false, x0, x1)
gt(0, x0)
gt(s(x0), 0)
gt(s(x0), s(x1))
ge(x0, 0)
ge(0, s(x0))
ge(s(x0), s(x1))

We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.

This DP could be deleted by the Induction-Processor:
IF2(true, s(z0''), s(z1'')) → GCD(if(gt(z0'', z1''), z0'', s(z1'')), s(z1''))

This order was computed:
Polynomial interpretation [POLO]:

POL(0) = 0
POL(GCD(x₁, x₂)) = x₁
POL(IF1(x₁, x₂, x₃)) = x₂
POL(IF2(x₁, x₂, x₃)) = x₂
POL(false) = 0
POL(ge(x₁, x₂)) = x₂
POL(gt(x₁, x₂)) = 0
POL(if(x₁, x₂, x₃)) = 1 + x₂
POL(minus(x₁, x₂)) = x₁
POL(s(x₁)) = 1 + x₁
POL(true) = 0

At least one of these decreasing rules is always used after the deleted DP:
if(false, x332, y242) → 0

The following formula is valid:
z0'':sort[a0],z1'':sort[a0].if'(gt(z0'' , z1'' ), z0'' , s(z1'' ))=true

The transformed set:
minus'(s(x5), y3) → if'(gt(s(x5), y3), x5, y3)
if'(true, x24, y17) → minus'(x24, y17)
if'(false, x33, y24) → true
minus'(0, x1) → false
gt(s(x'), 0) → true
minus(s(x5), y3) → if(gt(s(x5), y3), x5, y3)
gt(s(x15), s(y10)) → gt(x15, y10)
if(true, x24, y17) → s(minus(x24, y17))
if(false, x33, y24) → 0
gt(0, y31) → false
ge(x50, 0) → true
ge(0, s(x59)) → false
ge(s(x68), s(y50)) → ge(x68, y50)
minus(0, x1) → 0
equal_bool(true, false) → false
equal_bool(false, true) → false
equal_bool(true, true) → true
equal_bool(false, false) → true
and(true, x) → x
and(false, x) → false
or(true, x) → true
or(false, x) → x
not(false) → true
not(true) → false
isa_true(true) → true
isa_true(false) → false
isa_false(true) → false
isa_false(false) → true
equal_sort[a0](0, 0) → true
equal_sort[a0](0, s(x0)) → false
equal_sort[a0](s(x0), 0) → false
equal_sort[a0](s(x0), s(x1)) → equal_sort[a0](x0, x1)
equal_sort[a40](witness_sort[a40], witness_sort[a40]) → true

↳ QTRS

  ↳ Overlay + Local Confluence

    ↳ QTRS

      ↳ DependencyPairsProof

        ↳ QDP

          ↳ DependencyGraphProof

            ↳ AND

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ UsableRulesProof

                  ↳ QDP

                    ↳ QReductionProof

                      ↳ QDP

                        ↳ NonInfProof

                          ↳ QDP

                            ↳ Narrowing

                              ↳ QDP

                                ↳ DependencyGraphProof

                                  ↳ QDP

                                    ↳ Narrowing

                                      ↳ QDP

                                        ↳ DependencyGraphProof

                                          ↳ QDP

                                            ↳ Narrowing

                                              ↳ QDP

                                                ↳ Instantiation

                                                  ↳ QDP

                                                    ↳ Instantiation

                                                      ↳ QDP

                                                        ↳ Rewriting

                                                          ↳ QDP

                                                            ↳ Induction-Processor

                                                              ↳ AND

                                                                ↳ QDP

                                                                  ↳ DependencyGraphProof

                                                                ↳ QTRS

Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:

GCD(s(x0), s(x1)) → IF1(ge(x0, x1), s(x0), s(x1))
IF1(true, s(z0), s(z1)) → IF2(true, s(z0), s(z1))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

minus(s(x), y) → if(gt(s(x), y), x, y)
gt(s(x), 0) → true
gt(s(x), s(y)) → gt(x, y)
if(true, x, y) → s(minus(x, y))
if(false, x, y) → 0
gt(0, y) → false
ge(x, 0) → true
ge(0, s(x)) → false
ge(s(x), s(y)) → ge(x, y)

The set Q consists of the following terms:

minus(s(x0), x1)
if(true, x0, x1)
if(false, x0, x1)
gt(0, x0)
gt(s(x0), 0)
gt(s(x0), s(x1))
ge(x0, 0)
ge(0, s(x0))
ge(s(x0), s(x1))

We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
The approximation of the Dependency Graph [LPAR04,FROCOS05,EDGSTAR] contains 0 SCCs with 2 less nodes.

↳ QTRS

  ↳ Overlay + Local Confluence

    ↳ QTRS

      ↳ DependencyPairsProof

        ↳ QDP

          ↳ DependencyGraphProof

            ↳ AND

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ UsableRulesProof

                  ↳ QDP

                    ↳ QReductionProof

                      ↳ QDP

                        ↳ NonInfProof

                          ↳ QDP

                            ↳ Narrowing

                              ↳ QDP

                                ↳ DependencyGraphProof

                                  ↳ QDP

                                    ↳ Narrowing

                                      ↳ QDP

                                        ↳ DependencyGraphProof

                                          ↳ QDP

                                            ↳ Narrowing

                                              ↳ QDP

                                                ↳ Instantiation

                                                  ↳ QDP

                                                    ↳ Instantiation

                                                      ↳ QDP

                                                        ↳ Rewriting

                                                          ↳ QDP

                                                            ↳ Induction-Processor

                                                              ↳ AND

                                                                ↳ QDP

                                                                ↳ QTRS

                                                                  ↳ QTRSRRRProof

Q restricted rewrite system:
The TRS R consists of the following rules:

minus'(s(x5), y3) → if'(gt(s(x5), y3), x5, y3)
if'(true, x24, y17) → minus'(x24, y17)
if'(false, x33, y24) → true
minus'(0, x1) → false
gt(s(x'), 0) → true
minus(s(x5), y3) → if(gt(s(x5), y3), x5, y3)
gt(s(x15), s(y10)) → gt(x15, y10)
if(true, x24, y17) → s(minus(x24, y17))
if(false, x33, y24) → 0
gt(0, y31) → false
ge(x50, 0) → true
ge(0, s(x59)) → false
ge(s(x68), s(y50)) → ge(x68, y50)
minus(0, x1) → 0
equal_bool(true, false) → false
equal_bool(false, true) → false
equal_bool(true, true) → true
equal_bool(false, false) → true
and(true, x) → x
and(false, x) → false
or(true, x) → true
or(false, x) → x
not(false) → true
not(true) → false
isa_true(true) → true
isa_true(false) → false
isa_false(true) → false
isa_false(false) → true
equal_sort[a0](0, 0) → true
equal_sort[a0](0, s(x0)) → false
equal_sort[a0](s(x0), 0) → false
equal_sort[a0](s(x0), s(x1)) → equal_sort[a0](x0, x1)
equal_sort[a40](witness_sort[a40], witness_sort[a40]) → true

Q is empty.

The following Q TRS is given: Q restricted rewrite system:
The TRS R consists of the following rules:

minus'(s(x5), y3) → if'(gt(s(x5), y3), x5, y3)
if'(true, x24, y17) → minus'(x24, y17)
if'(false, x33, y24) → true
minus'(0, x1) → false
gt(s(x'), 0) → true
minus(s(x5), y3) → if(gt(s(x5), y3), x5, y3)
gt(s(x15), s(y10)) → gt(x15, y10)
if(true, x24, y17) → s(minus(x24, y17))
if(false, x33, y24) → 0
gt(0, y31) → false
ge(x50, 0) → true
ge(0, s(x59)) → false
ge(s(x68), s(y50)) → ge(x68, y50)
minus(0, x1) → 0
equal_bool(true, false) → false
equal_bool(false, true) → false
equal_bool(true, true) → true
equal_bool(false, false) → true
and(true, x) → x
and(false, x) → false
or(true, x) → true
or(false, x) → x
not(false) → true
not(true) → false
isa_true(true) → true
isa_true(false) → false
isa_false(true) → false
isa_false(false) → true
equal_sort[a0](0, 0) → true
equal_sort[a0](0, s(x0)) → false
equal_sort[a0](s(x0), 0) → false
equal_sort[a0](s(x0), s(x1)) → equal_sort[a0](x0, x1)
equal_sort[a40](witness_sort[a40], witness_sort[a40]) → true

Q is empty.
Used ordering:
Recursive path order with status [RPO].
Quasi-Precedence:

[minus₂, if₃] > 0 > [minus'₂, if'₃, true, false, not₁, witness_sort[a40]] > s₁ > gt₂
or₂ > [minus'₂, if'₃, true, false, not₁, witness_sort[a40]] > s₁ > gt₂
equal_sort[a0]₂ > [minus'₂, if'₃, true, false, not₁, witness_sort[a40]] > s₁ > gt₂

Status:

equal_sort[a40]₂: [1,2]
minus₂: [1,2]
minus'₂: [1,2]
true: multiset
or₂: [2,1]
and₂: [2,1]
gt₂: [2,1]
0: multiset
equal_bool₂: [2,1]
equal_sort[a0]₂: [1,2]
if₃: [2,3,1]
if'₃: [2,3,1]
not₁: [1]
isa_false₁: [1]
witness_sort[a40]: multiset
false: multiset
s₁: multiset
ge₂: multiset
isa_true₁: multiset

With this ordering the following rules can be removed by the rule removal processor [LPAR04] because they are oriented strictly:

minus'(s(x5), y3) → if'(gt(s(x5), y3), x5, y3)
if'(true, x24, y17) → minus'(x24, y17)
if'(false, x33, y24) → true
minus'(0, x1) → false
gt(s(x'), 0) → true
minus(s(x5), y3) → if(gt(s(x5), y3), x5, y3)
gt(s(x15), s(y10)) → gt(x15, y10)
if(true, x24, y17) → s(minus(x24, y17))
if(false, x33, y24) → 0
gt(0, y31) → false
ge(x50, 0) → true
ge(0, s(x59)) → false
ge(s(x68), s(y50)) → ge(x68, y50)
minus(0, x1) → 0
equal_bool(true, false) → false
equal_bool(false, true) → false
equal_bool(true, true) → true
equal_bool(false, false) → true
and(true, x) → x
and(false, x) → false
or(true, x) → true
or(false, x) → x
not(false) → true
not(true) → false
isa_true(true) → true
isa_true(false) → false
isa_false(true) → false
isa_false(false) → true
equal_sort[a0](0, 0) → true
equal_sort[a0](0, s(x0)) → false
equal_sort[a0](s(x0), 0) → false
equal_sort[a0](s(x0), s(x1)) → equal_sort[a0](x0, x1)
equal_sort[a40](witness_sort[a40], witness_sort[a40]) → true

↳ QTRS

  ↳ Overlay + Local Confluence

    ↳ QTRS

      ↳ DependencyPairsProof

        ↳ QDP

          ↳ DependencyGraphProof

            ↳ AND

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ UsableRulesProof

                  ↳ QDP

                    ↳ QReductionProof

                      ↳ QDP

                        ↳ NonInfProof

                          ↳ QDP

                            ↳ Narrowing

                              ↳ QDP

                                ↳ DependencyGraphProof

                                  ↳ QDP

                                    ↳ Narrowing

                                      ↳ QDP

                                        ↳ DependencyGraphProof

                                          ↳ QDP

                                            ↳ Narrowing

                                              ↳ QDP

                                                ↳ Instantiation

                                                  ↳ QDP

                                                    ↳ Instantiation

                                                      ↳ QDP

                                                        ↳ Rewriting

                                                          ↳ QDP

                                                            ↳ Induction-Processor

                                                              ↳ AND

                                                                ↳ QDP

                                                                ↳ QTRS

                                                                  ↳ QTRSRRRProof

                                                                    ↳ QTRS

                                                                      ↳ RisEmptyProof

                                                                      ↳ RisEmptyProof

                                                                      ↳ RisEmptyProof

Q restricted rewrite system:
R is empty.
Q is empty.

The TRS R is empty. Hence, termination is trivially proven.
The TRS R is empty. Hence, termination is trivially proven.
The TRS R is empty. Hence, termination is trivially proven.