Termination Proof using AProVE

Term Rewriting System R:
[Y, X]
le(0, Y) -> true
le(s(X), 0) -> false
le(s(X), s(Y)) -> le(X, Y)
minus(0, Y) -> 0
minus(s(X), Y) -> ifMinus(le(s(X), Y), s(X), Y)
ifMinus(true, s(X), Y) -> 0
ifMinus(false, s(X), Y) -> s(minus(X, Y))
quot(0, s(Y)) -> 0
quot(s(X), s(Y)) -> s(quot(minus(X, Y), s(Y)))

Innermost Termination of R to be shown.

     ↳Dependency Pair Analysis

R contains the following Dependency Pairs:

LE(s(X), s(Y)) -> LE(X, Y)
MINUS(s(X), Y) -> IFMINUS(le(s(X), Y), s(X), Y)
MINUS(s(X), Y) -> LE(s(X), Y)
IFMINUS(false, s(X), Y) -> MINUS(X, Y)
QUOT(s(X), s(Y)) -> QUOT(minus(X, Y), s(Y))
QUOT(s(X), s(Y)) -> MINUS(X, Y)

Furthermore, R contains three SCCs.

     ↳DPs

       →DP Problem 1

         ↳Argument Filtering and Ordering

       →DP Problem 2

         ↳Remaining

       →DP Problem 3

         ↳Remaining

Dependency Pair:

LE(s(X), s(Y)) -> LE(X, Y)

Rules:

le(0, Y) -> true
le(s(X), 0) -> false
le(s(X), s(Y)) -> le(X, Y)
minus(0, Y) -> 0
minus(s(X), Y) -> ifMinus(le(s(X), Y), s(X), Y)
ifMinus(true, s(X), Y) -> 0
ifMinus(false, s(X), Y) -> s(minus(X, Y))
quot(0, s(Y)) -> 0
quot(s(X), s(Y)) -> s(quot(minus(X, Y), s(Y)))

Strategy:

innermost

The following dependency pair can be strictly oriented:

LE(s(X), s(Y)) -> LE(X, Y)

There are no usable rules for innermost that need to be oriented.
Used ordering: Homeomorphic Embedding Order with EMB
resulting in one new DP problem.
Used Argument Filtering System:

LE(x₁, x₂) -> LE(x₁, x₂)
s(x₁) -> s(x₁)

     ↳DPs

       →DP Problem 1

         ↳AFS

           →DP Problem 4

             ↳Dependency Graph

       →DP Problem 2

         ↳Remaining

       →DP Problem 3

         ↳Remaining

Dependency Pair:

Rules:

le(0, Y) -> true
le(s(X), 0) -> false
le(s(X), s(Y)) -> le(X, Y)
minus(0, Y) -> 0
minus(s(X), Y) -> ifMinus(le(s(X), Y), s(X), Y)
ifMinus(true, s(X), Y) -> 0
ifMinus(false, s(X), Y) -> s(minus(X, Y))
quot(0, s(Y)) -> 0
quot(s(X), s(Y)) -> s(quot(minus(X, Y), s(Y)))

Strategy:

innermost

Using the Dependency Graph resulted in no new DP problems.

     ↳DPs

       →DP Problem 1

         ↳AFS

       →DP Problem 2

         ↳Remaining Obligation(s)

       →DP Problem 3

         ↳Remaining Obligation(s)

The following remains to be proven:

Dependency Pairs:
IFMINUS(false, s(X), Y) -> MINUS(X, Y)
MINUS(s(X), Y) -> IFMINUS(le(s(X), Y), s(X), Y)

Rules:

le(0, Y) -> true
le(s(X), 0) -> false
le(s(X), s(Y)) -> le(X, Y)
minus(0, Y) -> 0
minus(s(X), Y) -> ifMinus(le(s(X), Y), s(X), Y)
ifMinus(true, s(X), Y) -> 0
ifMinus(false, s(X), Y) -> s(minus(X, Y))
quot(0, s(Y)) -> 0
quot(s(X), s(Y)) -> s(quot(minus(X, Y), s(Y)))

Strategy:
innermost
Dependency Pair:
QUOT(s(X), s(Y)) -> QUOT(minus(X, Y), s(Y))

Rules:

le(0, Y) -> true
le(s(X), 0) -> false
le(s(X), s(Y)) -> le(X, Y)
minus(0, Y) -> 0
minus(s(X), Y) -> ifMinus(le(s(X), Y), s(X), Y)
ifMinus(true, s(X), Y) -> 0
ifMinus(false, s(X), Y) -> s(minus(X, Y))
quot(0, s(Y)) -> 0
quot(s(X), s(Y)) -> s(quot(minus(X, Y), s(Y)))

Strategy:
innermost

     ↳DPs

       →DP Problem 1

         ↳AFS

       →DP Problem 2

         ↳Remaining Obligation(s)

       →DP Problem 3

         ↳Remaining Obligation(s)

The following remains to be proven:

Dependency Pairs:
IFMINUS(false, s(X), Y) -> MINUS(X, Y)
MINUS(s(X), Y) -> IFMINUS(le(s(X), Y), s(X), Y)

Rules:

le(0, Y) -> true
le(s(X), 0) -> false
le(s(X), s(Y)) -> le(X, Y)
minus(0, Y) -> 0
minus(s(X), Y) -> ifMinus(le(s(X), Y), s(X), Y)
ifMinus(true, s(X), Y) -> 0
ifMinus(false, s(X), Y) -> s(minus(X, Y))
quot(0, s(Y)) -> 0
quot(s(X), s(Y)) -> s(quot(minus(X, Y), s(Y)))

Strategy:
innermost
Dependency Pair:
QUOT(s(X), s(Y)) -> QUOT(minus(X, Y), s(Y))

Rules:

le(0, Y) -> true
le(s(X), 0) -> false
le(s(X), s(Y)) -> le(X, Y)
minus(0, Y) -> 0
minus(s(X), Y) -> ifMinus(le(s(X), Y), s(X), Y)
ifMinus(true, s(X), Y) -> 0
ifMinus(false, s(X), Y) -> s(minus(X, Y))
quot(0, s(Y)) -> 0
quot(s(X), s(Y)) -> s(quot(minus(X, Y), s(Y)))

Strategy:
innermost

Innermost Termination of R could not be shown.
Duration:
0:00 minutes