Term Rewriting System R:
[X, XS, N, X1, X2]
from(X) -> cons(X, nfrom(s(X)))
from(X) -> nfrom(X)
head(cons(X, XS)) -> X
2nd(cons(X, XS)) -> head(activate(XS))
take(0, XS) -> nil
take(s(N), cons(X, XS)) -> cons(X, ntake(N, activate(XS)))
take(X1, X2) -> ntake(X1, X2)
sel(0, cons(X, XS)) -> X
sel(s(N), cons(X, XS)) -> sel(N, activate(XS))
activate(nfrom(X)) -> from(X)
activate(ntake(X1, X2)) -> take(X1, X2)
activate(X) -> X

Termination of R to be shown. 



   R
     ↳Dependency Pair Analysis



R contains the following Dependency Pairs:

2ND(cons(X, XS)) -> HEAD(activate(XS))
2ND(cons(X, XS)) -> ACTIVATE(XS)
TAKE(s(N), cons(X, XS)) -> ACTIVATE(XS)
SEL(s(N), cons(X, XS)) -> SEL(N, activate(XS))
SEL(s(N), cons(X, XS)) -> ACTIVATE(XS)
ACTIVATE(nfrom(X)) -> FROM(X)
ACTIVATE(ntake(X1, X2)) -> TAKE(X1, X2)

Furthermore, R contains two SCCs. 


   R
     ↳DPs
       →DP Problem 1
         ↳Argument Filtering and Ordering
       →DP Problem 2
         ↳Remaining


Dependency Pairs:

TAKE(s(N), cons(X, XS)) -> ACTIVATE(XS)
ACTIVATE(ntake(X1, X2)) -> TAKE(X1, X2)


Rules:


from(X) -> cons(X, nfrom(s(X)))
from(X) -> nfrom(X)
head(cons(X, XS)) -> X
2nd(cons(X, XS)) -> head(activate(XS))
take(0, XS) -> nil
take(s(N), cons(X, XS)) -> cons(X, ntake(N, activate(XS)))
take(X1, X2) -> ntake(X1, X2)
sel(0, cons(X, XS)) -> X
sel(s(N), cons(X, XS)) -> sel(N, activate(XS))
activate(nfrom(X)) -> from(X)
activate(ntake(X1, X2)) -> take(X1, X2)
activate(X) -> X





The following dependency pairs can be strictly oriented:

TAKE(s(N), cons(X, XS)) -> ACTIVATE(XS)
ACTIVATE(ntake(X1, X2)) -> TAKE(X1, X2)


There are no usable rules using the Ce-refinement that need to be oriented.
Used ordering: Homeomorphic Embedding Order with EMB
resulting in one new DP problem.
Used Argument Filtering System:
TAKE(x1, x2) -> x2
cons(x1, x2) -> cons(x1, x2)
ACTIVATE(x1) -> x1
ntake(x1, x2) -> ntake(x1, x2)


   R
     ↳DPs
       →DP Problem 1
         ↳AFS
           →DP Problem 3
             ↳Dependency Graph
       →DP Problem 2
         ↳Remaining


Dependency Pair:


Rules:


from(X) -> cons(X, nfrom(s(X)))
from(X) -> nfrom(X)
head(cons(X, XS)) -> X
2nd(cons(X, XS)) -> head(activate(XS))
take(0, XS) -> nil
take(s(N), cons(X, XS)) -> cons(X, ntake(N, activate(XS)))
take(X1, X2) -> ntake(X1, X2)
sel(0, cons(X, XS)) -> X
sel(s(N), cons(X, XS)) -> sel(N, activate(XS))
activate(nfrom(X)) -> from(X)
activate(ntake(X1, X2)) -> take(X1, X2)
activate(X) -> X





Using the Dependency Graph resulted in no new DP problems.


   R
     ↳DPs
       →DP Problem 1
         ↳AFS
       →DP Problem 2
         ↳Remaining Obligation(s)




The following remains to be proven:
Dependency Pair:

SEL(s(N), cons(X, XS)) -> SEL(N, activate(XS))


Rules:


from(X) -> cons(X, nfrom(s(X)))
from(X) -> nfrom(X)
head(cons(X, XS)) -> X
2nd(cons(X, XS)) -> head(activate(XS))
take(0, XS) -> nil
take(s(N), cons(X, XS)) -> cons(X, ntake(N, activate(XS)))
take(X1, X2) -> ntake(X1, X2)
sel(0, cons(X, XS)) -> X
sel(s(N), cons(X, XS)) -> sel(N, activate(XS))
activate(nfrom(X)) -> from(X)
activate(ntake(X1, X2)) -> take(X1, X2)
activate(X) -> X




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