Termination w.r.t. Q of the given QTRS could be disproven:

0 QTRS
↳1 DependencyPairsProof (⇔, 0 ms)
↳2 QDP
↳3 DependencyGraphProof (⇔, 0 ms)
↳4 AND
    ↳5 QDP
        ↳6 QDPSizeChangeProof (⇔, 0 ms)
        ↳7 YES
    ↳8 QDP
        ↳9 QDPSizeChangeProof (⇔, 0 ms)
        ↳10 YES
    ↳11 QDP
        ↳12 QDPSizeChangeProof (⇔, 0 ms)
        ↳13 YES
    ↳14 QDP
        ↳15 NonLoopProof (⇔, 0 ms)
        ↳16 NO

(0) Obligation:

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

from(X) → cons(X, from(s(X)))
2ndspos(0, Z) → rnil
2ndspos(s(N), cons(X, Z)) → 2ndspos(s(N), cons2(X, Z))
2ndspos(s(N), cons2(X, cons(Y, Z))) → rcons(posrecip(Y), 2ndsneg(N, Z))
2ndsneg(0, Z) → rnil
2ndsneg(s(N), cons(X, Z)) → 2ndsneg(s(N), cons2(X, Z))
2ndsneg(s(N), cons2(X, cons(Y, Z))) → rcons(negrecip(Y), 2ndspos(N, Z))
pi(X) → 2ndspos(X, from(0))
plus(0, Y) → Y
plus(s(X), Y) → s(plus(X, Y))
times(0, Y) → 0
times(s(X), Y) → plus(Y, times(X, Y))
square(X) → times(X, X)

Q is empty.

(1) DependencyPairsProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

Using Dependency Pairs [AG00,LPAR04] we result in the following initial DP problem.

(2) Obligation:

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

FROM(X) → FROM(s(X))
2NDSPOS(s(N), cons(X, Z)) → 2NDSPOS(s(N), cons2(X, Z))
2NDSPOS(s(N), cons2(X, cons(Y, Z))) → 2NDSNEG(N, Z)
2NDSNEG(s(N), cons(X, Z)) → 2NDSNEG(s(N), cons2(X, Z))
2NDSNEG(s(N), cons2(X, cons(Y, Z))) → 2NDSPOS(N, Z)
PI(X) → 2NDSPOS(X, from(0))
PI(X) → FROM(0)
PLUS(s(X), Y) → PLUS(X, Y)
TIMES(s(X), Y) → PLUS(Y, times(X, Y))
TIMES(s(X), Y) → TIMES(X, Y)
SQUARE(X) → TIMES(X, X)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

from(X) → cons(X, from(s(X)))
2ndspos(0, Z) → rnil
2ndspos(s(N), cons(X, Z)) → 2ndspos(s(N), cons2(X, Z))
2ndspos(s(N), cons2(X, cons(Y, Z))) → rcons(posrecip(Y), 2ndsneg(N, Z))
2ndsneg(0, Z) → rnil
2ndsneg(s(N), cons(X, Z)) → 2ndsneg(s(N), cons2(X, Z))
2ndsneg(s(N), cons2(X, cons(Y, Z))) → rcons(negrecip(Y), 2ndspos(N, Z))
pi(X) → 2ndspos(X, from(0))
plus(0, Y) → Y
plus(s(X), Y) → s(plus(X, Y))
times(0, Y) → 0
times(s(X), Y) → plus(Y, times(X, Y))
square(X) → times(X, X)

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

(3) DependencyGraphProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

The approximation of the Dependency Graph [LPAR04,FROCOS05,EDGSTAR] contains 4 SCCs with 4 less nodes.

(4) Complex Obligation (AND)

(5) Obligation:

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

PLUS(s(X), Y) → PLUS(X, Y)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

from(X) → cons(X, from(s(X)))
2ndspos(0, Z) → rnil
2ndspos(s(N), cons(X, Z)) → 2ndspos(s(N), cons2(X, Z))
2ndspos(s(N), cons2(X, cons(Y, Z))) → rcons(posrecip(Y), 2ndsneg(N, Z))
2ndsneg(0, Z) → rnil
2ndsneg(s(N), cons(X, Z)) → 2ndsneg(s(N), cons2(X, Z))
2ndsneg(s(N), cons2(X, cons(Y, Z))) → rcons(negrecip(Y), 2ndspos(N, Z))
pi(X) → 2ndspos(X, from(0))
plus(0, Y) → Y
plus(s(X), Y) → s(plus(X, Y))
times(0, Y) → 0
times(s(X), Y) → plus(Y, times(X, Y))
square(X) → times(X, X)

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

(6) QDPSizeChangeProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

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:

  • PLUS(s(X), Y) → PLUS(X, Y)
    The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1, 2 >= 2

(7) YES

(8) Obligation:

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

TIMES(s(X), Y) → TIMES(X, Y)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

from(X) → cons(X, from(s(X)))
2ndspos(0, Z) → rnil
2ndspos(s(N), cons(X, Z)) → 2ndspos(s(N), cons2(X, Z))
2ndspos(s(N), cons2(X, cons(Y, Z))) → rcons(posrecip(Y), 2ndsneg(N, Z))
2ndsneg(0, Z) → rnil
2ndsneg(s(N), cons(X, Z)) → 2ndsneg(s(N), cons2(X, Z))
2ndsneg(s(N), cons2(X, cons(Y, Z))) → rcons(negrecip(Y), 2ndspos(N, Z))
pi(X) → 2ndspos(X, from(0))
plus(0, Y) → Y
plus(s(X), Y) → s(plus(X, Y))
times(0, Y) → 0
times(s(X), Y) → plus(Y, times(X, Y))
square(X) → times(X, X)

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

(9) QDPSizeChangeProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

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:

  • TIMES(s(X), Y) → TIMES(X, Y)
    The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1, 2 >= 2

(10) YES

(11) Obligation:

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

2NDSPOS(s(N), cons2(X, cons(Y, Z))) → 2NDSNEG(N, Z)
2NDSNEG(s(N), cons(X, Z)) → 2NDSNEG(s(N), cons2(X, Z))
2NDSNEG(s(N), cons2(X, cons(Y, Z))) → 2NDSPOS(N, Z)
2NDSPOS(s(N), cons(X, Z)) → 2NDSPOS(s(N), cons2(X, Z))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

from(X) → cons(X, from(s(X)))
2ndspos(0, Z) → rnil
2ndspos(s(N), cons(X, Z)) → 2ndspos(s(N), cons2(X, Z))
2ndspos(s(N), cons2(X, cons(Y, Z))) → rcons(posrecip(Y), 2ndsneg(N, Z))
2ndsneg(0, Z) → rnil
2ndsneg(s(N), cons(X, Z)) → 2ndsneg(s(N), cons2(X, Z))
2ndsneg(s(N), cons2(X, cons(Y, Z))) → rcons(negrecip(Y), 2ndspos(N, Z))
pi(X) → 2ndspos(X, from(0))
plus(0, Y) → Y
plus(s(X), Y) → s(plus(X, Y))
times(0, Y) → 0
times(s(X), Y) → plus(Y, times(X, Y))
square(X) → times(X, X)

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

(12) QDPSizeChangeProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

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:

  • 2NDSNEG(s(N), cons2(X, cons(Y, Z))) → 2NDSPOS(N, Z)
    The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1, 2 > 2

  • 2NDSNEG(s(N), cons(X, Z)) → 2NDSNEG(s(N), cons2(X, Z))
    The graph contains the following edges 1 >= 1

  • 2NDSPOS(s(N), cons(X, Z)) → 2NDSPOS(s(N), cons2(X, Z))
    The graph contains the following edges 1 >= 1

  • 2NDSPOS(s(N), cons2(X, cons(Y, Z))) → 2NDSNEG(N, Z)
    The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1, 2 > 2

(13) YES

(14) Obligation:

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

FROM(X) → FROM(s(X))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

from(X) → cons(X, from(s(X)))
2ndspos(0, Z) → rnil
2ndspos(s(N), cons(X, Z)) → 2ndspos(s(N), cons2(X, Z))
2ndspos(s(N), cons2(X, cons(Y, Z))) → rcons(posrecip(Y), 2ndsneg(N, Z))
2ndsneg(0, Z) → rnil
2ndsneg(s(N), cons(X, Z)) → 2ndsneg(s(N), cons2(X, Z))
2ndsneg(s(N), cons2(X, cons(Y, Z))) → rcons(negrecip(Y), 2ndspos(N, Z))
pi(X) → 2ndspos(X, from(0))
plus(0, Y) → Y
plus(s(X), Y) → s(plus(X, Y))
times(0, Y) → 0
times(s(X), Y) → plus(Y, times(X, Y))
square(X) → times(X, X)

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

(15) NonLoopProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

By Theorem 8 [NONLOOP] we deduce infiniteness of the QDP.
We apply the theorem with m = 1, b = 0,
σ' = [ ], and μ' = [x0 / s(x0)] on the rule
FROM(s(x0))[ ]n[ ] → FROM(s(x0))[ ]n[x0 / s(x0)]
This rule is correct for the QDP as the following derivation shows:

intermediate steps: Equivalent (Simplify mu) - Instantiate mu - Instantiation
FROM(X)[ ]n[ ] → FROM(s(X))[ ]n[ ]
    by OriginalRule from TRS P

(16) NO