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

0 QTRS
↳1 DependencyPairsProof (⇔, 11 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 QDPSizeChangeProof (⇔, 0 ms)
        ↳16 YES
    ↳17 QDP
        ↳18 QDPSizeChangeProof (⇔, 0 ms)
        ↳19 YES
    ↳20 QDP
        ↳21 NonLoopProof (⇔, 0 ms)
        ↳22 NO

(0) Obligation:

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

terms(N) → cons(recip(sqr(N)), terms(s(N)))
sqr(0) → 0
sqr(s(X)) → s(add(sqr(X), dbl(X)))
dbl(0) → 0
dbl(s(X)) → s(s(dbl(X)))
add(0, X) → X
add(s(X), Y) → s(add(X, Y))
first(0, X) → nil
first(s(X), cons(Y, Z)) → cons(Y, first(X, Z))
half(0) → 0
half(s(0)) → 0
half(s(s(X))) → s(half(X))
half(dbl(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:

TERMS(N) → SQR(N)
TERMS(N) → TERMS(s(N))
SQR(s(X)) → ADD(sqr(X), dbl(X))
SQR(s(X)) → SQR(X)
SQR(s(X)) → DBL(X)
DBL(s(X)) → DBL(X)
ADD(s(X), Y) → ADD(X, Y)
FIRST(s(X), cons(Y, Z)) → FIRST(X, Z)
HALF(s(s(X))) → HALF(X)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

terms(N) → cons(recip(sqr(N)), terms(s(N)))
sqr(0) → 0
sqr(s(X)) → s(add(sqr(X), dbl(X)))
dbl(0) → 0
dbl(s(X)) → s(s(dbl(X)))
add(0, X) → X
add(s(X), Y) → s(add(X, Y))
first(0, X) → nil
first(s(X), cons(Y, Z)) → cons(Y, first(X, Z))
half(0) → 0
half(s(0)) → 0
half(s(s(X))) → s(half(X))
half(dbl(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 6 SCCs with 3 less nodes.

(4) Complex Obligation (AND)

(5) Obligation:

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

HALF(s(s(X))) → HALF(X)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

terms(N) → cons(recip(sqr(N)), terms(s(N)))
sqr(0) → 0
sqr(s(X)) → s(add(sqr(X), dbl(X)))
dbl(0) → 0
dbl(s(X)) → s(s(dbl(X)))
add(0, X) → X
add(s(X), Y) → s(add(X, Y))
first(0, X) → nil
first(s(X), cons(Y, Z)) → cons(Y, first(X, Z))
half(0) → 0
half(s(0)) → 0
half(s(s(X))) → s(half(X))
half(dbl(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:

  • HALF(s(s(X))) → HALF(X)
    The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1

(7) YES

(8) Obligation:

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

FIRST(s(X), cons(Y, Z)) → FIRST(X, Z)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

terms(N) → cons(recip(sqr(N)), terms(s(N)))
sqr(0) → 0
sqr(s(X)) → s(add(sqr(X), dbl(X)))
dbl(0) → 0
dbl(s(X)) → s(s(dbl(X)))
add(0, X) → X
add(s(X), Y) → s(add(X, Y))
first(0, X) → nil
first(s(X), cons(Y, Z)) → cons(Y, first(X, Z))
half(0) → 0
half(s(0)) → 0
half(s(s(X))) → s(half(X))
half(dbl(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:

  • FIRST(s(X), cons(Y, Z)) → FIRST(X, Z)
    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:

ADD(s(X), Y) → ADD(X, Y)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

terms(N) → cons(recip(sqr(N)), terms(s(N)))
sqr(0) → 0
sqr(s(X)) → s(add(sqr(X), dbl(X)))
dbl(0) → 0
dbl(s(X)) → s(s(dbl(X)))
add(0, X) → X
add(s(X), Y) → s(add(X, Y))
first(0, X) → nil
first(s(X), cons(Y, Z)) → cons(Y, first(X, Z))
half(0) → 0
half(s(0)) → 0
half(s(s(X))) → s(half(X))
half(dbl(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:

  • ADD(s(X), Y) → ADD(X, Y)
    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:

DBL(s(X)) → DBL(X)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

terms(N) → cons(recip(sqr(N)), terms(s(N)))
sqr(0) → 0
sqr(s(X)) → s(add(sqr(X), dbl(X)))
dbl(0) → 0
dbl(s(X)) → s(s(dbl(X)))
add(0, X) → X
add(s(X), Y) → s(add(X, Y))
first(0, X) → nil
first(s(X), cons(Y, Z)) → cons(Y, first(X, Z))
half(0) → 0
half(s(0)) → 0
half(s(s(X))) → s(half(X))
half(dbl(X)) → X

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

(15) 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:

  • DBL(s(X)) → DBL(X)
    The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1

(16) YES

(17) Obligation:

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

SQR(s(X)) → SQR(X)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

terms(N) → cons(recip(sqr(N)), terms(s(N)))
sqr(0) → 0
sqr(s(X)) → s(add(sqr(X), dbl(X)))
dbl(0) → 0
dbl(s(X)) → s(s(dbl(X)))
add(0, X) → X
add(s(X), Y) → s(add(X, Y))
first(0, X) → nil
first(s(X), cons(Y, Z)) → cons(Y, first(X, Z))
half(0) → 0
half(s(0)) → 0
half(s(s(X))) → s(half(X))
half(dbl(X)) → X

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

(18) 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:

  • SQR(s(X)) → SQR(X)
    The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1

(19) YES

(20) Obligation:

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

TERMS(N) → TERMS(s(N))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

terms(N) → cons(recip(sqr(N)), terms(s(N)))
sqr(0) → 0
sqr(s(X)) → s(add(sqr(X), dbl(X)))
dbl(0) → 0
dbl(s(X)) → s(s(dbl(X)))
add(0, X) → X
add(s(X), Y) → s(add(X, Y))
first(0, X) → nil
first(s(X), cons(Y, Z)) → cons(Y, first(X, Z))
half(0) → 0
half(s(0)) → 0
half(s(s(X))) → s(half(X))
half(dbl(X)) → X

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

(21) 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
TERMS(s(x0))[ ]n[ ] → TERMS(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
TERMS(N)[ ]n[ ] → TERMS(s(N))[ ]n[ ]
    by OriginalRule from TRS P

(22) NO