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:

f(0) → true
f(1) → false
f(s(x)) → f(x)
if(true, s(x), s(y)) → s(x)
if(false, s(x), s(y)) → s(y)
g(x, c(y)) → c(g(x, y))
g(x, c(y)) → g(x, if(f(x), c(g(s(x), y)), c(y)))

Q is empty.


↳ QTRS
  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

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

f(0) → true
f(1) → false
f(s(x)) → f(x)
if(true, s(x), s(y)) → s(x)
if(false, s(x), s(y)) → s(y)
g(x, c(y)) → c(g(x, y))
g(x, c(y)) → g(x, if(f(x), c(g(s(x), y)), c(y)))

Q is empty.

Using Dependency Pairs [1,15] we result in the following initial DP problem:
Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:

G(x, c(y)) → G(x, if(f(x), c(g(s(x), y)), c(y)))
F(s(x)) → F(x)
G(x, c(y)) → F(x)
G(x, c(y)) → G(s(x), y)
G(x, c(y)) → IF(f(x), c(g(s(x), y)), c(y))
G(x, c(y)) → G(x, y)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

f(0) → true
f(1) → false
f(s(x)) → f(x)
if(true, s(x), s(y)) → s(x)
if(false, s(x), s(y)) → s(y)
g(x, c(y)) → c(g(x, y))
g(x, c(y)) → g(x, if(f(x), c(g(s(x), y)), c(y)))

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

↳ QTRS
  ↳ DependencyPairsProof
    ↳ QDP
      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

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

G(x, c(y)) → G(x, if(f(x), c(g(s(x), y)), c(y)))
F(s(x)) → F(x)
G(x, c(y)) → F(x)
G(x, c(y)) → G(s(x), y)
G(x, c(y)) → IF(f(x), c(g(s(x), y)), c(y))
G(x, c(y)) → G(x, y)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

f(0) → true
f(1) → false
f(s(x)) → f(x)
if(true, s(x), s(y)) → s(x)
if(false, s(x), s(y)) → s(y)
g(x, c(y)) → c(g(x, y))
g(x, c(y)) → g(x, if(f(x), c(g(s(x), y)), c(y)))

Q is empty.
We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
The approximation of the Dependency Graph [15,17,22] contains 2 SCCs with 3 less nodes.

↳ QTRS
  ↳ DependencyPairsProof
    ↳ QDP
      ↳ DependencyGraphProof
        ↳ AND
          ↳ QDP
            ↳ UsableRulesProof
          ↳ QDP

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

F(s(x)) → F(x)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

f(0) → true
f(1) → false
f(s(x)) → f(x)
if(true, s(x), s(y)) → s(x)
if(false, s(x), s(y)) → s(y)
g(x, c(y)) → c(g(x, y))
g(x, c(y)) → g(x, if(f(x), c(g(s(x), y)), c(y)))

Q is empty.
We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
We can use the usable rules and reduction pair processor [15] with the Ce-compatible extension of the polynomial order that maps every function symbol to the sum of its argument. Then, we can delete all non-usable rules [17] from R.

↳ QTRS
  ↳ DependencyPairsProof
    ↳ QDP
      ↳ DependencyGraphProof
        ↳ AND
          ↳ QDP
            ↳ UsableRulesProof
              ↳ QDP
                ↳ QDPSizeChangeProof
          ↳ QDP

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

F(s(x)) → F(x)

R is empty.
Q is empty.
We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
By using the subterm criterion [20] together with the size-change analysis [32] 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: 



↳ QTRS
  ↳ DependencyPairsProof
    ↳ QDP
      ↳ DependencyGraphProof
        ↳ AND
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP
            ↳ UsableRulesProof

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

G(x, c(y)) → G(s(x), y)
G(x, c(y)) → G(x, y)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

f(0) → true
f(1) → false
f(s(x)) → f(x)
if(true, s(x), s(y)) → s(x)
if(false, s(x), s(y)) → s(y)
g(x, c(y)) → c(g(x, y))
g(x, c(y)) → g(x, if(f(x), c(g(s(x), y)), c(y)))

Q is empty.
We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
We can use the usable rules and reduction pair processor [15] with the Ce-compatible extension of the polynomial order that maps every function symbol to the sum of its argument. Then, we can delete all non-usable rules [17] from R.

↳ QTRS
  ↳ DependencyPairsProof
    ↳ QDP
      ↳ DependencyGraphProof
        ↳ AND
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP
            ↳ UsableRulesProof
              ↳ QDP
                ↳ QDPSizeChangeProof

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

G(x, c(y)) → G(s(x), y)
G(x, c(y)) → G(x, y)

R is empty.
Q is empty.
We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
By using the subterm criterion [20] together with the size-change analysis [32] 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: