Termination w.r.t. Q proof of /tmp/tmp3ssU1E/#3.49.trs

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(c(s(x), y)) → f(c(x, s(y)))
f(c(s(x), s(y))) → g(c(x, y))
g(c(x, s(y))) → g(c(s(x), y))
g(c(s(x), s(y))) → f(c(x, y))

Q is empty.

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

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

f(c(s(x), y)) → f(c(x, s(y)))
f(c(s(x), s(y))) → g(c(x, y))
g(c(x, s(y))) → g(c(s(x), y))
g(c(s(x), s(y))) → f(c(x, 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:

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

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

f(c(s(x), y)) → f(c(x, s(y)))
f(c(s(x), s(y))) → g(c(x, y))
g(c(x, s(y))) → g(c(s(x), y))
g(c(s(x), s(y))) → f(c(x, y))

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

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ QDPOrderProof

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

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

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

f(c(s(x), y)) → f(c(x, s(y)))
f(c(s(x), s(y))) → g(c(x, y))
g(c(x, s(y))) → g(c(s(x), y))
g(c(s(x), s(y))) → f(c(x, y))

Q is empty.
We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
We use the reduction pair processor [15].

The following pairs can be oriented strictly and are deleted.

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

The remaining pairs can at least be oriented weakly.

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

Used ordering: Polynomial interpretation [25,35]:

POL(c(x₁, x₂)) = 3 + (4)x_1 + (4)x_2
POL(s(x₁)) = 2 + x_1
POL(G(x₁)) = (4)x_1
POL(F(x₁)) = 4 + (4)x_1

The value of delta used in the strict ordering is 60.
The following usable rules [17] were oriented: none

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ QDPOrderProof

        ↳ QDP

          ↳ DependencyGraphProof

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

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

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

f(c(s(x), y)) → f(c(x, s(y)))
f(c(s(x), s(y))) → g(c(x, y))
g(c(x, s(y))) → g(c(s(x), y))
g(c(s(x), s(y))) → f(c(x, 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.

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ QDPOrderProof

        ↳ QDP

          ↳ DependencyGraphProof

            ↳ AND

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ QDPOrderProof

              ↳ QDP

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

G(c(x, s(y))) → G(c(s(x), y))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

f(c(s(x), y)) → f(c(x, s(y)))
f(c(s(x), s(y))) → g(c(x, y))
g(c(x, s(y))) → g(c(s(x), y))
g(c(s(x), s(y))) → f(c(x, y))

Q is empty.
We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
We use the reduction pair processor [15].

The following pairs can be oriented strictly and are deleted.

G(c(x, s(y))) → G(c(s(x), y))

The remaining pairs can at least be oriented weakly.
none
Used ordering: Polynomial interpretation [25,35]:

POL(c(x₁, x₂)) = x_2
POL(G(x₁)) = (2)x_1
POL(s(x₁)) = 4 + (4)x_1

The value of delta used in the strict ordering is 8.
The following usable rules [17] were oriented: none

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ QDPOrderProof

        ↳ QDP

          ↳ DependencyGraphProof

            ↳ AND

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ QDPOrderProof

                  ↳ QDP

                    ↳ PisEmptyProof

              ↳ QDP

Q DP problem:
P is empty.
The TRS R consists of the following rules:

f(c(s(x), y)) → f(c(x, s(y)))
f(c(s(x), s(y))) → g(c(x, y))
g(c(x, s(y))) → g(c(s(x), y))
g(c(s(x), s(y))) → f(c(x, y))

Q is empty.
We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
The TRS P is empty. Hence, there is no (P,Q,R) chain.

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ QDPOrderProof

        ↳ QDP

          ↳ DependencyGraphProof

            ↳ AND

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ QDPOrderProof

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

F(c(s(x), y)) → F(c(x, s(y)))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

f(c(s(x), y)) → f(c(x, s(y)))
f(c(s(x), s(y))) → g(c(x, y))
g(c(x, s(y))) → g(c(s(x), y))
g(c(s(x), s(y))) → f(c(x, y))

Q is empty.
We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
We use the reduction pair processor [15].

The following pairs can be oriented strictly and are deleted.

F(c(s(x), y)) → F(c(x, s(y)))

The remaining pairs can at least be oriented weakly.
none
Used ordering: Polynomial interpretation [25,35]:

POL(c(x₁, x₂)) = (3)x_1 + (2)x_2
POL(s(x₁)) = 3 + x_1
POL(F(x₁)) = (2)x_1

The value of delta used in the strict ordering is 6.
The following usable rules [17] were oriented: none

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ QDPOrderProof

        ↳ QDP

          ↳ DependencyGraphProof

            ↳ AND

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ QDPOrderProof

                  ↳ QDP

                    ↳ PisEmptyProof

Q DP problem:
P is empty.
The TRS R consists of the following rules:

f(c(s(x), y)) → f(c(x, s(y)))
f(c(s(x), s(y))) → g(c(x, y))
g(c(x, s(y))) → g(c(s(x), y))
g(c(s(x), s(y))) → f(c(x, y))

Q is empty.
We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
The TRS P is empty. Hence, there is no (P,Q,R) chain.