Termination w.r.t. Q proof of /tmp/tmpKHjHVl/#3.6a.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:

le(0, y) → true
le(s(x), 0) → false
le(s(x), s(y)) → le(x, y)
minus(x, 0) → x
minus(s(x), s(y)) → minus(x, y)
gcd(0, y) → y
gcd(s(x), 0) → s(x)
gcd(s(x), s(y)) → if_gcd(le(y, x), s(x), s(y))
if_gcd(true, s(x), s(y)) → gcd(minus(x, y), s(y))
if_gcd(false, s(x), s(y)) → gcd(minus(y, x), s(x))

Q is empty.

↳ QTRS

  ↳ Overlay + Local Confluence

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

le(0, y) → true
le(s(x), 0) → false
le(s(x), s(y)) → le(x, y)
minus(x, 0) → x
minus(s(x), s(y)) → minus(x, y)
gcd(0, y) → y
gcd(s(x), 0) → s(x)
gcd(s(x), s(y)) → if_gcd(le(y, x), s(x), s(y))
if_gcd(true, s(x), s(y)) → gcd(minus(x, y), s(y))
if_gcd(false, s(x), s(y)) → gcd(minus(y, x), s(x))

Q is empty.

The TRS is overlay and locally confluent. By [19] we can switch to innermost.

↳ QTRS

  ↳ Overlay + Local Confluence

    ↳ QTRS

      ↳ DependencyPairsProof

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

le(0, y) → true
le(s(x), 0) → false
le(s(x), s(y)) → le(x, y)
minus(x, 0) → x
minus(s(x), s(y)) → minus(x, y)
gcd(0, y) → y
gcd(s(x), 0) → s(x)
gcd(s(x), s(y)) → if_gcd(le(y, x), s(x), s(y))
if_gcd(true, s(x), s(y)) → gcd(minus(x, y), s(y))
if_gcd(false, s(x), s(y)) → gcd(minus(y, x), s(x))

The set Q consists of the following terms:

le(0, x0)
le(s(x0), 0)
le(s(x0), s(x1))
minus(x0, 0)
minus(s(x0), s(x1))
gcd(0, x0)
gcd(s(x0), 0)
gcd(s(x0), s(x1))
if_gcd(true, s(x0), s(x1))
if_gcd(false, s(x0), s(x1))

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

MINUS(s(x), s(y)) → MINUS(x, y)
IF_GCD(false, s(x), s(y)) → MINUS(y, x)
IF_GCD(true, s(x), s(y)) → GCD(minus(x, y), s(y))
IF_GCD(false, s(x), s(y)) → GCD(minus(y, x), s(x))
IF_GCD(true, s(x), s(y)) → MINUS(x, y)
GCD(s(x), s(y)) → IF_GCD(le(y, x), s(x), s(y))
LE(s(x), s(y)) → LE(x, y)
GCD(s(x), s(y)) → LE(y, x)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

le(0, y) → true
le(s(x), 0) → false
le(s(x), s(y)) → le(x, y)
minus(x, 0) → x
minus(s(x), s(y)) → minus(x, y)
gcd(0, y) → y
gcd(s(x), 0) → s(x)
gcd(s(x), s(y)) → if_gcd(le(y, x), s(x), s(y))
if_gcd(true, s(x), s(y)) → gcd(minus(x, y), s(y))
if_gcd(false, s(x), s(y)) → gcd(minus(y, x), s(x))

The set Q consists of the following terms:

le(0, x0)
le(s(x0), 0)
le(s(x0), s(x1))
minus(x0, 0)
minus(s(x0), s(x1))
gcd(0, x0)
gcd(s(x0), 0)
gcd(s(x0), s(x1))
if_gcd(true, s(x0), s(x1))
if_gcd(false, s(x0), s(x1))

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

↳ QTRS

  ↳ Overlay + Local Confluence

    ↳ QTRS

      ↳ DependencyPairsProof

        ↳ QDP

          ↳ DependencyGraphProof

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

MINUS(s(x), s(y)) → MINUS(x, y)
IF_GCD(false, s(x), s(y)) → MINUS(y, x)
IF_GCD(true, s(x), s(y)) → GCD(minus(x, y), s(y))
IF_GCD(false, s(x), s(y)) → GCD(minus(y, x), s(x))
IF_GCD(true, s(x), s(y)) → MINUS(x, y)
GCD(s(x), s(y)) → IF_GCD(le(y, x), s(x), s(y))
LE(s(x), s(y)) → LE(x, y)
GCD(s(x), s(y)) → LE(y, x)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

le(0, y) → true
le(s(x), 0) → false
le(s(x), s(y)) → le(x, y)
minus(x, 0) → x
minus(s(x), s(y)) → minus(x, y)
gcd(0, y) → y
gcd(s(x), 0) → s(x)
gcd(s(x), s(y)) → if_gcd(le(y, x), s(x), s(y))
if_gcd(true, s(x), s(y)) → gcd(minus(x, y), s(y))
if_gcd(false, s(x), s(y)) → gcd(minus(y, x), s(x))

The set Q consists of the following terms:

le(0, x0)
le(s(x0), 0)
le(s(x0), s(x1))
minus(x0, 0)
minus(s(x0), s(x1))
gcd(0, x0)
gcd(s(x0), 0)
gcd(s(x0), s(x1))
if_gcd(true, s(x0), s(x1))
if_gcd(false, s(x0), s(x1))

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

↳ QTRS

  ↳ Overlay + Local Confluence

    ↳ QTRS

      ↳ DependencyPairsProof

        ↳ QDP

          ↳ DependencyGraphProof

            ↳ AND

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ UsableRulesProof

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

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

MINUS(s(x), s(y)) → MINUS(x, y)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

le(0, y) → true
le(s(x), 0) → false
le(s(x), s(y)) → le(x, y)
minus(x, 0) → x
minus(s(x), s(y)) → minus(x, y)
gcd(0, y) → y
gcd(s(x), 0) → s(x)
gcd(s(x), s(y)) → if_gcd(le(y, x), s(x), s(y))
if_gcd(true, s(x), s(y)) → gcd(minus(x, y), s(y))
if_gcd(false, s(x), s(y)) → gcd(minus(y, x), s(x))

The set Q consists of the following terms:

le(0, x0)
le(s(x0), 0)
le(s(x0), s(x1))
minus(x0, 0)
minus(s(x0), s(x1))
gcd(0, x0)
gcd(s(x0), 0)
gcd(s(x0), s(x1))
if_gcd(true, s(x0), s(x1))
if_gcd(false, s(x0), s(x1))

We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
As all Q-normal forms are R-normal forms we are in the innermost case. Hence, by the usable rules processor [15] we can delete all non-usable rules [17] from R.

↳ QTRS

  ↳ Overlay + Local Confluence

    ↳ QTRS

      ↳ DependencyPairsProof

        ↳ QDP

          ↳ DependencyGraphProof

            ↳ AND

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ UsableRulesProof

                  ↳ QDP

                    ↳ QReductionProof

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

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

MINUS(s(x), s(y)) → MINUS(x, y)

R is empty.
The set Q consists of the following terms:

le(0, x0)
le(s(x0), 0)
le(s(x0), s(x1))
minus(x0, 0)
minus(s(x0), s(x1))
gcd(0, x0)
gcd(s(x0), 0)
gcd(s(x0), s(x1))
if_gcd(true, s(x0), s(x1))
if_gcd(false, s(x0), s(x1))

We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
We deleted the following terms from Q as each root-symbol of these terms does neither occur in P nor in R.

le(0, x0)
le(s(x0), 0)
le(s(x0), s(x1))
minus(x0, 0)
minus(s(x0), s(x1))
gcd(0, x0)
gcd(s(x0), 0)
gcd(s(x0), s(x1))
if_gcd(true, s(x0), s(x1))
if_gcd(false, s(x0), s(x1))

↳ QTRS

  ↳ Overlay + Local Confluence

    ↳ QTRS

      ↳ DependencyPairsProof

        ↳ QDP

          ↳ DependencyGraphProof

            ↳ AND

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ UsableRulesProof

                  ↳ QDP

                    ↳ QReductionProof

                      ↳ QDP

                        ↳ QDPSizeChangeProof

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

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

MINUS(s(x), s(y)) → MINUS(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:

MINUS(s(x), s(y)) → MINUS(x, y)
The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1, 2 > 2

↳ QTRS

  ↳ Overlay + Local Confluence

    ↳ QTRS

      ↳ DependencyPairsProof

        ↳ QDP

          ↳ DependencyGraphProof

            ↳ AND

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ UsableRulesProof

              ↳ QDP

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

LE(s(x), s(y)) → LE(x, y)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

le(0, y) → true
le(s(x), 0) → false
le(s(x), s(y)) → le(x, y)
minus(x, 0) → x
minus(s(x), s(y)) → minus(x, y)
gcd(0, y) → y
gcd(s(x), 0) → s(x)
gcd(s(x), s(y)) → if_gcd(le(y, x), s(x), s(y))
if_gcd(true, s(x), s(y)) → gcd(minus(x, y), s(y))
if_gcd(false, s(x), s(y)) → gcd(minus(y, x), s(x))

The set Q consists of the following terms:

le(0, x0)
le(s(x0), 0)
le(s(x0), s(x1))
minus(x0, 0)
minus(s(x0), s(x1))
gcd(0, x0)
gcd(s(x0), 0)
gcd(s(x0), s(x1))
if_gcd(true, s(x0), s(x1))
if_gcd(false, s(x0), s(x1))

↳ QTRS

  ↳ Overlay + Local Confluence

    ↳ QTRS

      ↳ DependencyPairsProof

        ↳ QDP

          ↳ DependencyGraphProof

            ↳ AND

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ UsableRulesProof

                  ↳ QDP

                    ↳ QReductionProof

              ↳ QDP

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

LE(s(x), s(y)) → LE(x, y)

R is empty.
The set Q consists of the following terms:

le(0, x0)
le(s(x0), 0)
le(s(x0), s(x1))
minus(x0, 0)
minus(s(x0), s(x1))
gcd(0, x0)
gcd(s(x0), 0)
gcd(s(x0), s(x1))
if_gcd(true, s(x0), s(x1))
if_gcd(false, s(x0), s(x1))

We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
We deleted the following terms from Q as each root-symbol of these terms does neither occur in P nor in R.

le(0, x0)
le(s(x0), 0)
le(s(x0), s(x1))
minus(x0, 0)
minus(s(x0), s(x1))
gcd(0, x0)
gcd(s(x0), 0)
gcd(s(x0), s(x1))
if_gcd(true, s(x0), s(x1))
if_gcd(false, s(x0), s(x1))

↳ QTRS

  ↳ Overlay + Local Confluence

    ↳ QTRS

      ↳ DependencyPairsProof

        ↳ QDP

          ↳ DependencyGraphProof

            ↳ AND

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ UsableRulesProof

                  ↳ QDP

                    ↳ QReductionProof

                      ↳ QDP

                        ↳ QDPSizeChangeProof

              ↳ QDP

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

LE(s(x), s(y)) → LE(x, y)

From the DPs we obtained the following set of size-change graphs:

LE(s(x), s(y)) → LE(x, y)
The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1, 2 > 2

↳ QTRS

  ↳ Overlay + Local Confluence

    ↳ QTRS

      ↳ DependencyPairsProof

        ↳ QDP

          ↳ DependencyGraphProof

            ↳ AND

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ UsableRulesProof

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

IF_GCD(true, s(x), s(y)) → GCD(minus(x, y), s(y))
IF_GCD(false, s(x), s(y)) → GCD(minus(y, x), s(x))
GCD(s(x), s(y)) → IF_GCD(le(y, x), s(x), s(y))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

le(0, y) → true
le(s(x), 0) → false
le(s(x), s(y)) → le(x, y)
minus(x, 0) → x
minus(s(x), s(y)) → minus(x, y)
gcd(0, y) → y
gcd(s(x), 0) → s(x)
gcd(s(x), s(y)) → if_gcd(le(y, x), s(x), s(y))
if_gcd(true, s(x), s(y)) → gcd(minus(x, y), s(y))
if_gcd(false, s(x), s(y)) → gcd(minus(y, x), s(x))

The set Q consists of the following terms:

le(0, x0)
le(s(x0), 0)
le(s(x0), s(x1))
minus(x0, 0)
minus(s(x0), s(x1))
gcd(0, x0)
gcd(s(x0), 0)
gcd(s(x0), s(x1))
if_gcd(true, s(x0), s(x1))
if_gcd(false, s(x0), s(x1))

↳ QTRS

  ↳ Overlay + Local Confluence

    ↳ QTRS

      ↳ DependencyPairsProof

        ↳ QDP

          ↳ DependencyGraphProof

            ↳ AND

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ UsableRulesProof

                  ↳ QDP

                    ↳ QReductionProof

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

IF_GCD(true, s(x), s(y)) → GCD(minus(x, y), s(y))
IF_GCD(false, s(x), s(y)) → GCD(minus(y, x), s(x))
GCD(s(x), s(y)) → IF_GCD(le(y, x), s(x), s(y))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

minus(x, 0) → x
minus(s(x), s(y)) → minus(x, y)
le(0, y) → true
le(s(x), 0) → false
le(s(x), s(y)) → le(x, y)

The set Q consists of the following terms:

le(0, x0)
le(s(x0), 0)
le(s(x0), s(x1))
minus(x0, 0)
minus(s(x0), s(x1))
gcd(0, x0)
gcd(s(x0), 0)
gcd(s(x0), s(x1))
if_gcd(true, s(x0), s(x1))
if_gcd(false, s(x0), s(x1))

We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
We deleted the following terms from Q as each root-symbol of these terms does neither occur in P nor in R.

gcd(0, x0)
gcd(s(x0), 0)
gcd(s(x0), s(x1))
if_gcd(true, s(x0), s(x1))
if_gcd(false, s(x0), s(x1))

↳ QTRS

  ↳ Overlay + Local Confluence

    ↳ QTRS

      ↳ DependencyPairsProof

        ↳ QDP

          ↳ DependencyGraphProof

            ↳ AND

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ UsableRulesProof

                  ↳ QDP

                    ↳ QReductionProof

                      ↳ QDP

                        ↳ QDPOrderProof

                        ↳ QDPOrderProof

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

IF_GCD(true, s(x), s(y)) → GCD(minus(x, y), s(y))
IF_GCD(false, s(x), s(y)) → GCD(minus(y, x), s(x))
GCD(s(x), s(y)) → IF_GCD(le(y, x), s(x), s(y))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

minus(x, 0) → x
minus(s(x), s(y)) → minus(x, y)
le(0, y) → true
le(s(x), 0) → false
le(s(x), s(y)) → le(x, y)

The set Q consists of the following terms:

le(0, x0)
le(s(x0), 0)
le(s(x0), s(x1))
minus(x0, 0)
minus(s(x0), s(x1))

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.

IF_GCD(true, s(x), s(y)) → GCD(minus(x, y), s(y))
IF_GCD(false, s(x), s(y)) → GCD(minus(y, x), s(x))

The remaining pairs can at least be oriented weakly.

GCD(s(x), s(y)) → IF_GCD(le(y, x), s(x), s(y))

Used ordering: Polynomial interpretation [25,35]:

POL(minus(x₁, x₂)) = x_1
POL(le(x₁, x₂)) = 0
POL(true) = 0
POL(false) = 0
POL(IF_GCD(x₁, x₂, x₃)) = 4 + (1/4)x_2 + (1/4)x_3
POL(s(x₁)) = 1/4 + x_1
POL(GCD(x₁, x₂)) = 4 + (1/4)x_1 + (1/4)x_2
POL(0) = 0

The value of delta used in the strict ordering is 1/16.
The following usable rules [17] were oriented:

minus(x, 0) → x
minus(s(x), s(y)) → minus(x, y)

↳ QTRS

  ↳ Overlay + Local Confluence

    ↳ QTRS

      ↳ DependencyPairsProof

        ↳ QDP

          ↳ DependencyGraphProof

            ↳ AND

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ UsableRulesProof

                  ↳ QDP

                    ↳ QReductionProof

                      ↳ QDP

                        ↳ QDPOrderProof

                          ↳ QDP

                            ↳ DependencyGraphProof

                        ↳ QDPOrderProof

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

GCD(s(x), s(y)) → IF_GCD(le(y, x), s(x), s(y))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

minus(x, 0) → x
minus(s(x), s(y)) → minus(x, y)
le(0, y) → true
le(s(x), 0) → false
le(s(x), s(y)) → le(x, y)

The set Q consists of the following terms:

le(0, x0)
le(s(x0), 0)
le(s(x0), s(x1))
minus(x0, 0)
minus(s(x0), s(x1))

We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
The approximation of the Dependency Graph [15,17,22] contains 0 SCCs with 1 less node.
We use the reduction pair processor [15].

The following pairs can be oriented strictly and are deleted.

GCD(s(x), s(y)) → IF_GCD(le(y, x), s(x), s(y))

The remaining pairs can at least be oriented weakly.

IF_GCD(true, s(x), s(y)) → GCD(minus(x, y), s(y))
IF_GCD(false, s(x), s(y)) → GCD(minus(y, x), s(x))

Used ordering: Polynomial interpretation [25]:

POL(0) = 0
POL(GCD(x₁, x₂)) = 1 + x₁ + x₂
POL(IF_GCD(x₁, x₂, x₃)) = x₂ + x₃
POL(false) = 0
POL(le(x₁, x₂)) = 0
POL(minus(x₁, x₂)) = x₁
POL(s(x₁)) = 1 + x₁
POL(true) = 0

The following usable rules [17] were oriented:

minus(x, 0) → x
minus(s(x), s(y)) → minus(x, y)

↳ QTRS

  ↳ Overlay + Local Confluence

    ↳ QTRS

      ↳ DependencyPairsProof

        ↳ QDP

          ↳ DependencyGraphProof

            ↳ AND

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ UsableRulesProof

                  ↳ QDP

                    ↳ QReductionProof

                      ↳ QDP

                        ↳ QDPOrderProof

                        ↳ QDPOrderProof

                          ↳ QDP

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

IF_GCD(true, s(x), s(y)) → GCD(minus(x, y), s(y))
IF_GCD(false, s(x), s(y)) → GCD(minus(y, x), s(x))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

minus(x, 0) → x
minus(s(x), s(y)) → minus(x, y)
le(0, y) → true
le(s(x), 0) → false
le(s(x), s(y)) → le(x, y)

The set Q consists of the following terms:

le(0, x0)
le(s(x0), 0)
le(s(x0), s(x1))
minus(x0, 0)
minus(s(x0), s(x1))

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