Termination w.r.t. Q proof of /tmp/tmpNfBGX1/#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

  ↳ 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))

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:

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))

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:

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))

Q is empty.
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

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ QDPOrderProof

          ↳ 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))

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.

MINUS(s(x), s(y)) → MINUS(x, y)

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

POL(MINUS(x₁, x₂)) = (1/2)x_1
POL(s(x₁)) = 1/2 + (4)x_1

The value of delta used in the strict ordering is 1/4.
The following usable rules [17] were oriented: none

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ QDPOrderProof

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ PisEmptyProof

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

Q DP problem:
P is empty.
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.
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

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ QDPOrderProof

          ↳ 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))

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.

LE(s(x), s(y)) → LE(x, y)

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

POL(s(x₁)) = 1/2 + (4)x_1
POL(LE(x₁, x₂)) = (1/2)x_1

The value of delta used in the strict ordering is 1/4.
The following usable rules [17] were oriented: none

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ QDPOrderProof

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ PisEmptyProof

          ↳ QDP

Q DP problem:
P is empty.
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.
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

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ 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:

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.
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(false, s(x), s(y)) → GCD(minus(y, x), s(x))

The remaining pairs can at least be oriented weakly.

IF_GCD(true, s(x), s(y)) → GCD(minus(x, y), s(y))
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)) = (1/4)x_2
POL(true) = 0
POL(false) = 1
POL(IF_GCD(x₁, x₂, x₃)) = (1/2)x_1 + (1/2)x_2 + (1/4)x_3
POL(s(x₁)) = (4)x_1
POL(GCD(x₁, x₂)) = x_1 + (1/4)x_2
POL(0) = 4

The value of delta used in the strict ordering is 1/2.
The following usable rules [17] were oriented:

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)

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ QDPOrderProof

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ 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))
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))

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.

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

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)) = (2)x_1
POL(le(x₁, x₂)) = 0
POL(true) = 0
POL(false) = 0
POL(IF_GCD(x₁, x₂, x₃)) = (1/4)x_2
POL(s(x₁)) = 1 + (2)x_1
POL(GCD(x₁, x₂)) = (1/4)x_1
POL(0) = 0

The value of delta used in the strict ordering is 1/4.
The following usable rules [17] were oriented:

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

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ QDPOrderProof

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ QDPOrderProof

                  ↳ QDP

                    ↳ DependencyGraphProof

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:

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.
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.