Termination w.r.t. Q proof of /tmp/tmpHc1XyK/23.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:

cond1(true, x, y, z) → cond2(gr(y, z), x, y, z)
cond2(true, x, y, z) → cond2(gr(y, z), x, p(y), z)
cond2(false, x, y, z) → cond1(gr(x, z), p(x), y, z)
gr(0, x) → false
gr(s(x), 0) → true
gr(s(x), s(y)) → gr(x, y)
p(0) → 0
p(s(x)) → x

Q is empty.

↳ QTRS

  ↳ AAECC Innermost

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

cond1(true, x, y, z) → cond2(gr(y, z), x, y, z)
cond2(true, x, y, z) → cond2(gr(y, z), x, p(y), z)
cond2(false, x, y, z) → cond1(gr(x, z), p(x), y, z)
gr(0, x) → false
gr(s(x), 0) → true
gr(s(x), s(y)) → gr(x, y)
p(0) → 0
p(s(x)) → x

Q is empty.

We have applied [19,8] to switch to innermost. The TRS R 1 is

gr(0, x) → false
gr(s(x), 0) → true
gr(s(x), s(y)) → gr(x, y)
p(0) → 0
p(s(x)) → x

The TRS R 2 is

cond1(true, x, y, z) → cond2(gr(y, z), x, y, z)
cond2(true, x, y, z) → cond2(gr(y, z), x, p(y), z)
cond2(false, x, y, z) → cond1(gr(x, z), p(x), y, z)

The signature Sigma is {cond1, cond2}

↳ QTRS

  ↳ AAECC Innermost

    ↳ QTRS

      ↳ DependencyPairsProof

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

cond1(true, x, y, z) → cond2(gr(y, z), x, y, z)
cond2(true, x, y, z) → cond2(gr(y, z), x, p(y), z)
cond2(false, x, y, z) → cond1(gr(x, z), p(x), y, z)
gr(0, x) → false
gr(s(x), 0) → true
gr(s(x), s(y)) → gr(x, y)
p(0) → 0
p(s(x)) → x

The set Q consists of the following terms:

cond1(true, x0, x1, x2)
cond2(true, x0, x1, x2)
cond2(false, x0, x1, x2)
gr(0, x0)
gr(s(x0), 0)
gr(s(x0), s(x1))
p(0)
p(s(x0))

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

COND1(true, x, y, z) → GR(y, z)
COND2(false, x, y, z) → COND1(gr(x, z), p(x), y, z)
COND2(true, x, y, z) → P(y)
COND2(false, x, y, z) → P(x)
COND2(true, x, y, z) → GR(y, z)
COND2(true, x, y, z) → COND2(gr(y, z), x, p(y), z)
COND1(true, x, y, z) → COND2(gr(y, z), x, y, z)
COND2(false, x, y, z) → GR(x, z)
GR(s(x), s(y)) → GR(x, y)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

cond1(true, x, y, z) → cond2(gr(y, z), x, y, z)
cond2(true, x, y, z) → cond2(gr(y, z), x, p(y), z)
cond2(false, x, y, z) → cond1(gr(x, z), p(x), y, z)
gr(0, x) → false
gr(s(x), 0) → true
gr(s(x), s(y)) → gr(x, y)
p(0) → 0
p(s(x)) → x

The set Q consists of the following terms:

cond1(true, x0, x1, x2)
cond2(true, x0, x1, x2)
cond2(false, x0, x1, x2)
gr(0, x0)
gr(s(x0), 0)
gr(s(x0), s(x1))
p(0)
p(s(x0))

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

↳ QTRS

  ↳ AAECC Innermost

    ↳ QTRS

      ↳ DependencyPairsProof

        ↳ QDP

          ↳ DependencyGraphProof

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

COND1(true, x, y, z) → GR(y, z)
COND2(false, x, y, z) → COND1(gr(x, z), p(x), y, z)
COND2(true, x, y, z) → P(y)
COND2(false, x, y, z) → P(x)
COND2(true, x, y, z) → GR(y, z)
COND2(true, x, y, z) → COND2(gr(y, z), x, p(y), z)
COND1(true, x, y, z) → COND2(gr(y, z), x, y, z)
COND2(false, x, y, z) → GR(x, z)
GR(s(x), s(y)) → GR(x, y)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

cond1(true, x, y, z) → cond2(gr(y, z), x, y, z)
cond2(true, x, y, z) → cond2(gr(y, z), x, p(y), z)
cond2(false, x, y, z) → cond1(gr(x, z), p(x), y, z)
gr(0, x) → false
gr(s(x), 0) → true
gr(s(x), s(y)) → gr(x, y)
p(0) → 0
p(s(x)) → x

The set Q consists of the following terms:

cond1(true, x0, x1, x2)
cond2(true, x0, x1, x2)
cond2(false, x0, x1, x2)
gr(0, x0)
gr(s(x0), 0)
gr(s(x0), s(x1))
p(0)
p(s(x0))

We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
The approximation of the Dependency Graph [15,17,22] contains 2 SCCs with 5 less nodes.

↳ QTRS

  ↳ AAECC Innermost

    ↳ QTRS

      ↳ DependencyPairsProof

        ↳ QDP

          ↳ DependencyGraphProof

            ↳ AND

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ UsableRulesProof

              ↳ QDP

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

GR(s(x), s(y)) → GR(x, y)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

cond1(true, x, y, z) → cond2(gr(y, z), x, y, z)
cond2(true, x, y, z) → cond2(gr(y, z), x, p(y), z)
cond2(false, x, y, z) → cond1(gr(x, z), p(x), y, z)
gr(0, x) → false
gr(s(x), 0) → true
gr(s(x), s(y)) → gr(x, y)
p(0) → 0
p(s(x)) → x

The set Q consists of the following terms:

cond1(true, x0, x1, x2)
cond2(true, x0, x1, x2)
cond2(false, x0, x1, x2)
gr(0, x0)
gr(s(x0), 0)
gr(s(x0), s(x1))
p(0)
p(s(x0))

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

  ↳ AAECC Innermost

    ↳ QTRS

      ↳ DependencyPairsProof

        ↳ QDP

          ↳ DependencyGraphProof

            ↳ AND

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ UsableRulesProof

                  ↳ QDP

                    ↳ QReductionProof

              ↳ QDP

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

GR(s(x), s(y)) → GR(x, y)

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

cond1(true, x0, x1, x2)
cond2(true, x0, x1, x2)
cond2(false, x0, x1, x2)
gr(0, x0)
gr(s(x0), 0)
gr(s(x0), s(x1))
p(0)
p(s(x0))

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.

cond1(true, x0, x1, x2)
cond2(true, x0, x1, x2)
cond2(false, x0, x1, x2)
gr(0, x0)
gr(s(x0), 0)
gr(s(x0), s(x1))
p(0)
p(s(x0))

↳ QTRS

  ↳ AAECC Innermost

    ↳ QTRS

      ↳ DependencyPairsProof

        ↳ QDP

          ↳ DependencyGraphProof

            ↳ AND

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ UsableRulesProof

                  ↳ QDP

                    ↳ QReductionProof

                      ↳ QDP

                        ↳ QDPSizeChangeProof

              ↳ QDP

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

GR(s(x), s(y)) → GR(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:

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

↳ QTRS

  ↳ AAECC Innermost

    ↳ QTRS

      ↳ DependencyPairsProof

        ↳ QDP

          ↳ DependencyGraphProof

            ↳ AND

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ UsableRulesProof

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

COND2(false, x, y, z) → COND1(gr(x, z), p(x), y, z)
COND1(true, x, y, z) → COND2(gr(y, z), x, y, z)
COND2(true, x, y, z) → COND2(gr(y, z), x, p(y), z)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

cond1(true, x, y, z) → cond2(gr(y, z), x, y, z)
cond2(true, x, y, z) → cond2(gr(y, z), x, p(y), z)
cond2(false, x, y, z) → cond1(gr(x, z), p(x), y, z)
gr(0, x) → false
gr(s(x), 0) → true
gr(s(x), s(y)) → gr(x, y)
p(0) → 0
p(s(x)) → x

The set Q consists of the following terms:

cond1(true, x0, x1, x2)
cond2(true, x0, x1, x2)
cond2(false, x0, x1, x2)
gr(0, x0)
gr(s(x0), 0)
gr(s(x0), s(x1))
p(0)
p(s(x0))

↳ QTRS

  ↳ AAECC Innermost

    ↳ QTRS

      ↳ DependencyPairsProof

        ↳ QDP

          ↳ DependencyGraphProof

            ↳ AND

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ UsableRulesProof

                  ↳ QDP

                    ↳ QReductionProof

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

COND2(false, x, y, z) → COND1(gr(x, z), p(x), y, z)
COND1(true, x, y, z) → COND2(gr(y, z), x, y, z)
COND2(true, x, y, z) → COND2(gr(y, z), x, p(y), z)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

gr(0, x) → false
gr(s(x), 0) → true
gr(s(x), s(y)) → gr(x, y)
p(0) → 0
p(s(x)) → x

The set Q consists of the following terms:

cond1(true, x0, x1, x2)
cond2(true, x0, x1, x2)
cond2(false, x0, x1, x2)
gr(0, x0)
gr(s(x0), 0)
gr(s(x0), s(x1))
p(0)
p(s(x0))

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.

cond1(true, x0, x1, x2)
cond2(true, x0, x1, x2)
cond2(false, x0, x1, x2)

↳ QTRS

  ↳ AAECC Innermost

    ↳ QTRS

      ↳ DependencyPairsProof

        ↳ QDP

          ↳ DependencyGraphProof

            ↳ AND

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ UsableRulesProof

                  ↳ QDP

                    ↳ QReductionProof

                      ↳ QDP

                        ↳ QDPOrderProof

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

COND2(false, x, y, z) → COND1(gr(x, z), p(x), y, z)
COND2(true, x, y, z) → COND2(gr(y, z), x, p(y), z)
COND1(true, x, y, z) → COND2(gr(y, z), x, y, z)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

gr(0, x) → false
gr(s(x), 0) → true
gr(s(x), s(y)) → gr(x, y)
p(0) → 0
p(s(x)) → x

The set Q consists of the following terms:

gr(0, x0)
gr(s(x0), 0)
gr(s(x0), s(x1))
p(0)
p(s(x0))

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.

COND2(false, x, y, z) → COND1(gr(x, z), p(x), y, z)
COND1(true, x, y, z) → COND2(gr(y, z), x, y, z)

The remaining pairs can at least be oriented weakly.

COND2(true, x, y, z) → COND2(gr(y, z), x, p(y), z)

Used ordering: Polynomial interpretation [25,35]:

POL(COND2(x₁, x₂, x₃, x₄)) = 4 + (4)x_2 + (3/4)x_4
POL(gr(x₁, x₂)) = x_1
POL(true) = 5/4
POL(false) = 0
POL(p(x₁)) = (1/4)x_1
POL(s(x₁)) = 4 + (4)x_1
POL(0) = 0
POL(COND1(x₁, x₂, x₃, x₄)) = 15/4 + (7/4)x_1 + (4)x_2 + (3/4)x_4

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

gr(s(x), 0) → true
gr(0, x) → false
p(0) → 0
gr(s(x), s(y)) → gr(x, y)
p(s(x)) → x

↳ QTRS

  ↳ AAECC Innermost

    ↳ QTRS

      ↳ DependencyPairsProof

        ↳ QDP

          ↳ DependencyGraphProof

            ↳ AND

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ UsableRulesProof

                  ↳ QDP

                    ↳ QReductionProof

                      ↳ QDP

                        ↳ QDPOrderProof

                          ↳ QDP

                            ↳ QDPOrderProof

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

COND2(true, x, y, z) → COND2(gr(y, z), x, p(y), z)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

gr(0, x) → false
gr(s(x), 0) → true
gr(s(x), s(y)) → gr(x, y)
p(0) → 0
p(s(x)) → x

The set Q consists of the following terms:

gr(0, x0)
gr(s(x0), 0)
gr(s(x0), s(x1))
p(0)
p(s(x0))

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.

COND2(true, x, y, z) → COND2(gr(y, z), x, p(y), z)

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

POL(COND2(x₁, x₂, x₃, x₄)) = (4)x_1 + (13/4)x_3
POL(gr(x₁, x₂)) = 3/2 + (1/2)x_1
POL(true) = 2
POL(false) = 3/4
POL(p(x₁)) = 1/4 + (1/4)x_1
POL(s(x₁)) = 1 + (4)x_1
POL(0) = 0

The value of delta used in the strict ordering is 19/16.
The following usable rules [17] were oriented:

gr(s(x), 0) → true
gr(0, x) → false
p(0) → 0
gr(s(x), s(y)) → gr(x, y)
p(s(x)) → x

↳ QTRS

  ↳ AAECC Innermost

    ↳ QTRS

      ↳ DependencyPairsProof

        ↳ QDP

          ↳ DependencyGraphProof

            ↳ AND

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ UsableRulesProof

                  ↳ QDP

                    ↳ QReductionProof

                      ↳ QDP

                        ↳ QDPOrderProof

                          ↳ QDP

                            ↳ QDPOrderProof

                              ↳ QDP

                                ↳ PisEmptyProof

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

gr(0, x) → false
gr(s(x), 0) → true
gr(s(x), s(y)) → gr(x, y)
p(0) → 0
p(s(x)) → x

The set Q consists of the following terms:

gr(0, x0)
gr(s(x0), 0)
gr(s(x0), s(x1))
p(0)
p(s(x0))

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