Termination w.r.t. Q proof of /tmp/tmpEIrZgZ/3.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:

cond(true, x, y) → cond(gr(x, y), x, add(x, y))
gr(0, x) → false
gr(s(x), 0) → true
gr(s(x), s(y)) → gr(x, y)
add(0, x) → x
add(s(x), y) → s(add(x, y))

Q is empty.

↳ QTRS

  ↳ AAECC Innermost

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

cond(true, x, y) → cond(gr(x, y), x, add(x, y))
gr(0, x) → false
gr(s(x), 0) → true
gr(s(x), s(y)) → gr(x, y)
add(0, x) → x
add(s(x), y) → s(add(x, y))

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

The TRS R 2 is

cond(true, x, y) → cond(gr(x, y), x, add(x, y))

The signature Sigma is {cond}

↳ QTRS

  ↳ AAECC Innermost

    ↳ QTRS

      ↳ DependencyPairsProof

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

cond(true, x, y) → cond(gr(x, y), x, add(x, y))
gr(0, x) → false
gr(s(x), 0) → true
gr(s(x), s(y)) → gr(x, y)
add(0, x) → x
add(s(x), y) → s(add(x, y))

The set Q consists of the following terms:

cond(true, x0, x1)
gr(0, x0)
gr(s(x0), 0)
gr(s(x0), s(x1))
add(0, x0)
add(s(x0), 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:

COND(true, x, y) → ADD(x, y)
ADD(s(x), y) → ADD(x, y)
COND(true, x, y) → GR(x, y)
GR(s(x), s(y)) → GR(x, y)
COND(true, x, y) → COND(gr(x, y), x, add(x, y))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

cond(true, x, y) → cond(gr(x, y), x, add(x, y))
gr(0, x) → false
gr(s(x), 0) → true
gr(s(x), s(y)) → gr(x, y)
add(0, x) → x
add(s(x), y) → s(add(x, y))

The set Q consists of the following terms:

cond(true, x0, x1)
gr(0, x0)
gr(s(x0), 0)
gr(s(x0), s(x1))
add(0, x0)
add(s(x0), x1)

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:

COND(true, x, y) → ADD(x, y)
ADD(s(x), y) → ADD(x, y)
COND(true, x, y) → GR(x, y)
GR(s(x), s(y)) → GR(x, y)
COND(true, x, y) → COND(gr(x, y), x, add(x, y))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

cond(true, x, y) → cond(gr(x, y), x, add(x, y))
gr(0, x) → false
gr(s(x), 0) → true
gr(s(x), s(y)) → gr(x, y)
add(0, x) → x
add(s(x), y) → s(add(x, y))

The set Q consists of the following terms:

cond(true, x0, x1)
gr(0, x0)
gr(s(x0), 0)
gr(s(x0), s(x1))
add(0, x0)
add(s(x0), x1)

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

↳ QTRS

  ↳ AAECC Innermost

    ↳ QTRS

      ↳ DependencyPairsProof

        ↳ QDP

          ↳ DependencyGraphProof

            ↳ AND

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ UsableRulesProof

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

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

ADD(s(x), y) → ADD(x, y)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

cond(true, x, y) → cond(gr(x, y), x, add(x, y))
gr(0, x) → false
gr(s(x), 0) → true
gr(s(x), s(y)) → gr(x, y)
add(0, x) → x
add(s(x), y) → s(add(x, y))

The set Q consists of the following terms:

cond(true, x0, x1)
gr(0, x0)
gr(s(x0), 0)
gr(s(x0), s(x1))
add(0, x0)
add(s(x0), 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

  ↳ AAECC Innermost

    ↳ QTRS

      ↳ DependencyPairsProof

        ↳ QDP

          ↳ DependencyGraphProof

            ↳ AND

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ UsableRulesProof

                  ↳ QDP

                    ↳ QReductionProof

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

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

ADD(s(x), y) → ADD(x, y)

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

cond(true, x0, x1)
gr(0, x0)
gr(s(x0), 0)
gr(s(x0), s(x1))
add(0, x0)
add(s(x0), 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.

cond(true, x0, x1)
gr(0, x0)
gr(s(x0), 0)
gr(s(x0), s(x1))
add(0, x0)
add(s(x0), x1)

↳ QTRS

  ↳ AAECC Innermost

    ↳ QTRS

      ↳ DependencyPairsProof

        ↳ QDP

          ↳ DependencyGraphProof

            ↳ AND

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ UsableRulesProof

                  ↳ QDP

                    ↳ QReductionProof

                      ↳ QDP

                        ↳ QDPSizeChangeProof

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

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

ADD(s(x), y) → ADD(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:

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

↳ QTRS

  ↳ AAECC Innermost

    ↳ QTRS

      ↳ DependencyPairsProof

        ↳ QDP

          ↳ DependencyGraphProof

            ↳ AND

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ 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:

cond(true, x, y) → cond(gr(x, y), x, add(x, y))
gr(0, x) → false
gr(s(x), 0) → true
gr(s(x), s(y)) → gr(x, y)
add(0, x) → x
add(s(x), y) → s(add(x, y))

The set Q consists of the following terms:

cond(true, x0, x1)
gr(0, x0)
gr(s(x0), 0)
gr(s(x0), s(x1))
add(0, x0)
add(s(x0), x1)

↳ QTRS

  ↳ AAECC Innermost

    ↳ QTRS

      ↳ DependencyPairsProof

        ↳ QDP

          ↳ DependencyGraphProof

            ↳ AND

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ 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:

cond(true, x0, x1)
gr(0, x0)
gr(s(x0), 0)
gr(s(x0), s(x1))
add(0, x0)
add(s(x0), 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.

cond(true, x0, x1)
gr(0, x0)
gr(s(x0), 0)
gr(s(x0), s(x1))
add(0, x0)
add(s(x0), x1)

↳ QTRS

  ↳ AAECC Innermost

    ↳ QTRS

      ↳ DependencyPairsProof

        ↳ QDP

          ↳ DependencyGraphProof

            ↳ AND

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ 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)

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

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ UsableRulesProof

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

COND(true, x, y) → COND(gr(x, y), x, add(x, y))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

cond(true, x, y) → cond(gr(x, y), x, add(x, y))
gr(0, x) → false
gr(s(x), 0) → true
gr(s(x), s(y)) → gr(x, y)
add(0, x) → x
add(s(x), y) → s(add(x, y))

The set Q consists of the following terms:

cond(true, x0, x1)
gr(0, x0)
gr(s(x0), 0)
gr(s(x0), s(x1))
add(0, x0)
add(s(x0), x1)

↳ QTRS

  ↳ AAECC Innermost

    ↳ QTRS

      ↳ DependencyPairsProof

        ↳ QDP

          ↳ DependencyGraphProof

            ↳ AND

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ UsableRulesProof

                  ↳ QDP

                    ↳ QReductionProof

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

COND(true, x, y) → COND(gr(x, y), x, add(x, y))

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

The set Q consists of the following terms:

cond(true, x0, x1)
gr(0, x0)
gr(s(x0), 0)
gr(s(x0), s(x1))
add(0, x0)
add(s(x0), 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.

cond(true, x0, x1)

↳ QTRS

  ↳ AAECC Innermost

    ↳ QTRS

      ↳ DependencyPairsProof

        ↳ QDP

          ↳ DependencyGraphProof

            ↳ AND

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ UsableRulesProof

                  ↳ QDP

                    ↳ QReductionProof

                      ↳ QDP

                        ↳ NonInfProof

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

COND(true, x, y) → COND(gr(x, y), x, add(x, y))

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

The set Q consists of the following terms:

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

We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
The DP Problem is simplified using the Induction Calculus [18] with the following steps:
Note that final constraints are written in bold face.

For Pair COND(true, x, y) → COND(gr(x, y), x, add(x, y)) the following chains were created:

We consider the chain COND(true, x, y) → COND(gr(x, y), x, add(x, y)), COND(true, x, y) → COND(gr(x, y), x, add(x, y)) which results in the following constraint:
(1)    (COND(gr(x0, x1), x0, add(x0, x1))=COND(true, x2, x3) ⇒ COND(true, x0, x1)≥COND(gr(x0, x1), x0, add(x0, x1)))

We simplified constraint (1) using rules (I), (II), (IV) which results in the following new constraint:
(2)    (gr(x0, x1)=true ⇒ COND(true, x0, x1)≥COND(gr(x0, x1), x0, add(x0, x1)))

We simplified constraint (2) using rule (V) (with possible (I) afterwards) using induction on gr(x0, x1)=true which results in the following new constraints:
(3)    (true=true ⇒ COND(true, s(x5), 0)≥COND(gr(s(x5), 0), s(x5), add(s(x5), 0)))

(4)    (gr(x6, x7)=true∧(gr(x6, x7)=true ⇒ COND(true, x6, x7)≥COND(gr(x6, x7), x6, add(x6, x7))) ⇒ COND(true, s(x6), s(x7))≥COND(gr(s(x6), s(x7)), s(x6), add(s(x6), s(x7))))

We simplified constraint (3) using rules (I), (II) which results in the following new constraint:
(5)    (COND(true, s(x5), 0)≥COND(gr(s(x5), 0), s(x5), add(s(x5), 0)))

We simplified constraint (4) using rule (VI) where we applied the induction hypothesis (gr(x6, x7)=true ⇒ COND(true, x6, x7)≥COND(gr(x6, x7), x6, add(x6, x7))) with σ = [ ] which results in the following new constraint:
(6)    (COND(true, x6, x7)≥COND(gr(x6, x7), x6, add(x6, x7)) ⇒ COND(true, s(x6), s(x7))≥COND(gr(s(x6), s(x7)), s(x6), add(s(x6), s(x7))))

To summarize, we get the following constraints P_≥ for the following pairs.

COND(true, x, y) → COND(gr(x, y), x, add(x, y))
- (COND(true, s(x5), 0)≥COND(gr(s(x5), 0), s(x5), add(s(x5), 0)))
- (COND(true, x6, x7)≥COND(gr(x6, x7), x6, add(x6, x7)) ⇒ COND(true, s(x6), s(x7))≥COND(gr(s(x6), s(x7)), s(x6), add(s(x6), s(x7))))

The constraints for P_> respective P_bound are constructed from P_≥ where we just replace every occurence of "t ≥ s" in P_≥ by "t > s" respective "t ≥ c". Here c stands for the fresh constant used for P_bound.
Using the following integer polynomial ordering the resulting constraints can be solved
Polynomial interpretation [18]:

POL(0) = 0
POL(COND(x₁, x₂, x₃)) = -1 - x₁ + x₂ - x₃
POL(add(x₁, x₂)) = x₁
POL(c) = -1
POL(false) = 0
POL(gr(x₁, x₂)) = 0
POL(s(x₁)) = 1 + x₁
POL(true) = 0

The following pairs are in P_>:

COND(true, x, y) → COND(gr(x, y), x, add(x, y))

The following pairs are in P_bound:

COND(true, x, y) → COND(gr(x, y), x, add(x, y))

The following rules are usable:

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

↳ QTRS

  ↳ AAECC Innermost

    ↳ QTRS

      ↳ DependencyPairsProof

        ↳ QDP

          ↳ DependencyGraphProof

            ↳ AND

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ UsableRulesProof

                  ↳ QDP

                    ↳ QReductionProof

                      ↳ QDP

                        ↳ NonInfProof

                          ↳ 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)
add(0, x) → x
add(s(x), y) → s(add(x, y))

The set Q consists of the following terms:

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

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