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:

ack_in(0, n) → ack_out(s(n))
ack_in(s(m), 0) → u11(ack_in(m, s(0)))
u11(ack_out(n)) → ack_out(n)
ack_in(s(m), s(n)) → u21(ack_in(s(m), n), m)
u21(ack_out(n), m) → u22(ack_in(m, n))
u22(ack_out(n)) → ack_out(n)

Q is empty.


↳ QTRS
  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

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

ack_in(0, n) → ack_out(s(n))
ack_in(s(m), 0) → u11(ack_in(m, s(0)))
u11(ack_out(n)) → ack_out(n)
ack_in(s(m), s(n)) → u21(ack_in(s(m), n), m)
u21(ack_out(n), m) → u22(ack_in(m, n))
u22(ack_out(n)) → ack_out(n)

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:

ACK_IN(s(m), 0) → U11(ack_in(m, s(0)))
U21(ack_out(n), m) → U22(ack_in(m, n))
ACK_IN(s(m), 0) → ACK_IN(m, s(0))
ACK_IN(s(m), s(n)) → U21(ack_in(s(m), n), m)
U21(ack_out(n), m) → ACK_IN(m, n)
ACK_IN(s(m), s(n)) → ACK_IN(s(m), n)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

ack_in(0, n) → ack_out(s(n))
ack_in(s(m), 0) → u11(ack_in(m, s(0)))
u11(ack_out(n)) → ack_out(n)
ack_in(s(m), s(n)) → u21(ack_in(s(m), n), m)
u21(ack_out(n), m) → u22(ack_in(m, n))
u22(ack_out(n)) → ack_out(n)

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:

ACK_IN(s(m), 0) → U11(ack_in(m, s(0)))
U21(ack_out(n), m) → U22(ack_in(m, n))
ACK_IN(s(m), 0) → ACK_IN(m, s(0))
ACK_IN(s(m), s(n)) → U21(ack_in(s(m), n), m)
U21(ack_out(n), m) → ACK_IN(m, n)
ACK_IN(s(m), s(n)) → ACK_IN(s(m), n)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

ack_in(0, n) → ack_out(s(n))
ack_in(s(m), 0) → u11(ack_in(m, s(0)))
u11(ack_out(n)) → ack_out(n)
ack_in(s(m), s(n)) → u21(ack_in(s(m), n), m)
u21(ack_out(n), m) → u22(ack_in(m, n))
u22(ack_out(n)) → ack_out(n)

Q is empty.
We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
The approximation of the Dependency Graph [15,17,22] contains 1 SCC with 2 less nodes.

↳ QTRS
  ↳ DependencyPairsProof
    ↳ QDP
      ↳ DependencyGraphProof
        ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDPOrderProof

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

ACK_IN(s(m), 0) → ACK_IN(m, s(0))
ACK_IN(s(m), s(n)) → U21(ack_in(s(m), n), m)
U21(ack_out(n), m) → ACK_IN(m, n)
ACK_IN(s(m), s(n)) → ACK_IN(s(m), n)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

ack_in(0, n) → ack_out(s(n))
ack_in(s(m), 0) → u11(ack_in(m, s(0)))
u11(ack_out(n)) → ack_out(n)
ack_in(s(m), s(n)) → u21(ack_in(s(m), n), m)
u21(ack_out(n), m) → u22(ack_in(m, n))
u22(ack_out(n)) → ack_out(n)

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.


ACK_IN(s(m), 0) → ACK_IN(m, s(0))
ACK_IN(s(m), s(n)) → U21(ack_in(s(m), n), m)
The remaining pairs can at least be oriented weakly.

U21(ack_out(n), m) → ACK_IN(m, n)
ACK_IN(s(m), s(n)) → ACK_IN(s(m), n)
Used ordering: Polynomial interpretation [25,35]:

POL(ACK_IN(x1, x2)) = (1/4)x_1   
POL(ack_in(x1, x2)) = (1/4)x_1   
POL(u22(x1)) = 3/2   
POL(u11(x1)) = 1/4   
POL(u21(x1, x2)) = 1/2 + (4)x_2   
POL(s(x1)) = 3/4 + (4)x_1   
POL(0) = 0   
POL(ack_out(x1)) = 0   
POL(U21(x1, x2)) = x_2   
The value of delta used in the strict ordering is 3/16.
The following usable rules [17] were oriented: none



↳ QTRS
  ↳ DependencyPairsProof
    ↳ QDP
      ↳ DependencyGraphProof
        ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDPOrderProof
            ↳ QDP
              ↳ DependencyGraphProof

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

U21(ack_out(n), m) → ACK_IN(m, n)
ACK_IN(s(m), s(n)) → ACK_IN(s(m), n)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

ack_in(0, n) → ack_out(s(n))
ack_in(s(m), 0) → u11(ack_in(m, s(0)))
u11(ack_out(n)) → ack_out(n)
ack_in(s(m), s(n)) → u21(ack_in(s(m), n), m)
u21(ack_out(n), m) → u22(ack_in(m, n))
u22(ack_out(n)) → ack_out(n)

Q is empty.
We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
The approximation of the Dependency Graph [15,17,22] contains 1 SCC with 1 less node.

↳ QTRS
  ↳ DependencyPairsProof
    ↳ QDP
      ↳ DependencyGraphProof
        ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDPOrderProof
            ↳ QDP
              ↳ DependencyGraphProof
                ↳ QDP
                  ↳ QDPOrderProof

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

ACK_IN(s(m), s(n)) → ACK_IN(s(m), n)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

ack_in(0, n) → ack_out(s(n))
ack_in(s(m), 0) → u11(ack_in(m, s(0)))
u11(ack_out(n)) → ack_out(n)
ack_in(s(m), s(n)) → u21(ack_in(s(m), n), m)
u21(ack_out(n), m) → u22(ack_in(m, n))
u22(ack_out(n)) → ack_out(n)

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.


ACK_IN(s(m), s(n)) → ACK_IN(s(m), n)
The remaining pairs can at least be oriented weakly.
none
Used ordering: Polynomial interpretation [25,35]:

POL(ACK_IN(x1, x2)) = (2)x_2   
POL(s(x1)) = 1/4 + (7/2)x_1   
The value of delta used in the strict ordering is 1/2.
The following usable rules [17] were oriented: none



↳ QTRS
  ↳ DependencyPairsProof
    ↳ QDP
      ↳ DependencyGraphProof
        ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDPOrderProof
            ↳ QDP
              ↳ DependencyGraphProof
                ↳ QDP
                  ↳ QDPOrderProof
                    ↳ QDP
                      ↳ PisEmptyProof

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

ack_in(0, n) → ack_out(s(n))
ack_in(s(m), 0) → u11(ack_in(m, s(0)))
u11(ack_out(n)) → ack_out(n)
ack_in(s(m), s(n)) → u21(ack_in(s(m), n), m)
u21(ack_out(n), m) → u22(ack_in(m, n))
u22(ack_out(n)) → ack_out(n)

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.