Termination w.r.t. Q proof of /tmp/aprove_benchmark_example

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:

0(#) → #
+(x, #) → x
+(#, x) → x
+(0(x), 0(y)) → 0(+(x, y))
+(0(x), 1(y)) → 1(+(x, y))
+(1(x), 0(y)) → 1(+(x, y))
+(1(x), 1(y)) → 0(+(+(x, y), 1(#)))
*(#, x) → #
*(0(x), y) → 0(*(x, y))
*(1(x), y) → +(0(*(x, y)), y)
sum(nil) → 0(#)
sum(cons(x, l)) → +(x, sum(l))
prod(nil) → 1(#)
prod(cons(x, l)) → *(x, prod(l))

Q is empty.

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

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

0(#) → #
+(x, #) → x
+(#, x) → x
+(0(x), 0(y)) → 0(+(x, y))
+(0(x), 1(y)) → 1(+(x, y))
+(1(x), 0(y)) → 1(+(x, y))
+(1(x), 1(y)) → 0(+(+(x, y), 1(#)))
*(#, x) → #
*(0(x), y) → 0(*(x, y))
*(1(x), y) → +(0(*(x, y)), y)
sum(nil) → 0(#)
sum(cons(x, l)) → +(x, sum(l))
prod(nil) → 1(#)
prod(cons(x, l)) → *(x, prod(l))

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:

+¹(0(x), 0(y)) → 0¹(+(x, y))
SUM(nil) → 0¹(#)
PROD(cons(x, l)) → PROD(l)
*¹(0(x), y) → 0¹(*(x, y))
SUM(cons(x, l)) → +¹(x, sum(l))
+¹(1(x), 1(y)) → +¹(x, y)
+¹(1(x), 1(y)) → 0¹(+(+(x, y), 1(#)))
+¹(0(x), 0(y)) → +¹(x, y)
*¹(1(x), y) → +¹(0(*(x, y)), y)
+¹(0(x), 1(y)) → +¹(x, y)
+¹(1(x), 0(y)) → +¹(x, y)
*¹(1(x), y) → 0¹(*(x, y))
SUM(cons(x, l)) → SUM(l)
+¹(1(x), 1(y)) → +¹(+(x, y), 1(#))
PROD(cons(x, l)) → *¹(x, prod(l))
*¹(0(x), y) → *¹(x, y)
*¹(1(x), y) → *¹(x, y)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

0(#) → #
+(x, #) → x
+(#, x) → x
+(0(x), 0(y)) → 0(+(x, y))
+(0(x), 1(y)) → 1(+(x, y))
+(1(x), 0(y)) → 1(+(x, y))
+(1(x), 1(y)) → 0(+(+(x, y), 1(#)))
*(#, x) → #
*(0(x), y) → 0(*(x, y))
*(1(x), y) → +(0(*(x, y)), y)
sum(nil) → 0(#)
sum(cons(x, l)) → +(x, sum(l))
prod(nil) → 1(#)
prod(cons(x, l)) → *(x, prod(l))

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:

+¹(0(x), 0(y)) → 0¹(+(x, y))
SUM(nil) → 0¹(#)
PROD(cons(x, l)) → PROD(l)
*¹(0(x), y) → 0¹(*(x, y))
SUM(cons(x, l)) → +¹(x, sum(l))
+¹(1(x), 1(y)) → +¹(x, y)
+¹(1(x), 1(y)) → 0¹(+(+(x, y), 1(#)))
+¹(0(x), 0(y)) → +¹(x, y)
*¹(1(x), y) → +¹(0(*(x, y)), y)
+¹(0(x), 1(y)) → +¹(x, y)
+¹(1(x), 0(y)) → +¹(x, y)
*¹(1(x), y) → 0¹(*(x, y))
SUM(cons(x, l)) → SUM(l)
+¹(1(x), 1(y)) → +¹(+(x, y), 1(#))
PROD(cons(x, l)) → *¹(x, prod(l))
*¹(0(x), y) → *¹(x, y)
*¹(1(x), y) → *¹(x, y)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

0(#) → #
+(x, #) → x
+(#, x) → x
+(0(x), 0(y)) → 0(+(x, y))
+(0(x), 1(y)) → 1(+(x, y))
+(1(x), 0(y)) → 1(+(x, y))
+(1(x), 1(y)) → 0(+(+(x, y), 1(#)))
*(#, x) → #
*(0(x), y) → 0(*(x, y))
*(1(x), y) → +(0(*(x, y)), y)
sum(nil) → 0(#)
sum(cons(x, l)) → +(x, sum(l))
prod(nil) → 1(#)
prod(cons(x, l)) → *(x, prod(l))

Q is empty.
We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
The approximation of the Dependency Graph [15,17,22] contains 4 SCCs with 8 less nodes.

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ UsableRulesProof

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

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

+¹(0(x), 0(y)) → +¹(x, y)
+¹(1(x), 0(y)) → +¹(x, y)
+¹(0(x), 1(y)) → +¹(x, y)
+¹(1(x), 1(y)) → +¹(x, y)
+¹(1(x), 1(y)) → +¹(+(x, y), 1(#))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

0(#) → #
+(x, #) → x
+(#, x) → x
+(0(x), 0(y)) → 0(+(x, y))
+(0(x), 1(y)) → 1(+(x, y))
+(1(x), 0(y)) → 1(+(x, y))
+(1(x), 1(y)) → 0(+(+(x, y), 1(#)))
*(#, x) → #
*(0(x), y) → 0(*(x, y))
*(1(x), y) → +(0(*(x, y)), y)
sum(nil) → 0(#)
sum(cons(x, l)) → +(x, sum(l))
prod(nil) → 1(#)
prod(cons(x, l)) → *(x, prod(l))

Q is empty.
We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
We can use the usable rules and reduction pair processor [15] with the Ce-compatible extension of the polynomial order that maps every function symbol to the sum of its argument. Then, we can delete all non-usable rules [17] from R.

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ UsableRulesProof

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ RuleRemovalProof

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

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

+¹(0(x), 0(y)) → +¹(x, y)
+¹(0(x), 1(y)) → +¹(x, y)
+¹(1(x), 0(y)) → +¹(x, y)
+¹(1(x), 1(y)) → +¹(x, y)
+¹(1(x), 1(y)) → +¹(+(x, y), 1(#))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

+(x, #) → x
+(#, x) → x
+(0(x), 0(y)) → 0(+(x, y))
+(0(x), 1(y)) → 1(+(x, y))
+(1(x), 0(y)) → 1(+(x, y))
+(1(x), 1(y)) → 0(+(+(x, y), 1(#)))
0(#) → #

Q is empty.
We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
By using the rule removal processor [15] with the following polynomial ordering [25], at least one Dependency Pair or term rewrite system rule of this QDP problem can be strictly oriented.
Strictly oriented dependency pairs:

+¹(0(x), 1(y)) → +¹(x, y)
+¹(1(x), 0(y)) → +¹(x, y)
+¹(1(x), 1(y)) → +¹(x, y)
+¹(1(x), 1(y)) → +¹(+(x, y), 1(#))

Strictly oriented rules of the TRS R:

+(1(x), 1(y)) → 0(+(+(x, y), 1(#)))

Used ordering: POLO with Polynomial interpretation [25]:

POL(#) = 0
POL(+(x₁, x₂)) = x₁ + x₂
POL(+¹(x₁, x₂)) = 2·x₁ + 2·x₂
POL(0(x₁)) = x₁
POL(1(x₁)) = 1 + x₁

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ UsableRulesProof

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ RuleRemovalProof

                  ↳ QDP

                    ↳ UsableRulesProof

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

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

+¹(0(x), 0(y)) → +¹(x, y)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

+(x, #) → x
+(#, x) → x
+(0(x), 0(y)) → 0(+(x, y))
+(0(x), 1(y)) → 1(+(x, y))
+(1(x), 0(y)) → 1(+(x, y))
0(#) → #

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ UsableRulesProof

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ RuleRemovalProof

                  ↳ QDP

                    ↳ UsableRulesProof

                      ↳ QDP

                        ↳ QDPSizeChangeProof

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

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

+¹(0(x), 0(y)) → +¹(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:

+¹(0(x), 0(y)) → +¹(x, y)
The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1, 2 > 2

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ MNOCProof

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

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

SUM(cons(x, l)) → SUM(l)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

0(#) → #
+(x, #) → x
+(#, x) → x
+(0(x), 0(y)) → 0(+(x, y))
+(0(x), 1(y)) → 1(+(x, y))
+(1(x), 0(y)) → 1(+(x, y))
+(1(x), 1(y)) → 0(+(+(x, y), 1(#)))
*(#, x) → #
*(0(x), y) → 0(*(x, y))
*(1(x), y) → +(0(*(x, y)), y)
sum(nil) → 0(#)
sum(cons(x, l)) → +(x, sum(l))
prod(nil) → 1(#)
prod(cons(x, l)) → *(x, prod(l))

Q is empty.
We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
We use the modular non-overlap check [15] to enlarge Q to all left-hand sides of R.

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ MNOCProof

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ UsableRulesProof

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

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

SUM(cons(x, l)) → SUM(l)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

0(#) → #
+(x, #) → x
+(#, x) → x
+(0(x), 0(y)) → 0(+(x, y))
+(0(x), 1(y)) → 1(+(x, y))
+(1(x), 0(y)) → 1(+(x, y))
+(1(x), 1(y)) → 0(+(+(x, y), 1(#)))
*(#, x) → #
*(0(x), y) → 0(*(x, y))
*(1(x), y) → +(0(*(x, y)), y)
sum(nil) → 0(#)
sum(cons(x, l)) → +(x, sum(l))
prod(nil) → 1(#)
prod(cons(x, l)) → *(x, prod(l))

The set Q consists of the following terms:

0(#)
+(x0, #)
+(#, x0)
+(0(x0), 0(x1))
+(0(x0), 1(x1))
+(1(x0), 0(x1))
+(1(x0), 1(x1))
*(#, x0)
*(0(x0), x1)
*(1(x0), x1)
sum(nil)
sum(cons(x0, x1))
prod(nil)
prod(cons(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

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ MNOCProof

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ UsableRulesProof

                  ↳ QDP

                    ↳ QReductionProof

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

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

SUM(cons(x, l)) → SUM(l)

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

0(#)
+(x0, #)
+(#, x0)
+(0(x0), 0(x1))
+(0(x0), 1(x1))
+(1(x0), 0(x1))
+(1(x0), 1(x1))
*(#, x0)
*(0(x0), x1)
*(1(x0), x1)
sum(nil)
sum(cons(x0, x1))
prod(nil)
prod(cons(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.

0(#)
+(x0, #)
+(#, x0)
+(0(x0), 0(x1))
+(0(x0), 1(x1))
+(1(x0), 0(x1))
+(1(x0), 1(x1))
*(#, x0)
*(0(x0), x1)
*(1(x0), x1)
sum(nil)
sum(cons(x0, x1))
prod(nil)
prod(cons(x0, x1))

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ MNOCProof

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ UsableRulesProof

                  ↳ QDP

                    ↳ QReductionProof

                      ↳ QDP

                        ↳ QDPSizeChangeProof

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

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

SUM(cons(x, l)) → SUM(l)

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

SUM(cons(x, l)) → SUM(l)
The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ UsableRulesProof

          ↳ QDP

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

*¹(0(x), y) → *¹(x, y)
*¹(1(x), y) → *¹(x, y)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

0(#) → #
+(x, #) → x
+(#, x) → x
+(0(x), 0(y)) → 0(+(x, y))
+(0(x), 1(y)) → 1(+(x, y))
+(1(x), 0(y)) → 1(+(x, y))
+(1(x), 1(y)) → 0(+(+(x, y), 1(#)))
*(#, x) → #
*(0(x), y) → 0(*(x, y))
*(1(x), y) → +(0(*(x, y)), y)
sum(nil) → 0(#)
sum(cons(x, l)) → +(x, sum(l))
prod(nil) → 1(#)
prod(cons(x, l)) → *(x, prod(l))

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ UsableRulesProof

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ QDPSizeChangeProof

          ↳ QDP

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

*¹(1(x), y) → *¹(x, y)
*¹(0(x), y) → *¹(x, y)

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

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

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ MNOCProof

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

PROD(cons(x, l)) → PROD(l)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

0(#) → #
+(x, #) → x
+(#, x) → x
+(0(x), 0(y)) → 0(+(x, y))
+(0(x), 1(y)) → 1(+(x, y))
+(1(x), 0(y)) → 1(+(x, y))
+(1(x), 1(y)) → 0(+(+(x, y), 1(#)))
*(#, x) → #
*(0(x), y) → 0(*(x, y))
*(1(x), y) → +(0(*(x, y)), y)
sum(nil) → 0(#)
sum(cons(x, l)) → +(x, sum(l))
prod(nil) → 1(#)
prod(cons(x, l)) → *(x, prod(l))

Q is empty.
We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
We use the modular non-overlap check [15] to enlarge Q to all left-hand sides of R.

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ MNOCProof

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ UsableRulesProof

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

PROD(cons(x, l)) → PROD(l)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

0(#) → #
+(x, #) → x
+(#, x) → x
+(0(x), 0(y)) → 0(+(x, y))
+(0(x), 1(y)) → 1(+(x, y))
+(1(x), 0(y)) → 1(+(x, y))
+(1(x), 1(y)) → 0(+(+(x, y), 1(#)))
*(#, x) → #
*(0(x), y) → 0(*(x, y))
*(1(x), y) → +(0(*(x, y)), y)
sum(nil) → 0(#)
sum(cons(x, l)) → +(x, sum(l))
prod(nil) → 1(#)
prod(cons(x, l)) → *(x, prod(l))

The set Q consists of the following terms:

0(#)
+(x0, #)
+(#, x0)
+(0(x0), 0(x1))
+(0(x0), 1(x1))
+(1(x0), 0(x1))
+(1(x0), 1(x1))
*(#, x0)
*(0(x0), x1)
*(1(x0), x1)
sum(nil)
sum(cons(x0, x1))
prod(nil)
prod(cons(x0, x1))

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ MNOCProof

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ UsableRulesProof

                  ↳ QDP

                    ↳ QReductionProof

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

PROD(cons(x, l)) → PROD(l)

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

0(#)
+(x0, #)
+(#, x0)
+(0(x0), 0(x1))
+(0(x0), 1(x1))
+(1(x0), 0(x1))
+(1(x0), 1(x1))
*(#, x0)
*(0(x0), x1)
*(1(x0), x1)
sum(nil)
sum(cons(x0, x1))
prod(nil)
prod(cons(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.

0(#)
+(x0, #)
+(#, x0)
+(0(x0), 0(x1))
+(0(x0), 1(x1))
+(1(x0), 0(x1))
+(1(x0), 1(x1))
*(#, x0)
*(0(x0), x1)
*(1(x0), x1)
sum(nil)
sum(cons(x0, x1))
prod(nil)
prod(cons(x0, x1))

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ MNOCProof

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ UsableRulesProof

                  ↳ QDP

                    ↳ QReductionProof

                      ↳ QDP

                        ↳ QDPSizeChangeProof

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

PROD(cons(x, l)) → PROD(l)

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

PROD(cons(x, l)) → PROD(l)
The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1