Termination w.r.t. Q proof of /tmp/tmp1f2AIu/list-sum-prod.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:

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

Q is empty.

↳ QTRS

  ↳ Overlay + Local Confluence

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

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

Q is empty.

The TRS is overlay and locally confluent. By [19] we can switch to innermost.

↳ QTRS

  ↳ Overlay + Local Confluence

    ↳ QTRS

      ↳ DependencyPairsProof

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

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

The set Q consists of the following terms:

+(x0, 0)
+(0, x0)
+(s(x0), s(x1))
*(x0, 0)
*(0, x0)
*(s(x0), s(x1))
sum(nil)
sum(cons(x0, x1))
prod(nil)
prod(cons(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:

*¹(s(x), s(y)) → +¹(*(x, y), +(x, y))
PROD(cons(x, l)) → PROD(l)
SUM(cons(x, l)) → +¹(x, sum(l))
SUM(cons(x, l)) → SUM(l)
PROD(cons(x, l)) → *¹(x, prod(l))
*¹(s(x), s(y)) → +¹(x, y)
*¹(s(x), s(y)) → *¹(x, y)
+¹(s(x), s(y)) → +¹(x, y)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

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

The set Q consists of the following terms:

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

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

↳ QTRS

  ↳ Overlay + Local Confluence

    ↳ QTRS

      ↳ DependencyPairsProof

        ↳ QDP

          ↳ DependencyGraphProof

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

*¹(s(x), s(y)) → +¹(*(x, y), +(x, y))
PROD(cons(x, l)) → PROD(l)
SUM(cons(x, l)) → +¹(x, sum(l))
SUM(cons(x, l)) → SUM(l)
PROD(cons(x, l)) → *¹(x, prod(l))
*¹(s(x), s(y)) → +¹(x, y)
*¹(s(x), s(y)) → *¹(x, y)
+¹(s(x), s(y)) → +¹(x, y)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

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

The set Q consists of the following terms:

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

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

↳ QTRS

  ↳ Overlay + Local Confluence

    ↳ QTRS

      ↳ DependencyPairsProof

        ↳ QDP

          ↳ DependencyGraphProof

            ↳ AND

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ UsableRulesProof

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

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

+¹(s(x), s(y)) → +¹(x, y)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

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

The set Q consists of the following terms:

+(x0, 0)
+(0, x0)
+(s(x0), s(x1))
*(x0, 0)
*(0, x0)
*(s(x0), s(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

  ↳ Overlay + Local Confluence

    ↳ QTRS

      ↳ DependencyPairsProof

        ↳ QDP

          ↳ DependencyGraphProof

            ↳ AND

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ UsableRulesProof

                  ↳ QDP

                    ↳ QReductionProof

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

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

+¹(s(x), s(y)) → +¹(x, y)

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

+(x0, 0)
+(0, x0)
+(s(x0), s(x1))
*(x0, 0)
*(0, x0)
*(s(x0), s(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.

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

↳ QTRS

  ↳ Overlay + Local Confluence

    ↳ QTRS

      ↳ DependencyPairsProof

        ↳ QDP

          ↳ DependencyGraphProof

            ↳ AND

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ UsableRulesProof

                  ↳ QDP

                    ↳ QReductionProof

                      ↳ QDP

                        ↳ QDPSizeChangeProof

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

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

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

↳ QTRS

  ↳ Overlay + Local Confluence

    ↳ QTRS

      ↳ DependencyPairsProof

        ↳ QDP

          ↳ DependencyGraphProof

            ↳ AND

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ 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:

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

The set Q consists of the following terms:

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

↳ QTRS

  ↳ Overlay + Local Confluence

    ↳ QTRS

      ↳ DependencyPairsProof

        ↳ QDP

          ↳ DependencyGraphProof

            ↳ AND

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ 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:

+(x0, 0)
+(0, x0)
+(s(x0), s(x1))
*(x0, 0)
*(0, x0)
*(s(x0), s(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.

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

↳ QTRS

  ↳ Overlay + Local Confluence

    ↳ QTRS

      ↳ DependencyPairsProof

        ↳ QDP

          ↳ DependencyGraphProof

            ↳ AND

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ 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

  ↳ Overlay + Local Confluence

    ↳ QTRS

      ↳ DependencyPairsProof

        ↳ QDP

          ↳ DependencyGraphProof

            ↳ AND

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ UsableRulesProof

              ↳ QDP

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

*¹(s(x), s(y)) → *¹(x, y)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

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

The set Q consists of the following terms:

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

↳ QTRS

  ↳ Overlay + Local Confluence

    ↳ QTRS

      ↳ DependencyPairsProof

        ↳ QDP

          ↳ DependencyGraphProof

            ↳ AND

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ UsableRulesProof

                  ↳ QDP

                    ↳ QReductionProof

              ↳ QDP

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

*¹(s(x), s(y)) → *¹(x, y)

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

+(x0, 0)
+(0, x0)
+(s(x0), s(x1))
*(x0, 0)
*(0, x0)
*(s(x0), s(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.

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

↳ QTRS

  ↳ Overlay + Local Confluence

    ↳ QTRS

      ↳ DependencyPairsProof

        ↳ QDP

          ↳ DependencyGraphProof

            ↳ AND

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ UsableRulesProof

                  ↳ QDP

                    ↳ QReductionProof

                      ↳ QDP

                        ↳ QDPSizeChangeProof

              ↳ QDP

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

*¹(s(x), s(y)) → *¹(x, y)

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

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

↳ QTRS

  ↳ Overlay + Local Confluence

    ↳ QTRS

      ↳ DependencyPairsProof

        ↳ QDP

          ↳ DependencyGraphProof

            ↳ AND

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ 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:

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

The set Q consists of the following terms:

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

↳ QTRS

  ↳ Overlay + Local Confluence

    ↳ QTRS

      ↳ DependencyPairsProof

        ↳ QDP

          ↳ DependencyGraphProof

            ↳ AND

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ 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:

+(x0, 0)
+(0, x0)
+(s(x0), s(x1))
*(x0, 0)
*(0, x0)
*(s(x0), s(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.

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

↳ QTRS

  ↳ Overlay + Local Confluence

    ↳ QTRS

      ↳ DependencyPairsProof

        ↳ QDP

          ↳ DependencyGraphProof

            ↳ AND

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ 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