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:

.(1, x) → x
.(x, 1) → x
.(i(x), x) → 1
.(x, i(x)) → 1
i(1) → 1
i(i(x)) → x
.(i(y), .(y, z)) → z
.(y, .(i(y), z)) → z
.(.(x, y), z) → .(x, .(y, z))
i(.(x, y)) → .(i(y), i(x))

Q is empty.


↳ QTRS
  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

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

.(1, x) → x
.(x, 1) → x
.(i(x), x) → 1
.(x, i(x)) → 1
i(1) → 1
i(i(x)) → x
.(i(y), .(y, z)) → z
.(y, .(i(y), z)) → z
.(.(x, y), z) → .(x, .(y, z))
i(.(x, y)) → .(i(y), i(x))

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(.(x, y), z) → .1(y, z)
.1(.(x, y), z) → .1(x, .(y, z))
I(.(x, y)) → I(y)
I(.(x, y)) → .1(i(y), i(x))
I(.(x, y)) → I(x)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

.(1, x) → x
.(x, 1) → x
.(i(x), x) → 1
.(x, i(x)) → 1
i(1) → 1
i(i(x)) → x
.(i(y), .(y, z)) → z
.(y, .(i(y), z)) → z
.(.(x, y), z) → .(x, .(y, z))
i(.(x, y)) → .(i(y), i(x))

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(.(x, y), z) → .1(y, z)
.1(.(x, y), z) → .1(x, .(y, z))
I(.(x, y)) → I(y)
I(.(x, y)) → .1(i(y), i(x))
I(.(x, y)) → I(x)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

.(1, x) → x
.(x, 1) → x
.(i(x), x) → 1
.(x, i(x)) → 1
i(1) → 1
i(i(x)) → x
.(i(y), .(y, z)) → z
.(y, .(i(y), z)) → z
.(.(x, y), z) → .(x, .(y, z))
i(.(x, y)) → .(i(y), i(x))

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

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

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

.1(.(x, y), z) → .1(x, .(y, z))
.1(.(x, y), z) → .1(y, z)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

.(1, x) → x
.(x, 1) → x
.(i(x), x) → 1
.(x, i(x)) → 1
i(1) → 1
i(i(x)) → x
.(i(y), .(y, z)) → z
.(y, .(i(y), z)) → z
.(.(x, y), z) → .(x, .(y, z))
i(.(x, y)) → .(i(y), i(x))

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.


.1(.(x, y), z) → .1(x, .(y, z))
.1(.(x, y), z) → .1(y, z)
The remaining pairs can at least be oriented weakly.
none
Used ordering: Polynomial interpretation [25,35]:

POL(i(x1)) = 0   
POL(.1(x1, x2)) = (1/2)x_1 + (1/4)x_2   
POL(.(x1, x2)) = 4 + x_1 + x_2   
POL(1) = 1   
The value of delta used in the strict ordering is 1.
The following usable rules [17] were oriented:

.(1, x) → x
.(x, 1) → x
.(i(x), x) → 1
.(x, i(x)) → 1
.(i(y), .(y, z)) → z
.(y, .(i(y), z)) → z
.(.(x, y), z) → .(x, .(y, z))



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

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

.(1, x) → x
.(x, 1) → x
.(i(x), x) → 1
.(x, i(x)) → 1
i(1) → 1
i(i(x)) → x
.(i(y), .(y, z)) → z
.(y, .(i(y), z)) → z
.(.(x, y), z) → .(x, .(y, z))
i(.(x, y)) → .(i(y), i(x))

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.

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

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

I(.(x, y)) → I(y)
I(.(x, y)) → I(x)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

.(1, x) → x
.(x, 1) → x
.(i(x), x) → 1
.(x, i(x)) → 1
i(1) → 1
i(i(x)) → x
.(i(y), .(y, z)) → z
.(y, .(i(y), z)) → z
.(.(x, y), z) → .(x, .(y, z))
i(.(x, y)) → .(i(y), i(x))

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.


I(.(x, y)) → I(y)
I(.(x, y)) → I(x)
The remaining pairs can at least be oriented weakly.
none
Used ordering: Polynomial interpretation [25,35]:

POL(.(x1, x2)) = 1/4 + (2)x_1 + (2)x_2   
POL(I(x1)) = (1/4)x_1   
The value of delta used in the strict ordering is 1/16.
The following usable rules [17] were oriented: none



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

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

.(1, x) → x
.(x, 1) → x
.(i(x), x) → 1
.(x, i(x)) → 1
i(1) → 1
i(i(x)) → x
.(i(y), .(y, z)) → z
.(y, .(i(y), z)) → z
.(.(x, y), z) → .(x, .(y, z))
i(.(x, y)) → .(i(y), i(x))

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.