Termination w.r.t. Q proof of /tmp/tmpAO6gCs/21.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:

p(s(x)) → x
fact(0) → s(0)
fact(s(x)) → *(s(x), fact(p(s(x))))
*(0, y) → 0
*(s(x), y) → +(*(x, y), y)
+(x, 0) → x
+(x, s(y)) → s(+(x, y))

Q is empty.

↳ QTRS

  ↳ Overlay + Local Confluence

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

p(s(x)) → x
fact(0) → s(0)
fact(s(x)) → *(s(x), fact(p(s(x))))
*(0, y) → 0
*(s(x), y) → +(*(x, y), y)
+(x, 0) → x
+(x, s(y)) → s(+(x, y))

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:

p(s(x)) → x
fact(0) → s(0)
fact(s(x)) → *(s(x), fact(p(s(x))))
*(0, y) → 0
*(s(x), y) → +(*(x, y), y)
+(x, 0) → x
+(x, s(y)) → s(+(x, y))

The set Q consists of the following terms:

p(s(x0))
fact(0)
fact(s(x0))
*(0, x0)
*(s(x0), x1)
+(x0, 0)
+(x0, s(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(x, s(y)) → +¹(x, y)
*¹(s(x), y) → +¹(*(x, y), y)
FACT(s(x)) → FACT(p(s(x)))
FACT(s(x)) → P(s(x))
FACT(s(x)) → *¹(s(x), fact(p(s(x))))
*¹(s(x), y) → *¹(x, y)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

p(s(x)) → x
fact(0) → s(0)
fact(s(x)) → *(s(x), fact(p(s(x))))
*(0, y) → 0
*(s(x), y) → +(*(x, y), y)
+(x, 0) → x
+(x, s(y)) → s(+(x, y))

The set Q consists of the following terms:

p(s(x0))
fact(0)
fact(s(x0))
*(0, x0)
*(s(x0), x1)
+(x0, 0)
+(x0, s(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(x, s(y)) → +¹(x, y)
*¹(s(x), y) → +¹(*(x, y), y)
FACT(s(x)) → FACT(p(s(x)))
FACT(s(x)) → P(s(x))
FACT(s(x)) → *¹(s(x), fact(p(s(x))))
*¹(s(x), y) → *¹(x, y)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

p(s(x)) → x
fact(0) → s(0)
fact(s(x)) → *(s(x), fact(p(s(x))))
*(0, y) → 0
*(s(x), y) → +(*(x, y), y)
+(x, 0) → x
+(x, s(y)) → s(+(x, y))

The set Q consists of the following terms:

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

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

↳ QTRS

  ↳ Overlay + Local Confluence

    ↳ QTRS

      ↳ DependencyPairsProof

        ↳ QDP

          ↳ DependencyGraphProof

            ↳ AND

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ UsableRulesProof

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

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

+¹(x, s(y)) → +¹(x, y)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

p(s(x)) → x
fact(0) → s(0)
fact(s(x)) → *(s(x), fact(p(s(x))))
*(0, y) → 0
*(s(x), y) → +(*(x, y), y)
+(x, 0) → x
+(x, s(y)) → s(+(x, y))

The set Q consists of the following terms:

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

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

+¹(x, s(y)) → +¹(x, y)

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

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

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

↳ QTRS

  ↳ Overlay + Local Confluence

    ↳ QTRS

      ↳ DependencyPairsProof

        ↳ QDP

          ↳ DependencyGraphProof

            ↳ AND

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ UsableRulesProof

                  ↳ QDP

                    ↳ QReductionProof

                      ↳ QDP

                        ↳ QDPSizeChangeProof

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

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

+¹(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(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

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

*¹(s(x), y) → *¹(x, y)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

p(s(x)) → x
fact(0) → s(0)
fact(s(x)) → *(s(x), fact(p(s(x))))
*(0, y) → 0
*(s(x), y) → +(*(x, y), y)
+(x, 0) → x
+(x, s(y)) → s(+(x, y))

The set Q consists of the following terms:

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

↳ QTRS

  ↳ Overlay + Local Confluence

    ↳ QTRS

      ↳ DependencyPairsProof

        ↳ QDP

          ↳ DependencyGraphProof

            ↳ AND

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ UsableRulesProof

                  ↳ QDP

                    ↳ QReductionProof

              ↳ QDP

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

*¹(s(x), y) → *¹(x, y)

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

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

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

↳ QTRS

  ↳ Overlay + Local Confluence

    ↳ QTRS

      ↳ DependencyPairsProof

        ↳ QDP

          ↳ DependencyGraphProof

            ↳ AND

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ UsableRulesProof

                  ↳ QDP

                    ↳ QReductionProof

                      ↳ QDP

                        ↳ QDPSizeChangeProof

              ↳ QDP

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

*¹(s(x), y) → *¹(x, y)

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

*¹(s(x), 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

                ↳ UsableRulesProof

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

FACT(s(x)) → FACT(p(s(x)))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

p(s(x)) → x
fact(0) → s(0)
fact(s(x)) → *(s(x), fact(p(s(x))))
*(0, y) → 0
*(s(x), y) → +(*(x, y), y)
+(x, 0) → x
+(x, s(y)) → s(+(x, y))

The set Q consists of the following terms:

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

↳ QTRS

  ↳ Overlay + Local Confluence

    ↳ QTRS

      ↳ DependencyPairsProof

        ↳ QDP

          ↳ DependencyGraphProof

            ↳ AND

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ UsableRulesProof

                  ↳ QDP

                    ↳ QReductionProof

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

FACT(s(x)) → FACT(p(s(x)))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

p(s(x)) → x

The set Q consists of the following terms:

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

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

↳ QTRS

  ↳ Overlay + Local Confluence

    ↳ QTRS

      ↳ DependencyPairsProof

        ↳ QDP

          ↳ DependencyGraphProof

            ↳ AND

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ UsableRulesProof

                  ↳ QDP

                    ↳ QReductionProof

                      ↳ QDP

                        ↳ RuleRemovalProof

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

FACT(s(x)) → FACT(p(s(x)))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

p(s(x)) → x

The set Q consists of the following terms:

p(s(x0))

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 rules of the TRS R:

p(s(x)) → x

Used ordering: POLO with Polynomial interpretation [25]:

POL(FACT(x₁)) = x₁
POL(p(x₁)) = x₁
POL(s(x₁)) = 1 + x₁

↳ QTRS

  ↳ Overlay + Local Confluence

    ↳ QTRS

      ↳ DependencyPairsProof

        ↳ QDP

          ↳ DependencyGraphProof

            ↳ AND

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ UsableRulesProof

                  ↳ QDP

                    ↳ QReductionProof

                      ↳ QDP

                        ↳ RuleRemovalProof

                          ↳ QDP

                            ↳ DependencyGraphProof

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

FACT(s(x)) → FACT(p(s(x)))

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

p(s(x0))

We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
The approximation of the Dependency Graph [15,17,22] contains 0 SCCs with 1 less node.