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
  ↳ 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))

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, 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))

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, 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))

Q is empty.
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
  ↳ DependencyPairsProof
    ↳ QDP
      ↳ DependencyGraphProof
        ↳ AND
          ↳ QDP
            ↳ QDPOrderProof
          ↳ 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))

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

POL(s(x1)) = 4 + (4)x_1   
POL(+1(x1, x2)) = (2)x_2   
The value of delta used in the strict ordering is 8.
The following usable rules [17] were oriented: none



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

Q DP problem:
P is empty.
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.
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
          ↳ 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))

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

POL(*1(x1, x2)) = (2)x_1   
POL(s(x1)) = 4 + (4)x_1   
The value of delta used in the strict ordering is 8.
The following usable rules [17] were oriented: none



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

Q DP problem:
P is empty.
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.
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
          ↳ QDP
            ↳ QDPOrderProof

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))

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.


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

POL(FACT(x1)) = (4)x_1   
POL(s(x1)) = 4 + (4)x_1   
POL(p(x1)) = (1/4)x_1   
The value of delta used in the strict ordering is 12.
The following usable rules [17] were oriented:

p(s(x)) → x



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

Q DP problem:
P is empty.
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.
We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
The TRS P is empty. Hence, there is no (P,Q,R) chain.