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:

-(x, 0) → x
-(0, s(y)) → 0
-(s(x), s(y)) → -(x, y)
f(0) → 0
f(s(x)) → -(s(x), g(f(x)))
g(0) → s(0)
g(s(x)) → -(s(x), f(g(x)))

Q is empty.

↳ QTRS

  ↳ Overlay + Local Confluence

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

-(x, 0) → x
-(0, s(y)) → 0
-(s(x), s(y)) → -(x, y)
f(0) → 0
f(s(x)) → -(s(x), g(f(x)))
g(0) → s(0)
g(s(x)) → -(s(x), f(g(x)))

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, s(y)) → 0
-(s(x), s(y)) → -(x, y)
f(0) → 0
f(s(x)) → -(s(x), g(f(x)))
g(0) → s(0)
g(s(x)) → -(s(x), f(g(x)))

The set Q consists of the following terms:

-(x0, 0)
-(0, s(x0))
-(s(x0), s(x1))
f(0)
f(s(x0))
g(0)
g(s(x0))

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)
F(s(x)) → F(x)
F(s(x)) → G(f(x))
G(s(x)) → G(x)
G(s(x)) → F(g(x))
G(s(x)) → -¹(s(x), f(g(x)))
F(s(x)) → -¹(s(x), g(f(x)))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

-(x, 0) → x
-(0, s(y)) → 0
-(s(x), s(y)) → -(x, y)
f(0) → 0
f(s(x)) → -(s(x), g(f(x)))
g(0) → s(0)
g(s(x)) → -(s(x), f(g(x)))

The set Q consists of the following terms:

-(x0, 0)
-(0, s(x0))
-(s(x0), s(x1))
f(0)
f(s(x0))
g(0)
g(s(x0))

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)
F(s(x)) → F(x)
F(s(x)) → G(f(x))
G(s(x)) → G(x)
G(s(x)) → F(g(x))
G(s(x)) → -¹(s(x), f(g(x)))
F(s(x)) → -¹(s(x), g(f(x)))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

-(x, 0) → x
-(0, s(y)) → 0
-(s(x), s(y)) → -(x, y)
f(0) → 0
f(s(x)) → -(s(x), g(f(x)))
g(0) → s(0)
g(s(x)) → -(s(x), f(g(x)))

The set Q consists of the following terms:

-(x0, 0)
-(0, s(x0))
-(s(x0), s(x1))
f(0)
f(s(x0))
g(0)
g(s(x0))

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

↳ QTRS

  ↳ Overlay + Local Confluence

    ↳ QTRS

      ↳ DependencyPairsProof

        ↳ QDP

          ↳ DependencyGraphProof

            ↳ AND

              ↳ 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, s(y)) → 0
-(s(x), s(y)) → -(x, y)
f(0) → 0
f(s(x)) → -(s(x), g(f(x)))
g(0) → s(0)
g(s(x)) → -(s(x), f(g(x)))

The set Q consists of the following terms:

-(x0, 0)
-(0, s(x0))
-(s(x0), s(x1))
f(0)
f(s(x0))
g(0)
g(s(x0))

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

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, s(x0))
-(s(x0), s(x1))
f(0)
f(s(x0))
g(0)
g(s(x0))

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, s(x0))
-(s(x0), s(x1))
f(0)
f(s(x0))
g(0)
g(s(x0))

↳ QTRS

  ↳ Overlay + Local Confluence

    ↳ QTRS

      ↳ DependencyPairsProof

        ↳ QDP

          ↳ DependencyGraphProof

            ↳ AND

              ↳ 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)

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

                ↳ QDPOrderProof

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

F(s(x)) → F(x)
F(s(x)) → G(f(x))
G(s(x)) → G(x)
G(s(x)) → F(g(x))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

-(x, 0) → x
-(0, s(y)) → 0
-(s(x), s(y)) → -(x, y)
f(0) → 0
f(s(x)) → -(s(x), g(f(x)))
g(0) → s(0)
g(s(x)) → -(s(x), f(g(x)))

The set Q consists of the following terms:

-(x0, 0)
-(0, s(x0))
-(s(x0), s(x1))
f(0)
f(s(x0))
g(0)
g(s(x0))

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.

F(s(x)) → F(x)
F(s(x)) → G(f(x))
G(s(x)) → G(x)

The remaining pairs can at least be oriented weakly.

G(s(x)) → F(g(x))

Used ordering: Matrix interpretation [3]:
Non-tuple symbols:

M( f(x₁) ) =

/	1	\
\	0	/

/	1	0	\
\	1	1	/

x₁

M( -(x₁, x₂) ) =

/	0	\
\	0	/

/	1	0	\
\	0	1	/

x₁

/	0	0	\
\	0	0	/

x₂

M( g(x₁) ) =

/	0	\
\	1	/

/	1	0	\
\	1	1	/

x₁

M( s(x₁) ) =

/	0	\
\	1	/

/	1	0	\
\	1	1	/

x₁

M( 0 ) =

/	1	\
\	0	/

Tuple symbols:

M( G(x₁) ) =

[

]

x₁

M( F(x₁) ) =

[

]

x₁

Matrix type:
We used a basic matrix type which is not further parametrizeable.

As matrix orders are CE-compatible, we used usable rules w.r.t. argument filtering in the order.
The following usable rules [17] were oriented:

-(0, s(y)) → 0
-(x, 0) → x
f(0) → 0
-(s(x), s(y)) → -(x, y)
g(0) → s(0)
f(s(x)) → -(s(x), g(f(x)))
g(s(x)) → -(s(x), f(g(x)))

↳ QTRS

  ↳ Overlay + Local Confluence

    ↳ QTRS

      ↳ DependencyPairsProof

        ↳ QDP

          ↳ DependencyGraphProof

            ↳ AND

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ QDPOrderProof

                  ↳ QDP

                    ↳ DependencyGraphProof

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

G(s(x)) → F(g(x))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

-(x, 0) → x
-(0, s(y)) → 0
-(s(x), s(y)) → -(x, y)
f(0) → 0
f(s(x)) → -(s(x), g(f(x)))
g(0) → s(0)
g(s(x)) → -(s(x), f(g(x)))

The set Q consists of the following terms:

-(x0, 0)
-(0, s(x0))
-(s(x0), s(x1))
f(0)
f(s(x0))
g(0)
g(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.