Termination w.r.t. Q proof of /tmp/tmp5wwAiL/enno.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:

lt(0, s(X)) → true
lt(s(X), 0) → false
lt(s(X), s(Y)) → lt(X, Y)
append(nil, Y) → Y
append(add(N, X), Y) → add(N, append(X, Y))
split(N, nil) → pair(nil, nil)
split(N, add(M, Y)) → f_1(split(N, Y), N, M, Y)
f_1(pair(X, Z), N, M, Y) → f_2(lt(N, M), N, M, Y, X, Z)
f_2(true, N, M, Y, X, Z) → pair(X, add(M, Z))
f_2(false, N, M, Y, X, Z) → pair(add(M, X), Z)
qsort(nil) → nil
qsort(add(N, X)) → f_3(split(N, X), N, X)
f_3(pair(Y, Z), N, X) → append(qsort(Y), add(X, qsort(Z)))

Q is empty.

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

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

lt(0, s(X)) → true
lt(s(X), 0) → false
lt(s(X), s(Y)) → lt(X, Y)
append(nil, Y) → Y
append(add(N, X), Y) → add(N, append(X, Y))
split(N, nil) → pair(nil, nil)
split(N, add(M, Y)) → f_1(split(N, Y), N, M, Y)
f_1(pair(X, Z), N, M, Y) → f_2(lt(N, M), N, M, Y, X, Z)
f_2(true, N, M, Y, X, Z) → pair(X, add(M, Z))
f_2(false, N, M, Y, X, Z) → pair(add(M, X), Z)
qsort(nil) → nil
qsort(add(N, X)) → f_3(split(N, X), N, X)
f_3(pair(Y, Z), N, X) → append(qsort(Y), add(X, qsort(Z)))

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:

QSORT(add(N, X)) → SPLIT(N, X)
LT(s(X), s(Y)) → LT(X, Y)
F_3(pair(Y, Z), N, X) → QSORT(Y)
F_3(pair(Y, Z), N, X) → APPEND(qsort(Y), add(X, qsort(Z)))
F_1(pair(X, Z), N, M, Y) → LT(N, M)
F_3(pair(Y, Z), N, X) → QSORT(Z)
F_1(pair(X, Z), N, M, Y) → F_2(lt(N, M), N, M, Y, X, Z)
APPEND(add(N, X), Y) → APPEND(X, Y)
SPLIT(N, add(M, Y)) → F_1(split(N, Y), N, M, Y)
QSORT(add(N, X)) → F_3(split(N, X), N, X)
SPLIT(N, add(M, Y)) → SPLIT(N, Y)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

lt(0, s(X)) → true
lt(s(X), 0) → false
lt(s(X), s(Y)) → lt(X, Y)
append(nil, Y) → Y
append(add(N, X), Y) → add(N, append(X, Y))
split(N, nil) → pair(nil, nil)
split(N, add(M, Y)) → f_1(split(N, Y), N, M, Y)
f_1(pair(X, Z), N, M, Y) → f_2(lt(N, M), N, M, Y, X, Z)
f_2(true, N, M, Y, X, Z) → pair(X, add(M, Z))
f_2(false, N, M, Y, X, Z) → pair(add(M, X), Z)
qsort(nil) → nil
qsort(add(N, X)) → f_3(split(N, X), N, X)
f_3(pair(Y, Z), N, X) → append(qsort(Y), add(X, qsort(Z)))

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:

QSORT(add(N, X)) → SPLIT(N, X)
LT(s(X), s(Y)) → LT(X, Y)
F_3(pair(Y, Z), N, X) → QSORT(Y)
F_3(pair(Y, Z), N, X) → APPEND(qsort(Y), add(X, qsort(Z)))
F_1(pair(X, Z), N, M, Y) → LT(N, M)
F_3(pair(Y, Z), N, X) → QSORT(Z)
F_1(pair(X, Z), N, M, Y) → F_2(lt(N, M), N, M, Y, X, Z)
APPEND(add(N, X), Y) → APPEND(X, Y)
SPLIT(N, add(M, Y)) → F_1(split(N, Y), N, M, Y)
QSORT(add(N, X)) → F_3(split(N, X), N, X)
SPLIT(N, add(M, Y)) → SPLIT(N, Y)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

lt(0, s(X)) → true
lt(s(X), 0) → false
lt(s(X), s(Y)) → lt(X, Y)
append(nil, Y) → Y
append(add(N, X), Y) → add(N, append(X, Y))
split(N, nil) → pair(nil, nil)
split(N, add(M, Y)) → f_1(split(N, Y), N, M, Y)
f_1(pair(X, Z), N, M, Y) → f_2(lt(N, M), N, M, Y, X, Z)
f_2(true, N, M, Y, X, Z) → pair(X, add(M, Z))
f_2(false, N, M, Y, X, Z) → pair(add(M, X), Z)
qsort(nil) → nil
qsort(add(N, X)) → f_3(split(N, X), N, X)
f_3(pair(Y, Z), N, X) → append(qsort(Y), add(X, qsort(Z)))

Q is empty.
We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
The approximation of the Dependency Graph [15,17,22] contains 4 SCCs with 5 less nodes.

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ QDPOrderProof

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

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

APPEND(add(N, X), Y) → APPEND(X, Y)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

lt(0, s(X)) → true
lt(s(X), 0) → false
lt(s(X), s(Y)) → lt(X, Y)
append(nil, Y) → Y
append(add(N, X), Y) → add(N, append(X, Y))
split(N, nil) → pair(nil, nil)
split(N, add(M, Y)) → f_1(split(N, Y), N, M, Y)
f_1(pair(X, Z), N, M, Y) → f_2(lt(N, M), N, M, Y, X, Z)
f_2(true, N, M, Y, X, Z) → pair(X, add(M, Z))
f_2(false, N, M, Y, X, Z) → pair(add(M, X), Z)
qsort(nil) → nil
qsort(add(N, X)) → f_3(split(N, X), N, X)
f_3(pair(Y, Z), N, X) → append(qsort(Y), add(X, qsort(Z)))

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.

APPEND(add(N, X), Y) → APPEND(X, Y)

The remaining pairs can at least be oriented weakly.
none
Used ordering: Polynomial interpretation [25,35]:

POL(add(x₁, x₂)) = 1 + (4)x_2
POL(APPEND(x₁, x₂)) = (4)x_1

The value of delta used in the strict ordering is 4.
The following usable rules [17] were oriented: none

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ QDPOrderProof

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ PisEmptyProof

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

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

lt(0, s(X)) → true
lt(s(X), 0) → false
lt(s(X), s(Y)) → lt(X, Y)
append(nil, Y) → Y
append(add(N, X), Y) → add(N, append(X, Y))
split(N, nil) → pair(nil, nil)
split(N, add(M, Y)) → f_1(split(N, Y), N, M, Y)
f_1(pair(X, Z), N, M, Y) → f_2(lt(N, M), N, M, Y, X, Z)
f_2(true, N, M, Y, X, Z) → pair(X, add(M, Z))
f_2(false, N, M, Y, X, Z) → pair(add(M, X), Z)
qsort(nil) → nil
qsort(add(N, X)) → f_3(split(N, X), N, X)
f_3(pair(Y, Z), N, X) → append(qsort(Y), add(X, qsort(Z)))

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

          ↳ QDP

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

LT(s(X), s(Y)) → LT(X, Y)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

lt(0, s(X)) → true
lt(s(X), 0) → false
lt(s(X), s(Y)) → lt(X, Y)
append(nil, Y) → Y
append(add(N, X), Y) → add(N, append(X, Y))
split(N, nil) → pair(nil, nil)
split(N, add(M, Y)) → f_1(split(N, Y), N, M, Y)
f_1(pair(X, Z), N, M, Y) → f_2(lt(N, M), N, M, Y, X, Z)
f_2(true, N, M, Y, X, Z) → pair(X, add(M, Z))
f_2(false, N, M, Y, X, Z) → pair(add(M, X), Z)
qsort(nil) → nil
qsort(add(N, X)) → f_3(split(N, X), N, X)
f_3(pair(Y, Z), N, X) → append(qsort(Y), add(X, qsort(Z)))

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.

LT(s(X), s(Y)) → LT(X, Y)

The remaining pairs can at least be oriented weakly.
none
Used ordering: Polynomial interpretation [25,35]:

POL(s(x₁)) = 1 + (4)x_1
POL(LT(x₁, x₂)) = (3)x_2

The value of delta used in the strict ordering is 3.
The following usable rules [17] were oriented: none

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ QDPOrderProof

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ PisEmptyProof

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

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

lt(0, s(X)) → true
lt(s(X), 0) → false
lt(s(X), s(Y)) → lt(X, Y)
append(nil, Y) → Y
append(add(N, X), Y) → add(N, append(X, Y))
split(N, nil) → pair(nil, nil)
split(N, add(M, Y)) → f_1(split(N, Y), N, M, Y)
f_1(pair(X, Z), N, M, Y) → f_2(lt(N, M), N, M, Y, X, Z)
f_2(true, N, M, Y, X, Z) → pair(X, add(M, Z))
f_2(false, N, M, Y, X, Z) → pair(add(M, X), Z)
qsort(nil) → nil
qsort(add(N, X)) → f_3(split(N, X), N, X)
f_3(pair(Y, Z), N, X) → append(qsort(Y), add(X, qsort(Z)))

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

          ↳ QDP

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

SPLIT(N, add(M, Y)) → SPLIT(N, Y)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

lt(0, s(X)) → true
lt(s(X), 0) → false
lt(s(X), s(Y)) → lt(X, Y)
append(nil, Y) → Y
append(add(N, X), Y) → add(N, append(X, Y))
split(N, nil) → pair(nil, nil)
split(N, add(M, Y)) → f_1(split(N, Y), N, M, Y)
f_1(pair(X, Z), N, M, Y) → f_2(lt(N, M), N, M, Y, X, Z)
f_2(true, N, M, Y, X, Z) → pair(X, add(M, Z))
f_2(false, N, M, Y, X, Z) → pair(add(M, X), Z)
qsort(nil) → nil
qsort(add(N, X)) → f_3(split(N, X), N, X)
f_3(pair(Y, Z), N, X) → append(qsort(Y), add(X, qsort(Z)))

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.

SPLIT(N, add(M, Y)) → SPLIT(N, Y)

The remaining pairs can at least be oriented weakly.
none
Used ordering: Polynomial interpretation [25,35]:

POL(add(x₁, x₂)) = 1 + (4)x_2
POL(SPLIT(x₁, x₂)) = (4)x_2

The value of delta used in the strict ordering is 4.
The following usable rules [17] were oriented: none

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ QDPOrderProof

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ PisEmptyProof

          ↳ QDP

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

lt(0, s(X)) → true
lt(s(X), 0) → false
lt(s(X), s(Y)) → lt(X, Y)
append(nil, Y) → Y
append(add(N, X), Y) → add(N, append(X, Y))
split(N, nil) → pair(nil, nil)
split(N, add(M, Y)) → f_1(split(N, Y), N, M, Y)
f_1(pair(X, Z), N, M, Y) → f_2(lt(N, M), N, M, Y, X, Z)
f_2(true, N, M, Y, X, Z) → pair(X, add(M, Z))
f_2(false, N, M, Y, X, Z) → pair(add(M, X), Z)
qsort(nil) → nil
qsort(add(N, X)) → f_3(split(N, X), N, X)
f_3(pair(Y, Z), N, X) → append(qsort(Y), add(X, qsort(Z)))

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

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ QDPOrderProof

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

F_3(pair(Y, Z), N, X) → QSORT(Y)
F_3(pair(Y, Z), N, X) → QSORT(Z)
QSORT(add(N, X)) → F_3(split(N, X), N, X)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

lt(0, s(X)) → true
lt(s(X), 0) → false
lt(s(X), s(Y)) → lt(X, Y)
append(nil, Y) → Y
append(add(N, X), Y) → add(N, append(X, Y))
split(N, nil) → pair(nil, nil)
split(N, add(M, Y)) → f_1(split(N, Y), N, M, Y)
f_1(pair(X, Z), N, M, Y) → f_2(lt(N, M), N, M, Y, X, Z)
f_2(true, N, M, Y, X, Z) → pair(X, add(M, Z))
f_2(false, N, M, Y, X, Z) → pair(add(M, X), Z)
qsort(nil) → nil
qsort(add(N, X)) → f_3(split(N, X), N, X)
f_3(pair(Y, Z), N, X) → append(qsort(Y), add(X, qsort(Z)))

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.

QSORT(add(N, X)) → F_3(split(N, X), N, X)

The remaining pairs can at least be oriented weakly.

F_3(pair(Y, Z), N, X) → QSORT(Y)
F_3(pair(Y, Z), N, X) → QSORT(Z)

Used ordering: Polynomial interpretation [25,35]:

POL(true) = 2
POL(0) = 3
POL(add(x₁, x₂)) = 4 + (4)x_2
POL(split(x₁, x₂)) = (2)x_2
POL(f_1(x₁, x₂, x₃, x₄)) = 4 + (4)x_1
POL(QSORT(x₁)) = (4)x_1
POL(F_3(x₁, x₂, x₃)) = (4)x_1
POL(pair(x₁, x₂)) = x_1 + x_2
POL(false) = 0
POL(s(x₁)) = 4 + (4)x_1
POL(lt(x₁, x₂)) = 4
POL(nil) = 0
POL(f_2(x₁, x₂, x₃, x₄, x₅, x₆)) = 4 + (4)x_5 + (4)x_6

The value of delta used in the strict ordering is 16.
The following usable rules [17] were oriented:

split(N, nil) → pair(nil, nil)
f_1(pair(X, Z), N, M, Y) → f_2(lt(N, M), N, M, Y, X, Z)
split(N, add(M, Y)) → f_1(split(N, Y), N, M, Y)
f_2(false, N, M, Y, X, Z) → pair(add(M, X), Z)
f_2(true, N, M, Y, X, Z) → pair(X, add(M, Z))

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ QDPOrderProof

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ DependencyGraphProof

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

F_3(pair(Y, Z), N, X) → QSORT(Y)
F_3(pair(Y, Z), N, X) → QSORT(Z)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

lt(0, s(X)) → true
lt(s(X), 0) → false
lt(s(X), s(Y)) → lt(X, Y)
append(nil, Y) → Y
append(add(N, X), Y) → add(N, append(X, Y))
split(N, nil) → pair(nil, nil)
split(N, add(M, Y)) → f_1(split(N, Y), N, M, Y)
f_1(pair(X, Z), N, M, Y) → f_2(lt(N, M), N, M, Y, X, Z)
f_2(true, N, M, Y, X, Z) → pair(X, add(M, Z))
f_2(false, N, M, Y, X, Z) → pair(add(M, X), Z)
qsort(nil) → nil
qsort(add(N, X)) → f_3(split(N, X), N, X)
f_3(pair(Y, Z), N, X) → append(qsort(Y), add(X, qsort(Z)))

Q is empty.
We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
The approximation of the Dependency Graph [15,17,22] contains 0 SCCs with 2 less nodes.