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:

sum(0) → 0
sum(s(x)) → +(sum(x), s(x))
sum1(0) → 0
sum1(s(x)) → s(+(sum1(x), +(x, x)))

Q is empty.


↳ QTRS
  ↳ Overlay + Local Confluence

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

sum(0) → 0
sum(s(x)) → +(sum(x), s(x))
sum1(0) → 0
sum1(s(x)) → s(+(sum1(x), +(x, 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:

sum(0) → 0
sum(s(x)) → +(sum(x), s(x))
sum1(0) → 0
sum1(s(x)) → s(+(sum1(x), +(x, x)))

The set Q consists of the following terms:

sum(0)
sum(s(x0))
sum1(0)
sum1(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:

SUM1(s(x)) → SUM1(x)
SUM(s(x)) → SUM(x)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

sum(0) → 0
sum(s(x)) → +(sum(x), s(x))
sum1(0) → 0
sum1(s(x)) → s(+(sum1(x), +(x, x)))

The set Q consists of the following terms:

sum(0)
sum(s(x0))
sum1(0)
sum1(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:

SUM1(s(x)) → SUM1(x)
SUM(s(x)) → SUM(x)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

sum(0) → 0
sum(s(x)) → +(sum(x), s(x))
sum1(0) → 0
sum1(s(x)) → s(+(sum1(x), +(x, x)))

The set Q consists of the following terms:

sum(0)
sum(s(x0))
sum1(0)
sum1(s(x0))

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

↳ QTRS
  ↳ Overlay + Local Confluence
    ↳ QTRS
      ↳ DependencyPairsProof
        ↳ QDP
          ↳ DependencyGraphProof
            ↳ AND
              ↳ QDP
                ↳ UsableRulesProof
              ↳ QDP

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

SUM1(s(x)) → SUM1(x)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

sum(0) → 0
sum(s(x)) → +(sum(x), s(x))
sum1(0) → 0
sum1(s(x)) → s(+(sum1(x), +(x, x)))

The set Q consists of the following terms:

sum(0)
sum(s(x0))
sum1(0)
sum1(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:

SUM1(s(x)) → SUM1(x)

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

sum(0)
sum(s(x0))
sum1(0)
sum1(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.

sum(0)
sum(s(x0))
sum1(0)
sum1(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:

SUM1(s(x)) → SUM1(x)

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: 



↳ QTRS
  ↳ Overlay + Local Confluence
    ↳ QTRS
      ↳ DependencyPairsProof
        ↳ QDP
          ↳ DependencyGraphProof
            ↳ AND
              ↳ QDP
              ↳ QDP
                ↳ UsableRulesProof

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

SUM(s(x)) → SUM(x)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

sum(0) → 0
sum(s(x)) → +(sum(x), s(x))
sum1(0) → 0
sum1(s(x)) → s(+(sum1(x), +(x, x)))

The set Q consists of the following terms:

sum(0)
sum(s(x0))
sum1(0)
sum1(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
              ↳ QDP
                ↳ UsableRulesProof
                  ↳ QDP
                    ↳ QReductionProof

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

SUM(s(x)) → SUM(x)

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

sum(0)
sum(s(x0))
sum1(0)
sum1(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.

sum(0)
sum(s(x0))
sum1(0)
sum1(s(x0))



↳ QTRS
  ↳ Overlay + Local Confluence
    ↳ QTRS
      ↳ DependencyPairsProof
        ↳ QDP
          ↳ DependencyGraphProof
            ↳ AND
              ↳ QDP
              ↳ QDP
                ↳ UsableRulesProof
                  ↳ QDP
                    ↳ QReductionProof
                      ↳ QDP
                        ↳ QDPSizeChangeProof

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

SUM(s(x)) → SUM(x)

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: