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
  ↳ 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)))

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:

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)))

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:

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)))

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

↳ QTRS
  ↳ DependencyPairsProof
    ↳ QDP
      ↳ DependencyGraphProof
        ↳ AND
          ↳ QDP
            ↳ QDPOrderProof
          ↳ 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)))

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.


SUM1(s(x)) → SUM1(x)
The remaining pairs can at least be oriented weakly.
none
Used ordering: Polynomial interpretation [25,35]:

POL(SUM1(x1)) = (2)x_1   
POL(s(x1)) = 1/4 + (7/2)x_1   
The value of delta used in the strict ordering is 1/2.
The following usable rules [17] were oriented: none



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

Q DP problem:
P is empty.
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.
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

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)))

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.


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

POL(SUM(x1)) = (2)x_1   
POL(s(x1)) = 1/4 + (7/2)x_1   
The value of delta used in the strict ordering is 1/2.
The following usable rules [17] were oriented: none



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

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