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:

prime(0) → false
prime(s(0)) → false
prime(s(s(x))) → prime1(s(s(x)), s(x))
prime1(x, 0) → false
prime1(x, s(0)) → true
prime1(x, s(s(y))) → and(not(divp(s(s(y)), x)), prime1(x, s(y)))
divp(x, y) → =(rem(x, y), 0)

Q is empty.


↳ QTRS
  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

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

prime(0) → false
prime(s(0)) → false
prime(s(s(x))) → prime1(s(s(x)), s(x))
prime1(x, 0) → false
prime1(x, s(0)) → true
prime1(x, s(s(y))) → and(not(divp(s(s(y)), x)), prime1(x, s(y)))
divp(x, y) → =(rem(x, y), 0)

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:

PRIME1(x, s(s(y))) → PRIME1(x, s(y))
PRIME(s(s(x))) → PRIME1(s(s(x)), s(x))
PRIME1(x, s(s(y))) → DIVP(s(s(y)), x)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

prime(0) → false
prime(s(0)) → false
prime(s(s(x))) → prime1(s(s(x)), s(x))
prime1(x, 0) → false
prime1(x, s(0)) → true
prime1(x, s(s(y))) → and(not(divp(s(s(y)), x)), prime1(x, s(y)))
divp(x, y) → =(rem(x, y), 0)

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:

PRIME1(x, s(s(y))) → PRIME1(x, s(y))
PRIME(s(s(x))) → PRIME1(s(s(x)), s(x))
PRIME1(x, s(s(y))) → DIVP(s(s(y)), x)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

prime(0) → false
prime(s(0)) → false
prime(s(s(x))) → prime1(s(s(x)), s(x))
prime1(x, 0) → false
prime1(x, s(0)) → true
prime1(x, s(s(y))) → and(not(divp(s(s(y)), x)), prime1(x, s(y)))
divp(x, y) → =(rem(x, y), 0)

Q is empty.
We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
The approximation of the Dependency Graph [15,17,22] contains 1 SCC with 2 less nodes.

↳ QTRS
  ↳ DependencyPairsProof
    ↳ QDP
      ↳ DependencyGraphProof
        ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDPOrderProof

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

PRIME1(x, s(s(y))) → PRIME1(x, s(y))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

prime(0) → false
prime(s(0)) → false
prime(s(s(x))) → prime1(s(s(x)), s(x))
prime1(x, 0) → false
prime1(x, s(0)) → true
prime1(x, s(s(y))) → and(not(divp(s(s(y)), x)), prime1(x, s(y)))
divp(x, y) → =(rem(x, y), 0)

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.


PRIME1(x, s(s(y))) → PRIME1(x, s(y))
The remaining pairs can at least be oriented weakly.
none
Used ordering: Polynomial interpretation [25,35]:

POL(PRIME1(x1, x2)) = (2)x_2   
POL(s(x1)) = 1/4 + (2)x_1   
The value of delta used in the strict ordering is 1.
The following usable rules [17] were oriented: none



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

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

prime(0) → false
prime(s(0)) → false
prime(s(s(x))) → prime1(s(s(x)), s(x))
prime1(x, 0) → false
prime1(x, s(0)) → true
prime1(x, s(s(y))) → and(not(divp(s(s(y)), x)), prime1(x, s(y)))
divp(x, y) → =(rem(x, y), 0)

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.