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:

implies(not(x), y) → or(x, y)
implies(not(x), or(y, z)) → implies(y, or(x, z))
implies(x, or(y, z)) → or(y, implies(x, z))

Q is empty.


↳ QTRS
  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

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

implies(not(x), y) → or(x, y)
implies(not(x), or(y, z)) → implies(y, or(x, z))
implies(x, or(y, z)) → or(y, implies(x, 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:

IMPLIES(not(x), or(y, z)) → IMPLIES(y, or(x, z))
IMPLIES(x, or(y, z)) → IMPLIES(x, z)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

implies(not(x), y) → or(x, y)
implies(not(x), or(y, z)) → implies(y, or(x, z))
implies(x, or(y, z)) → or(y, implies(x, z))

Q is empty.
We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.

↳ QTRS
  ↳ DependencyPairsProof
    ↳ QDP
      ↳ QDPOrderProof

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

IMPLIES(not(x), or(y, z)) → IMPLIES(y, or(x, z))
IMPLIES(x, or(y, z)) → IMPLIES(x, z)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

implies(not(x), y) → or(x, y)
implies(not(x), or(y, z)) → implies(y, or(x, z))
implies(x, or(y, z)) → or(y, implies(x, 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.


IMPLIES(x, or(y, z)) → IMPLIES(x, z)
The remaining pairs can at least be oriented weakly.

IMPLIES(not(x), or(y, z)) → IMPLIES(y, or(x, z))
Used ordering: Polynomial interpretation [25,35]:

POL(IMPLIES(x1, x2)) = (2)x_2   
POL(not(x1)) = 0   
POL(or(x1, x2)) = 4 + x_2   
The value of delta used in the strict ordering is 8.
The following usable rules [17] were oriented: none



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

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

IMPLIES(not(x), or(y, z)) → IMPLIES(y, or(x, z))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

implies(not(x), y) → or(x, y)
implies(not(x), or(y, z)) → implies(y, or(x, z))
implies(x, or(y, z)) → or(y, implies(x, 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.


IMPLIES(not(x), or(y, z)) → IMPLIES(y, or(x, z))
The remaining pairs can at least be oriented weakly.
none
Used ordering: Polynomial interpretation [25,35]:

POL(IMPLIES(x1, x2)) = (2)x_1 + (4)x_2   
POL(not(x1)) = 4 + (2)x_1   
POL(or(x1, x2)) = (1/2)x_1   
The value of delta used in the strict ordering is 8.
The following usable rules [17] were oriented: none



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

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

implies(not(x), y) → or(x, y)
implies(not(x), or(y, z)) → implies(y, or(x, z))
implies(x, or(y, z)) → or(y, implies(x, 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.