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:

f(j(x, y), y) → g(f(x, k(y)))
f(x, h1(y, z)) → h2(0, x, h1(y, z))
g(h2(x, y, h1(z, u))) → h2(s(x), y, h1(z, u))
h2(x, j(y, h1(z, u)), h1(z, u)) → h2(s(x), y, h1(s(z), u))
i(f(x, h(y))) → y
i(h2(s(x), y, h1(x, z))) → z
k(h(x)) → h1(0, x)
k(h1(x, y)) → h1(s(x), y)

Q is empty.


↳ QTRS
  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

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

f(j(x, y), y) → g(f(x, k(y)))
f(x, h1(y, z)) → h2(0, x, h1(y, z))
g(h2(x, y, h1(z, u))) → h2(s(x), y, h1(z, u))
h2(x, j(y, h1(z, u)), h1(z, u)) → h2(s(x), y, h1(s(z), u))
i(f(x, h(y))) → y
i(h2(s(x), y, h1(x, z))) → z
k(h(x)) → h1(0, x)
k(h1(x, y)) → h1(s(x), y)

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:

F(j(x, y), y) → K(y)
F(x, h1(y, z)) → H2(0, x, h1(y, z))
G(h2(x, y, h1(z, u))) → H2(s(x), y, h1(z, u))
H2(x, j(y, h1(z, u)), h1(z, u)) → H2(s(x), y, h1(s(z), u))
F(j(x, y), y) → F(x, k(y))
F(j(x, y), y) → G(f(x, k(y)))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

f(j(x, y), y) → g(f(x, k(y)))
f(x, h1(y, z)) → h2(0, x, h1(y, z))
g(h2(x, y, h1(z, u))) → h2(s(x), y, h1(z, u))
h2(x, j(y, h1(z, u)), h1(z, u)) → h2(s(x), y, h1(s(z), u))
i(f(x, h(y))) → y
i(h2(s(x), y, h1(x, z))) → z
k(h(x)) → h1(0, x)
k(h1(x, y)) → h1(s(x), y)

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:

F(j(x, y), y) → K(y)
F(x, h1(y, z)) → H2(0, x, h1(y, z))
G(h2(x, y, h1(z, u))) → H2(s(x), y, h1(z, u))
H2(x, j(y, h1(z, u)), h1(z, u)) → H2(s(x), y, h1(s(z), u))
F(j(x, y), y) → F(x, k(y))
F(j(x, y), y) → G(f(x, k(y)))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

f(j(x, y), y) → g(f(x, k(y)))
f(x, h1(y, z)) → h2(0, x, h1(y, z))
g(h2(x, y, h1(z, u))) → h2(s(x), y, h1(z, u))
h2(x, j(y, h1(z, u)), h1(z, u)) → h2(s(x), y, h1(s(z), u))
i(f(x, h(y))) → y
i(h2(s(x), y, h1(x, z))) → z
k(h(x)) → h1(0, x)
k(h1(x, y)) → h1(s(x), y)

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 with 4 less nodes.

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

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

H2(x, j(y, h1(z, u)), h1(z, u)) → H2(s(x), y, h1(s(z), u))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

f(j(x, y), y) → g(f(x, k(y)))
f(x, h1(y, z)) → h2(0, x, h1(y, z))
g(h2(x, y, h1(z, u))) → h2(s(x), y, h1(z, u))
h2(x, j(y, h1(z, u)), h1(z, u)) → h2(s(x), y, h1(s(z), u))
i(f(x, h(y))) → y
i(h2(s(x), y, h1(x, z))) → z
k(h(x)) → h1(0, x)
k(h1(x, y)) → h1(s(x), y)

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.


H2(x, j(y, h1(z, u)), h1(z, u)) → H2(s(x), y, h1(s(z), u))
The remaining pairs can at least be oriented weakly.
none
Used ordering: Polynomial interpretation [25,35]:

POL(j(x1, x2)) = 1 + (4)x_1 + x_2   
POL(h1(x1, x2)) = (4)x_2   
POL(s(x1)) = 0   
POL(H2(x1, x2, x3)) = (1/4)x_2   
The value of delta used in the strict ordering is 1/4.
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:

f(j(x, y), y) → g(f(x, k(y)))
f(x, h1(y, z)) → h2(0, x, h1(y, z))
g(h2(x, y, h1(z, u))) → h2(s(x), y, h1(z, u))
h2(x, j(y, h1(z, u)), h1(z, u)) → h2(s(x), y, h1(s(z), u))
i(f(x, h(y))) → y
i(h2(s(x), y, h1(x, z))) → z
k(h(x)) → h1(0, x)
k(h1(x, y)) → h1(s(x), y)

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:

F(j(x, y), y) → F(x, k(y))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

f(j(x, y), y) → g(f(x, k(y)))
f(x, h1(y, z)) → h2(0, x, h1(y, z))
g(h2(x, y, h1(z, u))) → h2(s(x), y, h1(z, u))
h2(x, j(y, h1(z, u)), h1(z, u)) → h2(s(x), y, h1(s(z), u))
i(f(x, h(y))) → y
i(h2(s(x), y, h1(x, z))) → z
k(h(x)) → h1(0, x)
k(h1(x, y)) → h1(s(x), y)

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.


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

POL(j(x1, x2)) = 4 + x_1   
POL(k(x1)) = 0   
POL(h(x1)) = 0   
POL(h1(x1, x2)) = 0   
POL(s(x1)) = 0   
POL(F(x1, x2)) = (1/2)x_1   
POL(0) = 0   
The value of delta used in the strict ordering is 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:

f(j(x, y), y) → g(f(x, k(y)))
f(x, h1(y, z)) → h2(0, x, h1(y, z))
g(h2(x, y, h1(z, u))) → h2(s(x), y, h1(z, u))
h2(x, j(y, h1(z, u)), h1(z, u)) → h2(s(x), y, h1(s(z), u))
i(f(x, h(y))) → y
i(h2(s(x), y, h1(x, z))) → z
k(h(x)) → h1(0, x)
k(h1(x, y)) → h1(s(x), y)

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.