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:

+(x, 0) → x
+(minus(x), x) → 0
minus(0) → 0
minus(minus(x)) → x
minus(+(x, y)) → +(minus(y), minus(x))
*(x, 1) → x
*(x, 0) → 0
*(x, +(y, z)) → +(*(x, y), *(x, z))
*(x, minus(y)) → minus(*(x, y))

Q is empty.


↳ QTRS
  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

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

+(x, 0) → x
+(minus(x), x) → 0
minus(0) → 0
minus(minus(x)) → x
minus(+(x, y)) → +(minus(y), minus(x))
*(x, 1) → x
*(x, 0) → 0
*(x, +(y, z)) → +(*(x, y), *(x, z))
*(x, minus(y)) → minus(*(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:

*1(x, +(y, z)) → *1(x, y)
MINUS(+(x, y)) → +1(minus(y), minus(x))
*1(x, minus(y)) → MINUS(*(x, y))
*1(x, +(y, z)) → *1(x, z)
*1(x, minus(y)) → *1(x, y)
MINUS(+(x, y)) → MINUS(y)
MINUS(+(x, y)) → MINUS(x)
*1(x, +(y, z)) → +1(*(x, y), *(x, z))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

+(x, 0) → x
+(minus(x), x) → 0
minus(0) → 0
minus(minus(x)) → x
minus(+(x, y)) → +(minus(y), minus(x))
*(x, 1) → x
*(x, 0) → 0
*(x, +(y, z)) → +(*(x, y), *(x, z))
*(x, minus(y)) → minus(*(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:

*1(x, +(y, z)) → *1(x, y)
MINUS(+(x, y)) → +1(minus(y), minus(x))
*1(x, minus(y)) → MINUS(*(x, y))
*1(x, +(y, z)) → *1(x, z)
*1(x, minus(y)) → *1(x, y)
MINUS(+(x, y)) → MINUS(y)
MINUS(+(x, y)) → MINUS(x)
*1(x, +(y, z)) → +1(*(x, y), *(x, z))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

+(x, 0) → x
+(minus(x), x) → 0
minus(0) → 0
minus(minus(x)) → x
minus(+(x, y)) → +(minus(y), minus(x))
*(x, 1) → x
*(x, 0) → 0
*(x, +(y, z)) → +(*(x, y), *(x, z))
*(x, minus(y)) → minus(*(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 3 less nodes.

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

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

MINUS(+(x, y)) → MINUS(y)
MINUS(+(x, y)) → MINUS(x)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

+(x, 0) → x
+(minus(x), x) → 0
minus(0) → 0
minus(minus(x)) → x
minus(+(x, y)) → +(minus(y), minus(x))
*(x, 1) → x
*(x, 0) → 0
*(x, +(y, z)) → +(*(x, y), *(x, z))
*(x, minus(y)) → minus(*(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.


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

POL(MINUS(x1)) = (4)x_1   
POL(+(x1, x2)) = 1 + (4)x_1 + (4)x_2   
The value of delta used in the strict ordering is 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:

+(x, 0) → x
+(minus(x), x) → 0
minus(0) → 0
minus(minus(x)) → x
minus(+(x, y)) → +(minus(y), minus(x))
*(x, 1) → x
*(x, 0) → 0
*(x, +(y, z)) → +(*(x, y), *(x, z))
*(x, minus(y)) → minus(*(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:

*1(x, +(y, z)) → *1(x, y)
*1(x, +(y, z)) → *1(x, z)
*1(x, minus(y)) → *1(x, y)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

+(x, 0) → x
+(minus(x), x) → 0
minus(0) → 0
minus(minus(x)) → x
minus(+(x, y)) → +(minus(y), minus(x))
*(x, 1) → x
*(x, 0) → 0
*(x, +(y, z)) → +(*(x, y), *(x, z))
*(x, minus(y)) → minus(*(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.


*1(x, +(y, z)) → *1(x, y)
*1(x, +(y, z)) → *1(x, z)
*1(x, minus(y)) → *1(x, y)
The remaining pairs can at least be oriented weakly.
none
Used ordering: Polynomial interpretation [25,35]:

POL(*1(x1, x2)) = (4)x_2   
POL(minus(x1)) = 4 + (4)x_1   
POL(+(x1, x2)) = 4 + (4)x_1 + (4)x_2   
The value of delta used in the strict ordering is 16.
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:

+(x, 0) → x
+(minus(x), x) → 0
minus(0) → 0
minus(minus(x)) → x
minus(+(x, y)) → +(minus(y), minus(x))
*(x, 1) → x
*(x, 0) → 0
*(x, +(y, z)) → +(*(x, y), *(x, z))
*(x, minus(y)) → minus(*(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.