Termination w.r.t. Q proof of /tmp/aprove_benchmark_example

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:

active(f(X, X)) → mark(f(a, b))
active(b) → mark(a)
mark(f(X1, X2)) → active(f(mark(X1), X2))
mark(a) → active(a)
mark(b) → active(b)
f(mark(X1), X2) → f(X1, X2)
f(X1, mark(X2)) → f(X1, X2)
f(active(X1), X2) → f(X1, X2)
f(X1, active(X2)) → f(X1, X2)

Q is empty.

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

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

active(f(X, X)) → mark(f(a, b))
active(b) → mark(a)
mark(f(X1, X2)) → active(f(mark(X1), X2))
mark(a) → active(a)
mark(b) → active(b)
f(mark(X1), X2) → f(X1, X2)
f(X1, mark(X2)) → f(X1, X2)
f(active(X1), X2) → f(X1, X2)
f(X1, active(X2)) → f(X1, X2)

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:

MARK(a) → ACTIVE(a)
MARK(f(X1, X2)) → MARK(X1)
F(active(X1), X2) → F(X1, X2)
F(X1, mark(X2)) → F(X1, X2)
MARK(f(X1, X2)) → F(mark(X1), X2)
ACTIVE(b) → MARK(a)
ACTIVE(f(X, X)) → F(a, b)
F(X1, active(X2)) → F(X1, X2)
F(mark(X1), X2) → F(X1, X2)
MARK(b) → ACTIVE(b)
MARK(f(X1, X2)) → ACTIVE(f(mark(X1), X2))
ACTIVE(f(X, X)) → MARK(f(a, b))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

active(f(X, X)) → mark(f(a, b))
active(b) → mark(a)
mark(f(X1, X2)) → active(f(mark(X1), X2))
mark(a) → active(a)
mark(b) → active(b)
f(mark(X1), X2) → f(X1, X2)
f(X1, mark(X2)) → f(X1, X2)
f(active(X1), X2) → f(X1, X2)
f(X1, active(X2)) → f(X1, X2)

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:

MARK(a) → ACTIVE(a)
MARK(f(X1, X2)) → MARK(X1)
F(active(X1), X2) → F(X1, X2)
F(X1, mark(X2)) → F(X1, X2)
MARK(f(X1, X2)) → F(mark(X1), X2)
ACTIVE(b) → MARK(a)
ACTIVE(f(X, X)) → F(a, b)
F(X1, active(X2)) → F(X1, X2)
F(mark(X1), X2) → F(X1, X2)
MARK(b) → ACTIVE(b)
MARK(f(X1, X2)) → ACTIVE(f(mark(X1), X2))
ACTIVE(f(X, X)) → MARK(f(a, b))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

active(f(X, X)) → mark(f(a, b))
active(b) → mark(a)
mark(f(X1, X2)) → active(f(mark(X1), X2))
mark(a) → active(a)
mark(b) → active(b)
f(mark(X1), X2) → f(X1, X2)
f(X1, mark(X2)) → f(X1, X2)
f(active(X1), X2) → f(X1, X2)
f(X1, active(X2)) → f(X1, X2)

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 5 less nodes.

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ UsableRulesProof

          ↳ QDP

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

F(active(X1), X2) → F(X1, X2)
F(X1, mark(X2)) → F(X1, X2)
F(X1, active(X2)) → F(X1, X2)
F(mark(X1), X2) → F(X1, X2)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

active(f(X, X)) → mark(f(a, b))
active(b) → mark(a)
mark(f(X1, X2)) → active(f(mark(X1), X2))
mark(a) → active(a)
mark(b) → active(b)
f(mark(X1), X2) → f(X1, X2)
f(X1, mark(X2)) → f(X1, X2)
f(active(X1), X2) → f(X1, X2)
f(X1, active(X2)) → f(X1, X2)

Q is empty.
We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
We can use the usable rules and reduction pair processor [15] with the Ce-compatible extension of the polynomial order that maps every function symbol to the sum of its argument. Then, we can delete all non-usable rules [17] from R.

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ UsableRulesProof

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ QDPSizeChangeProof

          ↳ QDP

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

F(active(X1), X2) → F(X1, X2)
F(X1, mark(X2)) → F(X1, X2)
F(mark(X1), X2) → F(X1, X2)
F(X1, active(X2)) → F(X1, X2)

R is empty.
Q is empty.
We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
By using the subterm criterion [20] together with the size-change analysis [32] we have proven that there are no infinite chains for this DP problem.

From the DPs we obtained the following set of size-change graphs:

F(active(X1), X2) → F(X1, X2)
The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1, 2 >= 2
F(X1, mark(X2)) → F(X1, X2)
The graph contains the following edges 1 >= 1, 2 > 2
F(X1, active(X2)) → F(X1, X2)
The graph contains the following edges 1 >= 1, 2 > 2
F(mark(X1), X2) → F(X1, X2)
The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1, 2 >= 2

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ RuleRemovalProof

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

MARK(f(X1, X2)) → MARK(X1)
MARK(f(X1, X2)) → ACTIVE(f(mark(X1), X2))
ACTIVE(f(X, X)) → MARK(f(a, b))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

active(f(X, X)) → mark(f(a, b))
active(b) → mark(a)
mark(f(X1, X2)) → active(f(mark(X1), X2))
mark(a) → active(a)
mark(b) → active(b)
f(mark(X1), X2) → f(X1, X2)
f(X1, mark(X2)) → f(X1, X2)
f(active(X1), X2) → f(X1, X2)
f(X1, active(X2)) → f(X1, X2)

Q is empty.
We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
By using the rule removal processor [15] with the following polynomial ordering [25], at least one Dependency Pair or term rewrite system rule of this QDP problem can be strictly oriented.
Strictly oriented dependency pairs:

MARK(f(X1, X2)) → MARK(X1)

Used ordering: POLO with Polynomial interpretation [25]:

POL(ACTIVE(x₁)) = 1 + x₁
POL(MARK(x₁)) = 2·x₁
POL(a) = 0
POL(active(x₁)) = x₁
POL(b) = 0
POL(f(x₁, x₂)) = 1 + 2·x₁ + 2·x₂
POL(mark(x₁)) = x₁

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ RuleRemovalProof

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ Instantiation

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

MARK(f(X1, X2)) → ACTIVE(f(mark(X1), X2))
ACTIVE(f(X, X)) → MARK(f(a, b))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

active(f(X, X)) → mark(f(a, b))
active(b) → mark(a)
mark(f(X1, X2)) → active(f(mark(X1), X2))
mark(a) → active(a)
mark(b) → active(b)
f(mark(X1), X2) → f(X1, X2)
f(X1, mark(X2)) → f(X1, X2)
f(active(X1), X2) → f(X1, X2)
f(X1, active(X2)) → f(X1, X2)

Q is empty.
We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
By instantiating [15] the rule MARK(f(X1, X2)) → ACTIVE(f(mark(X1), X2)) we obtained the following new rules:

MARK(f(a, b)) → ACTIVE(f(mark(a), b))

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ RuleRemovalProof

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ Instantiation

                  ↳ QDP

                    ↳ UsableRulesProof

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

MARK(f(a, b)) → ACTIVE(f(mark(a), b))
ACTIVE(f(X, X)) → MARK(f(a, b))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

active(f(X, X)) → mark(f(a, b))
active(b) → mark(a)
mark(f(X1, X2)) → active(f(mark(X1), X2))
mark(a) → active(a)
mark(b) → active(b)
f(mark(X1), X2) → f(X1, X2)
f(X1, mark(X2)) → f(X1, X2)
f(active(X1), X2) → f(X1, X2)
f(X1, active(X2)) → f(X1, X2)

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ RuleRemovalProof

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ Instantiation

                  ↳ QDP

                    ↳ UsableRulesProof

                      ↳ QDP

                        ↳ Narrowing

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

MARK(f(a, b)) → ACTIVE(f(mark(a), b))
ACTIVE(f(X, X)) → MARK(f(a, b))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

mark(a) → active(a)
f(X1, active(X2)) → f(X1, X2)
f(X1, mark(X2)) → f(X1, X2)
f(mark(X1), X2) → f(X1, X2)
f(active(X1), X2) → f(X1, X2)

Q is empty.
We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
By narrowing [15] the rule MARK(f(a, b)) → ACTIVE(f(mark(a), b)) at position [0] we obtained the following new rules:

MARK(f(a, b)) → ACTIVE(f(active(a), b))
MARK(f(a, b)) → ACTIVE(f(a, b))

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ RuleRemovalProof

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ Instantiation

                  ↳ QDP

                    ↳ UsableRulesProof

                      ↳ QDP

                        ↳ Narrowing

                          ↳ QDP

                            ↳ DependencyGraphProof

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

MARK(f(a, b)) → ACTIVE(f(a, b))
MARK(f(a, b)) → ACTIVE(f(active(a), b))
ACTIVE(f(X, X)) → MARK(f(a, b))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

mark(a) → active(a)
f(X1, active(X2)) → f(X1, X2)
f(X1, mark(X2)) → f(X1, X2)
f(mark(X1), X2) → f(X1, X2)
f(active(X1), X2) → f(X1, X2)

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 1 less node.

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ RuleRemovalProof

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ Instantiation

                  ↳ QDP

                    ↳ UsableRulesProof

                      ↳ QDP

                        ↳ Narrowing

                          ↳ QDP

                            ↳ DependencyGraphProof

                              ↳ QDP

                                ↳ UsableRulesProof

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

MARK(f(a, b)) → ACTIVE(f(active(a), b))
ACTIVE(f(X, X)) → MARK(f(a, b))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

mark(a) → active(a)
f(X1, active(X2)) → f(X1, X2)
f(X1, mark(X2)) → f(X1, X2)
f(mark(X1), X2) → f(X1, X2)
f(active(X1), X2) → f(X1, X2)

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ RuleRemovalProof

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ Instantiation

                  ↳ QDP

                    ↳ UsableRulesProof

                      ↳ QDP

                        ↳ Narrowing

                          ↳ QDP

                            ↳ DependencyGraphProof

                              ↳ QDP

                                ↳ UsableRulesProof

                                  ↳ QDP

                                    ↳ Narrowing

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

MARK(f(a, b)) → ACTIVE(f(active(a), b))
ACTIVE(f(X, X)) → MARK(f(a, b))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

f(X1, active(X2)) → f(X1, X2)
f(X1, mark(X2)) → f(X1, X2)
f(mark(X1), X2) → f(X1, X2)
f(active(X1), X2) → f(X1, X2)

Q is empty.
We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
By narrowing [15] the rule MARK(f(a, b)) → ACTIVE(f(active(a), b)) at position [0] we obtained the following new rules:

MARK(f(a, b)) → ACTIVE(f(a, b))

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ RuleRemovalProof

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ Instantiation

                  ↳ QDP

                    ↳ UsableRulesProof

                      ↳ QDP

                        ↳ Narrowing

                          ↳ QDP

                            ↳ DependencyGraphProof

                              ↳ QDP

                                ↳ UsableRulesProof

                                  ↳ QDP

                                    ↳ Narrowing

                                      ↳ QDP

                                        ↳ DependencyGraphProof

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

MARK(f(a, b)) → ACTIVE(f(a, b))
ACTIVE(f(X, X)) → MARK(f(a, b))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

f(X1, active(X2)) → f(X1, X2)
f(X1, mark(X2)) → f(X1, X2)
f(mark(X1), X2) → f(X1, X2)
f(active(X1), X2) → f(X1, X2)

Q is empty.
We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
The approximation of the Dependency Graph [15,17,22] contains 0 SCCs with 2 less nodes.