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:

a__f(f(a)) → c(f(g(f(a))))
mark(f(X)) → a__f(mark(X))
mark(a) → a
mark(c(X)) → c(X)
mark(g(X)) → g(mark(X))
a__f(X) → f(X)

Q is empty.


↳ QTRS
  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

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

a__f(f(a)) → c(f(g(f(a))))
mark(f(X)) → a__f(mark(X))
mark(a) → a
mark(c(X)) → c(X)
mark(g(X)) → g(mark(X))
a__f(X) → f(X)

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(f(X)) → A__F(mark(X))
MARK(g(X)) → MARK(X)
MARK(f(X)) → MARK(X)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

a__f(f(a)) → c(f(g(f(a))))
mark(f(X)) → a__f(mark(X))
mark(a) → a
mark(c(X)) → c(X)
mark(g(X)) → g(mark(X))
a__f(X) → f(X)

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(f(X)) → A__F(mark(X))
MARK(g(X)) → MARK(X)
MARK(f(X)) → MARK(X)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

a__f(f(a)) → c(f(g(f(a))))
mark(f(X)) → a__f(mark(X))
mark(a) → a
mark(c(X)) → c(X)
mark(g(X)) → g(mark(X))
a__f(X) → f(X)

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
        ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDPOrderProof

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

MARK(f(X)) → MARK(X)
MARK(g(X)) → MARK(X)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

a__f(f(a)) → c(f(g(f(a))))
mark(f(X)) → a__f(mark(X))
mark(a) → a
mark(c(X)) → c(X)
mark(g(X)) → g(mark(X))
a__f(X) → f(X)

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.


MARK(f(X)) → MARK(X)
MARK(g(X)) → MARK(X)
The remaining pairs can at least be oriented weakly.
none
Used ordering: Polynomial interpretation [25,35]:

POL(MARK(x1)) = (1/2)x_1   
POL(f(x1)) = 1/2 + (3/2)x_1   
POL(g(x1)) = 9/4 + x_1   
The value of delta used in the strict ordering is 1/4.
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:

a__f(f(a)) → c(f(g(f(a))))
mark(f(X)) → a__f(mark(X))
mark(a) → a
mark(c(X)) → c(X)
mark(g(X)) → g(mark(X))
a__f(X) → f(X)

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.