Termination w.r.t. Q proof of /tmp/tmpS9Ttv2/Ex25_Luc06

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(f(X))) → mark(c(f(g(f(X)))))
active(c(X)) → mark(d(X))
active(h(X)) → mark(c(d(X)))
mark(f(X)) → active(f(mark(X)))
mark(c(X)) → active(c(X))
mark(g(X)) → active(g(X))
mark(d(X)) → active(d(X))
mark(h(X)) → active(h(mark(X)))
f(mark(X)) → f(X)
f(active(X)) → f(X)
c(mark(X)) → c(X)
c(active(X)) → c(X)
g(mark(X)) → g(X)
g(active(X)) → g(X)
d(mark(X)) → d(X)
d(active(X)) → d(X)
h(mark(X)) → h(X)
h(active(X)) → h(X)

Q is empty.

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

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

active(f(f(X))) → mark(c(f(g(f(X)))))
active(c(X)) → mark(d(X))
active(h(X)) → mark(c(d(X)))
mark(f(X)) → active(f(mark(X)))
mark(c(X)) → active(c(X))
mark(g(X)) → active(g(X))
mark(d(X)) → active(d(X))
mark(h(X)) → active(h(mark(X)))
f(mark(X)) → f(X)
f(active(X)) → f(X)
c(mark(X)) → c(X)
c(active(X)) → c(X)
g(mark(X)) → g(X)
g(active(X)) → g(X)
d(mark(X)) → d(X)
d(active(X)) → d(X)
h(mark(X)) → h(X)
h(active(X)) → h(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:

H(active(X)) → H(X)
ACTIVE(f(f(X))) → C(f(g(f(X))))
C(active(X)) → C(X)
MARK(c(X)) → ACTIVE(c(X))
ACTIVE(h(X)) → D(X)
C(mark(X)) → C(X)
ACTIVE(h(X)) → C(d(X))
D(active(X)) → D(X)
MARK(f(X)) → MARK(X)
F(active(X)) → F(X)
MARK(h(X)) → ACTIVE(h(mark(X)))
F(mark(X)) → F(X)
ACTIVE(c(X)) → D(X)
ACTIVE(c(X)) → MARK(d(X))
ACTIVE(f(f(X))) → G(f(X))
ACTIVE(f(f(X))) → MARK(c(f(g(f(X)))))
G(active(X)) → G(X)
D(mark(X)) → D(X)
G(mark(X)) → G(X)
MARK(f(X)) → ACTIVE(f(mark(X)))
ACTIVE(h(X)) → MARK(c(d(X)))
MARK(h(X)) → MARK(X)
MARK(d(X)) → ACTIVE(d(X))
MARK(f(X)) → F(mark(X))
MARK(g(X)) → ACTIVE(g(X))
H(mark(X)) → H(X)
ACTIVE(f(f(X))) → F(g(f(X)))
MARK(h(X)) → H(mark(X))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

active(f(f(X))) → mark(c(f(g(f(X)))))
active(c(X)) → mark(d(X))
active(h(X)) → mark(c(d(X)))
mark(f(X)) → active(f(mark(X)))
mark(c(X)) → active(c(X))
mark(g(X)) → active(g(X))
mark(d(X)) → active(d(X))
mark(h(X)) → active(h(mark(X)))
f(mark(X)) → f(X)
f(active(X)) → f(X)
c(mark(X)) → c(X)
c(active(X)) → c(X)
g(mark(X)) → g(X)
g(active(X)) → g(X)
d(mark(X)) → d(X)
d(active(X)) → d(X)
h(mark(X)) → h(X)
h(active(X)) → h(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:

H(active(X)) → H(X)
ACTIVE(f(f(X))) → C(f(g(f(X))))
C(active(X)) → C(X)
MARK(c(X)) → ACTIVE(c(X))
ACTIVE(h(X)) → D(X)
C(mark(X)) → C(X)
ACTIVE(h(X)) → C(d(X))
D(active(X)) → D(X)
MARK(f(X)) → MARK(X)
F(active(X)) → F(X)
MARK(h(X)) → ACTIVE(h(mark(X)))
F(mark(X)) → F(X)
ACTIVE(c(X)) → D(X)
ACTIVE(c(X)) → MARK(d(X))
ACTIVE(f(f(X))) → G(f(X))
ACTIVE(f(f(X))) → MARK(c(f(g(f(X)))))
G(active(X)) → G(X)
D(mark(X)) → D(X)
G(mark(X)) → G(X)
MARK(f(X)) → ACTIVE(f(mark(X)))
ACTIVE(h(X)) → MARK(c(d(X)))
MARK(h(X)) → MARK(X)
MARK(d(X)) → ACTIVE(d(X))
MARK(f(X)) → F(mark(X))
MARK(g(X)) → ACTIVE(g(X))
H(mark(X)) → H(X)
ACTIVE(f(f(X))) → F(g(f(X)))
MARK(h(X)) → H(mark(X))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

active(f(f(X))) → mark(c(f(g(f(X)))))
active(c(X)) → mark(d(X))
active(h(X)) → mark(c(d(X)))
mark(f(X)) → active(f(mark(X)))
mark(c(X)) → active(c(X))
mark(g(X)) → active(g(X))
mark(d(X)) → active(d(X))
mark(h(X)) → active(h(mark(X)))
f(mark(X)) → f(X)
f(active(X)) → f(X)
c(mark(X)) → c(X)
c(active(X)) → c(X)
g(mark(X)) → g(X)
g(active(X)) → g(X)
d(mark(X)) → d(X)
d(active(X)) → d(X)
h(mark(X)) → h(X)
h(active(X)) → h(X)

Q is empty.
We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
The approximation of the Dependency Graph [15,17,22] contains 6 SCCs with 8 less nodes.

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ QDPOrderProof

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

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

H(active(X)) → H(X)
H(mark(X)) → H(X)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

active(f(f(X))) → mark(c(f(g(f(X)))))
active(c(X)) → mark(d(X))
active(h(X)) → mark(c(d(X)))
mark(f(X)) → active(f(mark(X)))
mark(c(X)) → active(c(X))
mark(g(X)) → active(g(X))
mark(d(X)) → active(d(X))
mark(h(X)) → active(h(mark(X)))
f(mark(X)) → f(X)
f(active(X)) → f(X)
c(mark(X)) → c(X)
c(active(X)) → c(X)
g(mark(X)) → g(X)
g(active(X)) → g(X)
d(mark(X)) → d(X)
d(active(X)) → d(X)
h(mark(X)) → h(X)
h(active(X)) → h(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.

H(active(X)) → H(X)
H(mark(X)) → H(X)

The remaining pairs can at least be oriented weakly.
none
Used ordering: Polynomial interpretation [25,35]:

POL(active(x₁)) = 1/2 + (3/2)x_1
POL(H(x₁)) = (1/2)x_1
POL(mark(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

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ QDPOrderProof

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ PisEmptyProof

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

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

active(f(f(X))) → mark(c(f(g(f(X)))))
active(c(X)) → mark(d(X))
active(h(X)) → mark(c(d(X)))
mark(f(X)) → active(f(mark(X)))
mark(c(X)) → active(c(X))
mark(g(X)) → active(g(X))
mark(d(X)) → active(d(X))
mark(h(X)) → active(h(mark(X)))
f(mark(X)) → f(X)
f(active(X)) → f(X)
c(mark(X)) → c(X)
c(active(X)) → c(X)
g(mark(X)) → g(X)
g(active(X)) → g(X)
d(mark(X)) → d(X)
d(active(X)) → d(X)
h(mark(X)) → h(X)
h(active(X)) → h(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.

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ QDPOrderProof

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

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

D(mark(X)) → D(X)
D(active(X)) → D(X)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

active(f(f(X))) → mark(c(f(g(f(X)))))
active(c(X)) → mark(d(X))
active(h(X)) → mark(c(d(X)))
mark(f(X)) → active(f(mark(X)))
mark(c(X)) → active(c(X))
mark(g(X)) → active(g(X))
mark(d(X)) → active(d(X))
mark(h(X)) → active(h(mark(X)))
f(mark(X)) → f(X)
f(active(X)) → f(X)
c(mark(X)) → c(X)
c(active(X)) → c(X)
g(mark(X)) → g(X)
g(active(X)) → g(X)
d(mark(X)) → d(X)
d(active(X)) → d(X)
h(mark(X)) → h(X)
h(active(X)) → h(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.

D(mark(X)) → D(X)
D(active(X)) → D(X)

The remaining pairs can at least be oriented weakly.
none
Used ordering: Polynomial interpretation [25,35]:

POL(active(x₁)) = 1/2 + (3/2)x_1
POL(D(x₁)) = (1/2)x_1
POL(mark(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

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ QDPOrderProof

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ PisEmptyProof

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

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

active(f(f(X))) → mark(c(f(g(f(X)))))
active(c(X)) → mark(d(X))
active(h(X)) → mark(c(d(X)))
mark(f(X)) → active(f(mark(X)))
mark(c(X)) → active(c(X))
mark(g(X)) → active(g(X))
mark(d(X)) → active(d(X))
mark(h(X)) → active(h(mark(X)))
f(mark(X)) → f(X)
f(active(X)) → f(X)
c(mark(X)) → c(X)
c(active(X)) → c(X)
g(mark(X)) → g(X)
g(active(X)) → g(X)
d(mark(X)) → d(X)
d(active(X)) → d(X)
h(mark(X)) → h(X)
h(active(X)) → h(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.

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ QDPOrderProof

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

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

G(active(X)) → G(X)
G(mark(X)) → G(X)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

active(f(f(X))) → mark(c(f(g(f(X)))))
active(c(X)) → mark(d(X))
active(h(X)) → mark(c(d(X)))
mark(f(X)) → active(f(mark(X)))
mark(c(X)) → active(c(X))
mark(g(X)) → active(g(X))
mark(d(X)) → active(d(X))
mark(h(X)) → active(h(mark(X)))
f(mark(X)) → f(X)
f(active(X)) → f(X)
c(mark(X)) → c(X)
c(active(X)) → c(X)
g(mark(X)) → g(X)
g(active(X)) → g(X)
d(mark(X)) → d(X)
d(active(X)) → d(X)
h(mark(X)) → h(X)
h(active(X)) → h(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.

G(active(X)) → G(X)
G(mark(X)) → G(X)

The remaining pairs can at least be oriented weakly.
none
Used ordering: Polynomial interpretation [25,35]:

POL(active(x₁)) = 1/2 + (3/2)x_1
POL(mark(x₁)) = 9/4 + x_1
POL(G(x₁)) = (1/2)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

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ QDPOrderProof

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ PisEmptyProof

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

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

active(f(f(X))) → mark(c(f(g(f(X)))))
active(c(X)) → mark(d(X))
active(h(X)) → mark(c(d(X)))
mark(f(X)) → active(f(mark(X)))
mark(c(X)) → active(c(X))
mark(g(X)) → active(g(X))
mark(d(X)) → active(d(X))
mark(h(X)) → active(h(mark(X)))
f(mark(X)) → f(X)
f(active(X)) → f(X)
c(mark(X)) → c(X)
c(active(X)) → c(X)
g(mark(X)) → g(X)
g(active(X)) → g(X)
d(mark(X)) → d(X)
d(active(X)) → d(X)
h(mark(X)) → h(X)
h(active(X)) → h(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.

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ QDPOrderProof

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

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

C(active(X)) → C(X)
C(mark(X)) → C(X)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

active(f(f(X))) → mark(c(f(g(f(X)))))
active(c(X)) → mark(d(X))
active(h(X)) → mark(c(d(X)))
mark(f(X)) → active(f(mark(X)))
mark(c(X)) → active(c(X))
mark(g(X)) → active(g(X))
mark(d(X)) → active(d(X))
mark(h(X)) → active(h(mark(X)))
f(mark(X)) → f(X)
f(active(X)) → f(X)
c(mark(X)) → c(X)
c(active(X)) → c(X)
g(mark(X)) → g(X)
g(active(X)) → g(X)
d(mark(X)) → d(X)
d(active(X)) → d(X)
h(mark(X)) → h(X)
h(active(X)) → h(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.

C(active(X)) → C(X)
C(mark(X)) → C(X)

The remaining pairs can at least be oriented weakly.
none
Used ordering: Polynomial interpretation [25,35]:

POL(C(x₁)) = (1/2)x_1
POL(active(x₁)) = 9/4 + x_1
POL(mark(x₁)) = 1/2 + (3/2)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

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ QDPOrderProof

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ PisEmptyProof

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

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

active(f(f(X))) → mark(c(f(g(f(X)))))
active(c(X)) → mark(d(X))
active(h(X)) → mark(c(d(X)))
mark(f(X)) → active(f(mark(X)))
mark(c(X)) → active(c(X))
mark(g(X)) → active(g(X))
mark(d(X)) → active(d(X))
mark(h(X)) → active(h(mark(X)))
f(mark(X)) → f(X)
f(active(X)) → f(X)
c(mark(X)) → c(X)
c(active(X)) → c(X)
g(mark(X)) → g(X)
g(active(X)) → g(X)
d(mark(X)) → d(X)
d(active(X)) → d(X)
h(mark(X)) → h(X)
h(active(X)) → h(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.

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ QDPOrderProof

          ↳ QDP

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

F(mark(X)) → F(X)
F(active(X)) → F(X)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

active(f(f(X))) → mark(c(f(g(f(X)))))
active(c(X)) → mark(d(X))
active(h(X)) → mark(c(d(X)))
mark(f(X)) → active(f(mark(X)))
mark(c(X)) → active(c(X))
mark(g(X)) → active(g(X))
mark(d(X)) → active(d(X))
mark(h(X)) → active(h(mark(X)))
f(mark(X)) → f(X)
f(active(X)) → f(X)
c(mark(X)) → c(X)
c(active(X)) → c(X)
g(mark(X)) → g(X)
g(active(X)) → g(X)
d(mark(X)) → d(X)
d(active(X)) → d(X)
h(mark(X)) → h(X)
h(active(X)) → h(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.

F(mark(X)) → F(X)
F(active(X)) → F(X)

The remaining pairs can at least be oriented weakly.
none
Used ordering: Polynomial interpretation [25,35]:

POL(active(x₁)) = 9/4 + x_1
POL(mark(x₁)) = 1/2 + (3/2)x_1
POL(F(x₁)) = (1/2)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

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ QDPOrderProof

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ PisEmptyProof

          ↳ QDP

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

active(f(f(X))) → mark(c(f(g(f(X)))))
active(c(X)) → mark(d(X))
active(h(X)) → mark(c(d(X)))
mark(f(X)) → active(f(mark(X)))
mark(c(X)) → active(c(X))
mark(g(X)) → active(g(X))
mark(d(X)) → active(d(X))
mark(h(X)) → active(h(mark(X)))
f(mark(X)) → f(X)
f(active(X)) → f(X)
c(mark(X)) → c(X)
c(active(X)) → c(X)
g(mark(X)) → g(X)
g(active(X)) → g(X)
d(mark(X)) → d(X)
d(active(X)) → d(X)
h(mark(X)) → h(X)
h(active(X)) → h(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.

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ QDPOrderProof

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

MARK(h(X)) → ACTIVE(h(mark(X)))
ACTIVE(c(X)) → MARK(d(X))
ACTIVE(h(X)) → MARK(c(d(X)))
MARK(h(X)) → MARK(X)
MARK(d(X)) → ACTIVE(d(X))
MARK(g(X)) → ACTIVE(g(X))
ACTIVE(f(f(X))) → MARK(c(f(g(f(X)))))
MARK(c(X)) → ACTIVE(c(X))
MARK(f(X)) → MARK(X)
MARK(f(X)) → ACTIVE(f(mark(X)))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

active(f(f(X))) → mark(c(f(g(f(X)))))
active(c(X)) → mark(d(X))
active(h(X)) → mark(c(d(X)))
mark(f(X)) → active(f(mark(X)))
mark(c(X)) → active(c(X))
mark(g(X)) → active(g(X))
mark(d(X)) → active(d(X))
mark(h(X)) → active(h(mark(X)))
f(mark(X)) → f(X)
f(active(X)) → f(X)
c(mark(X)) → c(X)
c(active(X)) → c(X)
g(mark(X)) → g(X)
g(active(X)) → g(X)
d(mark(X)) → d(X)
d(active(X)) → d(X)
h(mark(X)) → h(X)
h(active(X)) → h(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(f(X)) → ACTIVE(f(mark(X)))

The remaining pairs can at least be oriented weakly.

MARK(h(X)) → ACTIVE(h(mark(X)))
ACTIVE(c(X)) → MARK(d(X))
ACTIVE(h(X)) → MARK(c(d(X)))
MARK(h(X)) → MARK(X)
MARK(d(X)) → ACTIVE(d(X))
MARK(g(X)) → ACTIVE(g(X))
ACTIVE(f(f(X))) → MARK(c(f(g(f(X)))))
MARK(c(X)) → ACTIVE(c(X))

Used ordering: Polynomial interpretation [25,35]:

POL(active(x₁)) = 9/4
POL(MARK(x₁)) = 1/4 + (3)x_1
POL(c(x₁)) = 0
POL(f(x₁)) = 1/4 + (4)x_1
POL(g(x₁)) = 0
POL(h(x₁)) = (4)x_1
POL(mark(x₁)) = (4)x_1
POL(d(x₁)) = 0
POL(ACTIVE(x₁)) = 1/4

The value of delta used in the strict ordering is 3/4.
The following usable rules [17] were oriented:

c(active(X)) → c(X)
c(mark(X)) → c(X)
d(active(X)) → d(X)
d(mark(X)) → d(X)

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ QDPOrderProof

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ QDPOrderProof

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

MARK(h(X)) → ACTIVE(h(mark(X)))
ACTIVE(c(X)) → MARK(d(X))
ACTIVE(h(X)) → MARK(c(d(X)))
MARK(h(X)) → MARK(X)
MARK(d(X)) → ACTIVE(d(X))
ACTIVE(f(f(X))) → MARK(c(f(g(f(X)))))
MARK(g(X)) → ACTIVE(g(X))
MARK(c(X)) → ACTIVE(c(X))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

active(f(f(X))) → mark(c(f(g(f(X)))))
active(c(X)) → mark(d(X))
active(h(X)) → mark(c(d(X)))
mark(f(X)) → active(f(mark(X)))
mark(c(X)) → active(c(X))
mark(g(X)) → active(g(X))
mark(d(X)) → active(d(X))
mark(h(X)) → active(h(mark(X)))
f(mark(X)) → f(X)
f(active(X)) → f(X)
c(mark(X)) → c(X)
c(active(X)) → c(X)
g(mark(X)) → g(X)
g(active(X)) → g(X)
d(mark(X)) → d(X)
d(active(X)) → d(X)
h(mark(X)) → h(X)
h(active(X)) → h(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(g(X)) → ACTIVE(g(X))

The remaining pairs can at least be oriented weakly.

MARK(h(X)) → ACTIVE(h(mark(X)))
ACTIVE(c(X)) → MARK(d(X))
ACTIVE(h(X)) → MARK(c(d(X)))
MARK(h(X)) → MARK(X)
MARK(d(X)) → ACTIVE(d(X))
ACTIVE(f(f(X))) → MARK(c(f(g(f(X)))))
MARK(c(X)) → ACTIVE(c(X))

Used ordering: Polynomial interpretation [25,35]:

POL(active(x₁)) = 3/2
POL(MARK(x₁)) = (9/4)x_1
POL(c(x₁)) = 0
POL(f(x₁)) = 4
POL(g(x₁)) = 1/2 + (4)x_1
POL(h(x₁)) = (2)x_1
POL(mark(x₁)) = 4
POL(d(x₁)) = 0
POL(ACTIVE(x₁)) = 0

The value of delta used in the strict ordering is 9/8.
The following usable rules [17] were oriented:

c(active(X)) → c(X)
c(mark(X)) → c(X)
d(active(X)) → d(X)
d(mark(X)) → d(X)

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ QDPOrderProof

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ QDPOrderProof

                  ↳ QDP

                    ↳ QDPOrderProof

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

MARK(h(X)) → ACTIVE(h(mark(X)))
ACTIVE(c(X)) → MARK(d(X))
ACTIVE(h(X)) → MARK(c(d(X)))
MARK(h(X)) → MARK(X)
MARK(d(X)) → ACTIVE(d(X))
ACTIVE(f(f(X))) → MARK(c(f(g(f(X)))))
MARK(c(X)) → ACTIVE(c(X))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

active(f(f(X))) → mark(c(f(g(f(X)))))
active(c(X)) → mark(d(X))
active(h(X)) → mark(c(d(X)))
mark(f(X)) → active(f(mark(X)))
mark(c(X)) → active(c(X))
mark(g(X)) → active(g(X))
mark(d(X)) → active(d(X))
mark(h(X)) → active(h(mark(X)))
f(mark(X)) → f(X)
f(active(X)) → f(X)
c(mark(X)) → c(X)
c(active(X)) → c(X)
g(mark(X)) → g(X)
g(active(X)) → g(X)
d(mark(X)) → d(X)
d(active(X)) → d(X)
h(mark(X)) → h(X)
h(active(X)) → h(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(h(X)) → ACTIVE(h(mark(X)))
MARK(h(X)) → MARK(X)

The remaining pairs can at least be oriented weakly.

ACTIVE(c(X)) → MARK(d(X))
ACTIVE(h(X)) → MARK(c(d(X)))
MARK(d(X)) → ACTIVE(d(X))
ACTIVE(f(f(X))) → MARK(c(f(g(f(X)))))
MARK(c(X)) → ACTIVE(c(X))

Used ordering: Polynomial interpretation [25,35]:

POL(active(x₁)) = 4 + (13/4)x_1
POL(MARK(x₁)) = (3/2)x_1
POL(c(x₁)) = 0
POL(f(x₁)) = 5/4
POL(g(x₁)) = 0
POL(h(x₁)) = 2 + (11/4)x_1
POL(mark(x₁)) = 0
POL(d(x₁)) = 0
POL(ACTIVE(x₁)) = 0

The value of delta used in the strict ordering is 3.
The following usable rules [17] were oriented:

c(active(X)) → c(X)
c(mark(X)) → c(X)
d(active(X)) → d(X)
d(mark(X)) → d(X)

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ QDPOrderProof

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ QDPOrderProof

                  ↳ QDP

                    ↳ QDPOrderProof

                      ↳ QDP

                        ↳ QDPOrderProof

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

ACTIVE(c(X)) → MARK(d(X))
ACTIVE(h(X)) → MARK(c(d(X)))
MARK(d(X)) → ACTIVE(d(X))
ACTIVE(f(f(X))) → MARK(c(f(g(f(X)))))
MARK(c(X)) → ACTIVE(c(X))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

active(f(f(X))) → mark(c(f(g(f(X)))))
active(c(X)) → mark(d(X))
active(h(X)) → mark(c(d(X)))
mark(f(X)) → active(f(mark(X)))
mark(c(X)) → active(c(X))
mark(g(X)) → active(g(X))
mark(d(X)) → active(d(X))
mark(h(X)) → active(h(mark(X)))
f(mark(X)) → f(X)
f(active(X)) → f(X)
c(mark(X)) → c(X)
c(active(X)) → c(X)
g(mark(X)) → g(X)
g(active(X)) → g(X)
d(mark(X)) → d(X)
d(active(X)) → d(X)
h(mark(X)) → h(X)
h(active(X)) → h(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.

ACTIVE(h(X)) → MARK(c(d(X)))
ACTIVE(f(f(X))) → MARK(c(f(g(f(X)))))

The remaining pairs can at least be oriented weakly.

ACTIVE(c(X)) → MARK(d(X))
MARK(d(X)) → ACTIVE(d(X))
MARK(c(X)) → ACTIVE(c(X))

Used ordering: Polynomial interpretation [25,35]:

POL(active(x₁)) = (1/2)x_1
POL(c(x₁)) = 0
POL(MARK(x₁)) = 1/2
POL(f(x₁)) = 3/4
POL(g(x₁)) = 7/2 + (1/4)x_1
POL(h(x₁)) = 9/4
POL(mark(x₁)) = (11/4)x_1
POL(d(x₁)) = 0
POL(ACTIVE(x₁)) = 1/2 + (1/4)x_1

The value of delta used in the strict ordering is 3/16.
The following usable rules [17] were oriented:

c(active(X)) → c(X)
c(mark(X)) → c(X)
d(active(X)) → d(X)
d(mark(X)) → d(X)

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ QDPOrderProof

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ QDPOrderProof

                  ↳ QDP

                    ↳ QDPOrderProof

                      ↳ QDP

                        ↳ QDPOrderProof

                          ↳ QDP

                            ↳ QDPOrderProof

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

ACTIVE(c(X)) → MARK(d(X))
MARK(d(X)) → ACTIVE(d(X))
MARK(c(X)) → ACTIVE(c(X))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

active(f(f(X))) → mark(c(f(g(f(X)))))
active(c(X)) → mark(d(X))
active(h(X)) → mark(c(d(X)))
mark(f(X)) → active(f(mark(X)))
mark(c(X)) → active(c(X))
mark(g(X)) → active(g(X))
mark(d(X)) → active(d(X))
mark(h(X)) → active(h(mark(X)))
f(mark(X)) → f(X)
f(active(X)) → f(X)
c(mark(X)) → c(X)
c(active(X)) → c(X)
g(mark(X)) → g(X)
g(active(X)) → g(X)
d(mark(X)) → d(X)
d(active(X)) → d(X)
h(mark(X)) → h(X)
h(active(X)) → h(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.

ACTIVE(c(X)) → MARK(d(X))
MARK(d(X)) → ACTIVE(d(X))
MARK(c(X)) → ACTIVE(c(X))

The remaining pairs can at least be oriented weakly.
none
Used ordering: Polynomial interpretation [25,35]:

POL(active(x₁)) = (4)x_1
POL(c(x₁)) = 13/4 + (11/4)x_1
POL(MARK(x₁)) = 3 + (4)x_1
POL(mark(x₁)) = (5/2)x_1
POL(d(x₁)) = 2
POL(ACTIVE(x₁)) = 4 + (11/4)x_1

The value of delta used in the strict ordering is 3/2.
The following usable rules [17] were oriented:

c(active(X)) → c(X)
c(mark(X)) → c(X)
d(active(X)) → d(X)
d(mark(X)) → d(X)

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ QDPOrderProof

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ QDPOrderProof

                  ↳ QDP

                    ↳ QDPOrderProof

                      ↳ QDP

                        ↳ QDPOrderProof

                          ↳ QDP

                            ↳ QDPOrderProof

                              ↳ QDP

                                ↳ PisEmptyProof

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

active(f(f(X))) → mark(c(f(g(f(X)))))
active(c(X)) → mark(d(X))
active(h(X)) → mark(c(d(X)))
mark(f(X)) → active(f(mark(X)))
mark(c(X)) → active(c(X))
mark(g(X)) → active(g(X))
mark(d(X)) → active(d(X))
mark(h(X)) → active(h(mark(X)))
f(mark(X)) → f(X)
f(active(X)) → f(X)
c(mark(X)) → c(X)
c(active(X)) → c(X)
g(mark(X)) → g(X)
g(active(X)) → g(X)
d(mark(X)) → d(X)
d(active(X)) → d(X)
h(mark(X)) → h(X)
h(active(X)) → h(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.