Termination w.r.t. Q proof of /tmp/tmpCyMOaJ/Ex2_Luc03b

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:

fst(0, Z) → nil
fst(s(X), cons(Y, Z)) → cons(Y, n__fst(activate(X), activate(Z)))
from(X) → cons(X, n__from(n__s(X)))
add(0, X) → X
add(s(X), Y) → s(n__add(activate(X), Y))
len(nil) → 0
len(cons(X, Z)) → s(n__len(activate(Z)))
fst(X1, X2) → n__fst(X1, X2)
from(X) → n__from(X)
s(X) → n__s(X)
add(X1, X2) → n__add(X1, X2)
len(X) → n__len(X)
activate(n__fst(X1, X2)) → fst(activate(X1), activate(X2))
activate(n__from(X)) → from(activate(X))
activate(n__s(X)) → s(X)
activate(n__add(X1, X2)) → add(activate(X1), activate(X2))
activate(n__len(X)) → len(activate(X))
activate(X) → X

Q is empty.

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

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

fst(0, Z) → nil
fst(s(X), cons(Y, Z)) → cons(Y, n__fst(activate(X), activate(Z)))
from(X) → cons(X, n__from(n__s(X)))
add(0, X) → X
add(s(X), Y) → s(n__add(activate(X), Y))
len(nil) → 0
len(cons(X, Z)) → s(n__len(activate(Z)))
fst(X1, X2) → n__fst(X1, X2)
from(X) → n__from(X)
s(X) → n__s(X)
add(X1, X2) → n__add(X1, X2)
len(X) → n__len(X)
activate(n__fst(X1, X2)) → fst(activate(X1), activate(X2))
activate(n__from(X)) → from(activate(X))
activate(n__s(X)) → s(X)
activate(n__add(X1, X2)) → add(activate(X1), activate(X2))
activate(n__len(X)) → len(activate(X))
activate(X) → 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:

FST(s(X), cons(Y, Z)) → ACTIVATE(X)
ACTIVATE(n__from(X)) → ACTIVATE(X)
ACTIVATE(n__add(X1, X2)) → ADD(activate(X1), activate(X2))
ACTIVATE(n__add(X1, X2)) → ACTIVATE(X2)
ACTIVATE(n__s(X)) → S(X)
ACTIVATE(n__add(X1, X2)) → ACTIVATE(X1)
ACTIVATE(n__fst(X1, X2)) → ACTIVATE(X2)
ACTIVATE(n__len(X)) → ACTIVATE(X)
LEN(cons(X, Z)) → ACTIVATE(Z)
ACTIVATE(n__len(X)) → LEN(activate(X))
ACTIVATE(n__fst(X1, X2)) → ACTIVATE(X1)
ACTIVATE(n__from(X)) → FROM(activate(X))
ADD(s(X), Y) → S(n__add(activate(X), Y))
ADD(s(X), Y) → ACTIVATE(X)
LEN(cons(X, Z)) → S(n__len(activate(Z)))
FST(s(X), cons(Y, Z)) → ACTIVATE(Z)
ACTIVATE(n__fst(X1, X2)) → FST(activate(X1), activate(X2))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

fst(0, Z) → nil
fst(s(X), cons(Y, Z)) → cons(Y, n__fst(activate(X), activate(Z)))
from(X) → cons(X, n__from(n__s(X)))
add(0, X) → X
add(s(X), Y) → s(n__add(activate(X), Y))
len(nil) → 0
len(cons(X, Z)) → s(n__len(activate(Z)))
fst(X1, X2) → n__fst(X1, X2)
from(X) → n__from(X)
s(X) → n__s(X)
add(X1, X2) → n__add(X1, X2)
len(X) → n__len(X)
activate(n__fst(X1, X2)) → fst(activate(X1), activate(X2))
activate(n__from(X)) → from(activate(X))
activate(n__s(X)) → s(X)
activate(n__add(X1, X2)) → add(activate(X1), activate(X2))
activate(n__len(X)) → len(activate(X))
activate(X) → 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:

FST(s(X), cons(Y, Z)) → ACTIVATE(X)
ACTIVATE(n__from(X)) → ACTIVATE(X)
ACTIVATE(n__add(X1, X2)) → ADD(activate(X1), activate(X2))
ACTIVATE(n__add(X1, X2)) → ACTIVATE(X2)
ACTIVATE(n__s(X)) → S(X)
ACTIVATE(n__add(X1, X2)) → ACTIVATE(X1)
ACTIVATE(n__fst(X1, X2)) → ACTIVATE(X2)
ACTIVATE(n__len(X)) → ACTIVATE(X)
LEN(cons(X, Z)) → ACTIVATE(Z)
ACTIVATE(n__len(X)) → LEN(activate(X))
ACTIVATE(n__fst(X1, X2)) → ACTIVATE(X1)
ACTIVATE(n__from(X)) → FROM(activate(X))
ADD(s(X), Y) → S(n__add(activate(X), Y))
ADD(s(X), Y) → ACTIVATE(X)
LEN(cons(X, Z)) → S(n__len(activate(Z)))
FST(s(X), cons(Y, Z)) → ACTIVATE(Z)
ACTIVATE(n__fst(X1, X2)) → FST(activate(X1), activate(X2))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

fst(0, Z) → nil
fst(s(X), cons(Y, Z)) → cons(Y, n__fst(activate(X), activate(Z)))
from(X) → cons(X, n__from(n__s(X)))
add(0, X) → X
add(s(X), Y) → s(n__add(activate(X), Y))
len(nil) → 0
len(cons(X, Z)) → s(n__len(activate(Z)))
fst(X1, X2) → n__fst(X1, X2)
from(X) → n__from(X)
s(X) → n__s(X)
add(X1, X2) → n__add(X1, X2)
len(X) → n__len(X)
activate(n__fst(X1, X2)) → fst(activate(X1), activate(X2))
activate(n__from(X)) → from(activate(X))
activate(n__s(X)) → s(X)
activate(n__add(X1, X2)) → add(activate(X1), activate(X2))
activate(n__len(X)) → len(activate(X))
activate(X) → 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 4 less nodes.

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDPOrderProof

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

FST(s(X), cons(Y, Z)) → ACTIVATE(X)
ACTIVATE(n__from(X)) → ACTIVATE(X)
ACTIVATE(n__add(X1, X2)) → ADD(activate(X1), activate(X2))
ACTIVATE(n__add(X1, X2)) → ACTIVATE(X2)
ACTIVATE(n__fst(X1, X2)) → ACTIVATE(X2)
ACTIVATE(n__add(X1, X2)) → ACTIVATE(X1)
ACTIVATE(n__len(X)) → ACTIVATE(X)
LEN(cons(X, Z)) → ACTIVATE(Z)
ACTIVATE(n__fst(X1, X2)) → ACTIVATE(X1)
ACTIVATE(n__len(X)) → LEN(activate(X))
ADD(s(X), Y) → ACTIVATE(X)
FST(s(X), cons(Y, Z)) → ACTIVATE(Z)
ACTIVATE(n__fst(X1, X2)) → FST(activate(X1), activate(X2))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

fst(0, Z) → nil
fst(s(X), cons(Y, Z)) → cons(Y, n__fst(activate(X), activate(Z)))
from(X) → cons(X, n__from(n__s(X)))
add(0, X) → X
add(s(X), Y) → s(n__add(activate(X), Y))
len(nil) → 0
len(cons(X, Z)) → s(n__len(activate(Z)))
fst(X1, X2) → n__fst(X1, X2)
from(X) → n__from(X)
s(X) → n__s(X)
add(X1, X2) → n__add(X1, X2)
len(X) → n__len(X)
activate(n__fst(X1, X2)) → fst(activate(X1), activate(X2))
activate(n__from(X)) → from(activate(X))
activate(n__s(X)) → s(X)
activate(n__add(X1, X2)) → add(activate(X1), activate(X2))
activate(n__len(X)) → len(activate(X))
activate(X) → 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.

ACTIVATE(n__from(X)) → ACTIVATE(X)
ACTIVATE(n__fst(X1, X2)) → ACTIVATE(X2)
ACTIVATE(n__fst(X1, X2)) → ACTIVATE(X1)
ACTIVATE(n__fst(X1, X2)) → FST(activate(X1), activate(X2))

The remaining pairs can at least be oriented weakly.

FST(s(X), cons(Y, Z)) → ACTIVATE(X)
ACTIVATE(n__add(X1, X2)) → ADD(activate(X1), activate(X2))
ACTIVATE(n__add(X1, X2)) → ACTIVATE(X2)
ACTIVATE(n__add(X1, X2)) → ACTIVATE(X1)
ACTIVATE(n__len(X)) → ACTIVATE(X)
LEN(cons(X, Z)) → ACTIVATE(Z)
ACTIVATE(n__len(X)) → LEN(activate(X))
ADD(s(X), Y) → ACTIVATE(X)
FST(s(X), cons(Y, Z)) → ACTIVATE(Z)

Used ordering: Polynomial interpretation [25]:

POL(0) = 0
POL(ACTIVATE(x₁)) = x₁
POL(ADD(x₁, x₂)) = x₁
POL(FST(x₁, x₂)) = x₁ + x₂
POL(LEN(x₁)) = x₁
POL(activate(x₁)) = x₁
POL(add(x₁, x₂)) = x₁ + x₂
POL(cons(x₁, x₂)) = x₂
POL(from(x₁)) = 1 + x₁
POL(fst(x₁, x₂)) = 1 + x₁ + x₂
POL(len(x₁)) = x₁
POL(n__add(x₁, x₂)) = x₁ + x₂
POL(n__from(x₁)) = 1 + x₁
POL(n__fst(x₁, x₂)) = 1 + x₁ + x₂
POL(n__len(x₁)) = x₁
POL(n__s(x₁)) = x₁
POL(nil) = 0
POL(s(x₁)) = x₁

The following usable rules [17] were oriented:

activate(n__len(X)) → len(activate(X))
activate(X) → X
add(0, X) → X
from(X) → cons(X, n__from(n__s(X)))
fst(s(X), cons(Y, Z)) → cons(Y, n__fst(activate(X), activate(Z)))
fst(0, Z) → nil
fst(X1, X2) → n__fst(X1, X2)
len(cons(X, Z)) → s(n__len(activate(Z)))
len(nil) → 0
add(s(X), Y) → s(n__add(activate(X), Y))
len(X) → n__len(X)
add(X1, X2) → n__add(X1, X2)
s(X) → n__s(X)
from(X) → n__from(X)
activate(n__add(X1, X2)) → add(activate(X1), activate(X2))
activate(n__s(X)) → s(X)
activate(n__from(X)) → from(activate(X))
activate(n__fst(X1, X2)) → fst(activate(X1), activate(X2))

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDPOrderProof

            ↳ QDP

              ↳ DependencyGraphProof

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

FST(s(X), cons(Y, Z)) → ACTIVATE(X)
ACTIVATE(n__len(X)) → ACTIVATE(X)
ACTIVATE(n__add(X1, X2)) → ADD(activate(X1), activate(X2))
LEN(cons(X, Z)) → ACTIVATE(Z)
ACTIVATE(n__add(X1, X2)) → ACTIVATE(X2)
ACTIVATE(n__len(X)) → LEN(activate(X))
ADD(s(X), Y) → ACTIVATE(X)
FST(s(X), cons(Y, Z)) → ACTIVATE(Z)
ACTIVATE(n__add(X1, X2)) → ACTIVATE(X1)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

fst(0, Z) → nil
fst(s(X), cons(Y, Z)) → cons(Y, n__fst(activate(X), activate(Z)))
from(X) → cons(X, n__from(n__s(X)))
add(0, X) → X
add(s(X), Y) → s(n__add(activate(X), Y))
len(nil) → 0
len(cons(X, Z)) → s(n__len(activate(Z)))
fst(X1, X2) → n__fst(X1, X2)
from(X) → n__from(X)
s(X) → n__s(X)
add(X1, X2) → n__add(X1, X2)
len(X) → n__len(X)
activate(n__fst(X1, X2)) → fst(activate(X1), activate(X2))
activate(n__from(X)) → from(activate(X))
activate(n__s(X)) → s(X)
activate(n__add(X1, X2)) → add(activate(X1), activate(X2))
activate(n__len(X)) → len(activate(X))
activate(X) → 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 2 less nodes.

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDPOrderProof

            ↳ QDP

              ↳ DependencyGraphProof

                ↳ QDP

                  ↳ QDPOrderProof

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

ACTIVATE(n__len(X)) → ACTIVATE(X)
ACTIVATE(n__add(X1, X2)) → ADD(activate(X1), activate(X2))
LEN(cons(X, Z)) → ACTIVATE(Z)
ACTIVATE(n__add(X1, X2)) → ACTIVATE(X2)
ACTIVATE(n__len(X)) → LEN(activate(X))
ADD(s(X), Y) → ACTIVATE(X)
ACTIVATE(n__add(X1, X2)) → ACTIVATE(X1)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

fst(0, Z) → nil
fst(s(X), cons(Y, Z)) → cons(Y, n__fst(activate(X), activate(Z)))
from(X) → cons(X, n__from(n__s(X)))
add(0, X) → X
add(s(X), Y) → s(n__add(activate(X), Y))
len(nil) → 0
len(cons(X, Z)) → s(n__len(activate(Z)))
fst(X1, X2) → n__fst(X1, X2)
from(X) → n__from(X)
s(X) → n__s(X)
add(X1, X2) → n__add(X1, X2)
len(X) → n__len(X)
activate(n__fst(X1, X2)) → fst(activate(X1), activate(X2))
activate(n__from(X)) → from(activate(X))
activate(n__s(X)) → s(X)
activate(n__add(X1, X2)) → add(activate(X1), activate(X2))
activate(n__len(X)) → len(activate(X))
activate(X) → 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.

ACTIVATE(n__len(X)) → ACTIVATE(X)
ACTIVATE(n__len(X)) → LEN(activate(X))

The remaining pairs can at least be oriented weakly.

ACTIVATE(n__add(X1, X2)) → ADD(activate(X1), activate(X2))
LEN(cons(X, Z)) → ACTIVATE(Z)
ACTIVATE(n__add(X1, X2)) → ACTIVATE(X2)
ADD(s(X), Y) → ACTIVATE(X)
ACTIVATE(n__add(X1, X2)) → ACTIVATE(X1)

Used ordering: Matrix interpretation [3]:
Non-tuple symbols:

M( from(x₁) ) =

/	0	\
\	0	/

/	0	0	\
\	0	0	/

x₁

M( n__len(x₁) ) =

/	1	\
\	1	/

/	1	0	\
\	1	0	/

x₁

M( fst(x₁, x₂) ) =

/	0	\
\	0	/

/	0	0	\
\	0	0	/

x₁

/	0	0	\
\	1	0	/

x₂

M( activate(x₁) ) =

/	0	\
\	0	/

/	1	0	\
\	0	1	/

x₁

M( n__s(x₁) ) =

/	0	\
\	0	/

/	0	1	\
\	1	0	/

x₁

M( 0 ) =

/	1	\
\	1	/

M( len(x₁) ) =

/	1	\
\	1	/

/	1	0	\
\	1	0	/

x₁

M( add(x₁, x₂) ) =

/	0	\
\	0	/

/	1	1	\
\	1	1	/

x₁

/	1	1	\
\	1	1	/

x₂

M( cons(x₁, x₂) ) =

/	0	\
\	0	/

/	0	0	\
\	0	0	/

x₁

/	1	0	\
\	0	0	/

x₂

M( n__add(x₁, x₂) ) =

/	0	\
\	0	/

/	1	1	\
\	1	1	/

x₁

/	1	1	\
\	1	1	/

x₂

M( n__fst(x₁, x₂) ) =

/	0	\
\	0	/

/	0	0	\
\	0	0	/

x₁

/	0	0	\
\	1	0	/

x₂

M( n__from(x₁) ) =

/	0	\
\	0	/

/	0	0	\
\	0	0	/

x₁

M( s(x₁) ) =

/	0	\
\	0	/

/	0	1	\
\	1	0	/

x₁

M( nil ) =

/	0	\
\	0	/

Tuple symbols:

M( LEN(x₁) ) =

[

]

x₁

M( ADD(x₁, x₂) ) =

[

]

x₁

[

]

x₂

M( ACTIVATE(x₁) ) =

[

]

x₁

Matrix type:
We used a basic matrix type which is not further parametrizeable.

As matrix orders are CE-compatible, we used usable rules w.r.t. argument filtering in the order.
The following usable rules [17] were oriented:

activate(n__len(X)) → len(activate(X))
activate(X) → X
add(0, X) → X
from(X) → cons(X, n__from(n__s(X)))
fst(s(X), cons(Y, Z)) → cons(Y, n__fst(activate(X), activate(Z)))
fst(0, Z) → nil
fst(X1, X2) → n__fst(X1, X2)
len(cons(X, Z)) → s(n__len(activate(Z)))
len(nil) → 0
add(s(X), Y) → s(n__add(activate(X), Y))
len(X) → n__len(X)
add(X1, X2) → n__add(X1, X2)
s(X) → n__s(X)
from(X) → n__from(X)
activate(n__add(X1, X2)) → add(activate(X1), activate(X2))
activate(n__s(X)) → s(X)
activate(n__from(X)) → from(activate(X))
activate(n__fst(X1, X2)) → fst(activate(X1), activate(X2))

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDPOrderProof

            ↳ QDP

              ↳ DependencyGraphProof

                ↳ QDP

                  ↳ QDPOrderProof

                    ↳ QDP

                      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

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

ACTIVATE(n__add(X1, X2)) → ADD(activate(X1), activate(X2))
ACTIVATE(n__add(X1, X2)) → ACTIVATE(X2)
LEN(cons(X, Z)) → ACTIVATE(Z)
ADD(s(X), Y) → ACTIVATE(X)
ACTIVATE(n__add(X1, X2)) → ACTIVATE(X1)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

fst(0, Z) → nil
fst(s(X), cons(Y, Z)) → cons(Y, n__fst(activate(X), activate(Z)))
from(X) → cons(X, n__from(n__s(X)))
add(0, X) → X
add(s(X), Y) → s(n__add(activate(X), Y))
len(nil) → 0
len(cons(X, Z)) → s(n__len(activate(Z)))
fst(X1, X2) → n__fst(X1, X2)
from(X) → n__from(X)
s(X) → n__s(X)
add(X1, X2) → n__add(X1, X2)
len(X) → n__len(X)
activate(n__fst(X1, X2)) → fst(activate(X1), activate(X2))
activate(n__from(X)) → from(activate(X))
activate(n__s(X)) → s(X)
activate(n__add(X1, X2)) → add(activate(X1), activate(X2))
activate(n__len(X)) → len(activate(X))
activate(X) → 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

            ↳ QDP

              ↳ DependencyGraphProof

                ↳ QDP

                  ↳ QDPOrderProof

                    ↳ QDP

                      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

                        ↳ QDP

                          ↳ QDPOrderProof

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

ACTIVATE(n__add(X1, X2)) → ADD(activate(X1), activate(X2))
ACTIVATE(n__add(X1, X2)) → ACTIVATE(X2)
ADD(s(X), Y) → ACTIVATE(X)
ACTIVATE(n__add(X1, X2)) → ACTIVATE(X1)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

fst(0, Z) → nil
fst(s(X), cons(Y, Z)) → cons(Y, n__fst(activate(X), activate(Z)))
from(X) → cons(X, n__from(n__s(X)))
add(0, X) → X
add(s(X), Y) → s(n__add(activate(X), Y))
len(nil) → 0
len(cons(X, Z)) → s(n__len(activate(Z)))
fst(X1, X2) → n__fst(X1, X2)
from(X) → n__from(X)
s(X) → n__s(X)
add(X1, X2) → n__add(X1, X2)
len(X) → n__len(X)
activate(n__fst(X1, X2)) → fst(activate(X1), activate(X2))
activate(n__from(X)) → from(activate(X))
activate(n__s(X)) → s(X)
activate(n__add(X1, X2)) → add(activate(X1), activate(X2))
activate(n__len(X)) → len(activate(X))
activate(X) → 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.

ACTIVATE(n__add(X1, X2)) → ADD(activate(X1), activate(X2))
ACTIVATE(n__add(X1, X2)) → ACTIVATE(X2)
ACTIVATE(n__add(X1, X2)) → ACTIVATE(X1)

The remaining pairs can at least be oriented weakly.

ADD(s(X), Y) → ACTIVATE(X)

Used ordering: Polynomial interpretation [25]:

POL(0) = 0
POL(ACTIVATE(x₁)) = x₁
POL(ADD(x₁, x₂)) = x₁
POL(activate(x₁)) = x₁
POL(add(x₁, x₂)) = 1 + x₁ + x₂
POL(cons(x₁, x₂)) = 0
POL(from(x₁)) = 0
POL(fst(x₁, x₂)) = 1
POL(len(x₁)) = 0
POL(n__add(x₁, x₂)) = 1 + x₁ + x₂
POL(n__from(x₁)) = 0
POL(n__fst(x₁, x₂)) = 1
POL(n__len(x₁)) = 0
POL(n__s(x₁)) = x₁
POL(nil) = 0
POL(s(x₁)) = x₁

The following usable rules [17] were oriented:

activate(n__len(X)) → len(activate(X))
activate(X) → X
add(0, X) → X
from(X) → cons(X, n__from(n__s(X)))
fst(s(X), cons(Y, Z)) → cons(Y, n__fst(activate(X), activate(Z)))
fst(0, Z) → nil
fst(X1, X2) → n__fst(X1, X2)
len(cons(X, Z)) → s(n__len(activate(Z)))
len(nil) → 0
add(s(X), Y) → s(n__add(activate(X), Y))
len(X) → n__len(X)
add(X1, X2) → n__add(X1, X2)
s(X) → n__s(X)
from(X) → n__from(X)
activate(n__add(X1, X2)) → add(activate(X1), activate(X2))
activate(n__s(X)) → s(X)
activate(n__from(X)) → from(activate(X))
activate(n__fst(X1, X2)) → fst(activate(X1), activate(X2))

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDPOrderProof

            ↳ QDP

              ↳ DependencyGraphProof

                ↳ QDP

                  ↳ QDPOrderProof

                    ↳ QDP

                      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

                        ↳ QDP

                          ↳ QDPOrderProof

                            ↳ QDP

                              ↳ DependencyGraphProof

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

ADD(s(X), Y) → ACTIVATE(X)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

fst(0, Z) → nil
fst(s(X), cons(Y, Z)) → cons(Y, n__fst(activate(X), activate(Z)))
from(X) → cons(X, n__from(n__s(X)))
add(0, X) → X
add(s(X), Y) → s(n__add(activate(X), Y))
len(nil) → 0
len(cons(X, Z)) → s(n__len(activate(Z)))
fst(X1, X2) → n__fst(X1, X2)
from(X) → n__from(X)
s(X) → n__s(X)
add(X1, X2) → n__add(X1, X2)
len(X) → n__len(X)
activate(n__fst(X1, X2)) → fst(activate(X1), activate(X2))
activate(n__from(X)) → from(activate(X))
activate(n__s(X)) → s(X)
activate(n__add(X1, X2)) → add(activate(X1), activate(X2))
activate(n__len(X)) → len(activate(X))
activate(X) → X

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 1 less node.