Termination w.r.t. Q proof of /tmp/tmpUzg2Ef/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(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)
add(X1, X2) → n__add(X1, X2)
len(X) → n__len(X)
activate(n__fst(X1, X2)) → fst(X1, X2)
activate(n__from(X)) → from(X)
activate(n__add(X1, X2)) → add(X1, X2)
activate(n__len(X)) → len(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(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)
add(X1, X2) → n__add(X1, X2)
len(X) → n__len(X)
activate(n__fst(X1, X2)) → fst(X1, X2)
activate(n__from(X)) → from(X)
activate(n__add(X1, X2)) → add(X1, X2)
activate(n__len(X)) → len(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)
LEN(cons(X, Z)) → ACTIVATE(Z)
ACTIVATE(n__add(X1, X2)) → ADD(X1, X2)
ACTIVATE(n__from(X)) → FROM(X)
ACTIVATE(n__len(X)) → LEN(X)
ACTIVATE(n__fst(X1, X2)) → FST(X1, X2)
ADD(s(X), Y) → ACTIVATE(X)
FST(s(X), cons(Y, Z)) → ACTIVATE(Z)

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

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(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)
add(X1, X2) → n__add(X1, X2)
len(X) → n__len(X)
activate(n__fst(X1, X2)) → fst(X1, X2)
activate(n__from(X)) → from(X)
activate(n__add(X1, X2)) → add(X1, X2)
activate(n__len(X)) → len(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

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

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

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(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)
add(X1, X2) → n__add(X1, X2)
len(X) → n__len(X)
activate(n__fst(X1, X2)) → fst(X1, X2)
activate(n__from(X)) → from(X)
activate(n__add(X1, X2)) → add(X1, X2)
activate(n__len(X)) → len(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.

FST(s(X), cons(Y, Z)) → ACTIVATE(X)
LEN(cons(X, Z)) → ACTIVATE(Z)
FST(s(X), cons(Y, Z)) → ACTIVATE(Z)

The remaining pairs can at least be oriented weakly.

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

Used ordering: Polynomial interpretation [25,35]:

POL(cons(x₁, x₂)) = 2 + (4)x_2
POL(FST(x₁, x₂)) = (1/4)x_1 + x_2
POL(LEN(x₁)) = x_1
POL(n__add(x₁, x₂)) = (4)x_1
POL(n__fst(x₁, x₂)) = (1/4)x_1 + (4)x_2
POL(n__len(x₁)) = (2)x_1
POL(s(x₁)) = (4)x_1
POL(ADD(x₁, x₂)) = (4)x_1
POL(ACTIVATE(x₁)) = x_1

The value of delta used in the strict ordering is 2.
The following usable rules [17] were oriented: none

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDPOrderProof

            ↳ QDP

              ↳ DependencyGraphProof

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

ACTIVATE(n__add(X1, X2)) → ADD(X1, X2)
ACTIVATE(n__fst(X1, X2)) → FST(X1, X2)
ACTIVATE(n__len(X)) → LEN(X)
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(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)
add(X1, X2) → n__add(X1, X2)
len(X) → n__len(X)
activate(n__fst(X1, X2)) → fst(X1, X2)
activate(n__from(X)) → from(X)
activate(n__add(X1, X2)) → add(X1, X2)
activate(n__len(X)) → len(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__add(X1, X2)) → ADD(X1, X2)
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(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)
add(X1, X2) → n__add(X1, X2)
len(X) → n__len(X)
activate(n__fst(X1, X2)) → fst(X1, X2)
activate(n__from(X)) → from(X)
activate(n__add(X1, X2)) → add(X1, X2)
activate(n__len(X)) → len(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(X1, X2)

The remaining pairs can at least be oriented weakly.

ADD(s(X), Y) → ACTIVATE(X)

Used ordering: Polynomial interpretation [25,35]:

POL(n__add(x₁, x₂)) = 2 + (4)x_1 + (1/4)x_2
POL(s(x₁)) = (1/2)x_1
POL(ADD(x₁, x₂)) = x_1
POL(ACTIVATE(x₁)) = (1/4)x_1

The value of delta used in the strict ordering is 1/2.
The following usable rules [17] were oriented: none

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ 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(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)
add(X1, X2) → n__add(X1, X2)
len(X) → n__len(X)
activate(n__fst(X1, X2)) → fst(X1, X2)
activate(n__from(X)) → from(X)
activate(n__add(X1, X2)) → add(X1, X2)
activate(n__len(X)) → len(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.