Termination w.r.t. Q proof of /tmp/tmp_IHiql/Ex3_12_Luc96a

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:

from(X) → cons(X, n__from(n__s(X)))
sel(0, cons(X, Y)) → X
sel(s(X), cons(Y, Z)) → sel(X, activate(Z))
from(X) → n__from(X)
s(X) → n__s(X)
activate(n__from(X)) → from(activate(X))
activate(n__s(X)) → s(activate(X))
activate(X) → X

Q is empty.

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

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

from(X) → cons(X, n__from(n__s(X)))
sel(0, cons(X, Y)) → X
sel(s(X), cons(Y, Z)) → sel(X, activate(Z))
from(X) → n__from(X)
s(X) → n__s(X)
activate(n__from(X)) → from(activate(X))
activate(n__s(X)) → s(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:

ACTIVATE(n__from(X)) → ACTIVATE(X)
SEL(s(X), cons(Y, Z)) → ACTIVATE(Z)
ACTIVATE(n__s(X)) → S(activate(X))
ACTIVATE(n__from(X)) → FROM(activate(X))
SEL(s(X), cons(Y, Z)) → SEL(X, activate(Z))
ACTIVATE(n__s(X)) → ACTIVATE(X)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

from(X) → cons(X, n__from(n__s(X)))
sel(0, cons(X, Y)) → X
sel(s(X), cons(Y, Z)) → sel(X, activate(Z))
from(X) → n__from(X)
s(X) → n__s(X)
activate(n__from(X)) → from(activate(X))
activate(n__s(X)) → s(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:

ACTIVATE(n__from(X)) → ACTIVATE(X)
SEL(s(X), cons(Y, Z)) → ACTIVATE(Z)
ACTIVATE(n__s(X)) → S(activate(X))
ACTIVATE(n__from(X)) → FROM(activate(X))
SEL(s(X), cons(Y, Z)) → SEL(X, activate(Z))
ACTIVATE(n__s(X)) → ACTIVATE(X)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

from(X) → cons(X, n__from(n__s(X)))
sel(0, cons(X, Y)) → X
sel(s(X), cons(Y, Z)) → sel(X, activate(Z))
from(X) → n__from(X)
s(X) → n__s(X)
activate(n__from(X)) → from(activate(X))
activate(n__s(X)) → s(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 2 SCCs with 3 less nodes.

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ QDPOrderProof

          ↳ QDP

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

ACTIVATE(n__from(X)) → ACTIVATE(X)
ACTIVATE(n__s(X)) → ACTIVATE(X)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

from(X) → cons(X, n__from(n__s(X)))
sel(0, cons(X, Y)) → X
sel(s(X), cons(Y, Z)) → sel(X, activate(Z))
from(X) → n__from(X)
s(X) → n__s(X)
activate(n__from(X)) → from(activate(X))
activate(n__s(X)) → s(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__s(X)) → ACTIVATE(X)

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

POL(n__from(x₁)) = 9/4 + x_1
POL(n__s(x₁)) = 1/2 + (3/2)x_1
POL(ACTIVATE(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

            ↳ QDPOrderProof

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ PisEmptyProof

          ↳ QDP

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

from(X) → cons(X, n__from(n__s(X)))
sel(0, cons(X, Y)) → X
sel(s(X), cons(Y, Z)) → sel(X, activate(Z))
from(X) → n__from(X)
s(X) → n__s(X)
activate(n__from(X)) → from(activate(X))
activate(n__s(X)) → s(activate(X))
activate(X) → 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

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

SEL(s(X), cons(Y, Z)) → SEL(X, activate(Z))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

from(X) → cons(X, n__from(n__s(X)))
sel(0, cons(X, Y)) → X
sel(s(X), cons(Y, Z)) → sel(X, activate(Z))
from(X) → n__from(X)
s(X) → n__s(X)
activate(n__from(X)) → from(activate(X))
activate(n__s(X)) → s(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.

SEL(s(X), cons(Y, Z)) → SEL(X, activate(Z))

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

POL(cons(x₁, x₂)) = 4 + (4)x_2
POL(from(x₁)) = 4
POL(n__from(x₁)) = 0
POL(s(x₁)) = 4 + (2)x_1
POL(activate(x₁)) = 4 + (4)x_1
POL(SEL(x₁, x₂)) = (4)x_1 + (4)x_2
POL(n__s(x₁)) = 15/4 + (2)x_1

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

from(X) → cons(X, n__from(n__s(X)))
from(X) → n__from(X)
s(X) → n__s(X)
activate(n__from(X)) → from(activate(X))
activate(n__s(X)) → s(activate(X))
activate(X) → X

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ QDPOrderProof

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ PisEmptyProof

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

from(X) → cons(X, n__from(n__s(X)))
sel(0, cons(X, Y)) → X
sel(s(X), cons(Y, Z)) → sel(X, activate(Z))
from(X) → n__from(X)
s(X) → n__s(X)
activate(n__from(X)) → from(activate(X))
activate(n__s(X)) → s(activate(X))
activate(X) → 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.