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(app(nil, YS)) → mark(YS)
active(app(cons(X, XS), YS)) → mark(cons(X, app(XS, YS)))
active(from(X)) → mark(cons(X, from(s(X))))
active(zWadr(nil, YS)) → mark(nil)
active(zWadr(XS, nil)) → mark(nil)
active(zWadr(cons(X, XS), cons(Y, YS))) → mark(cons(app(Y, cons(X, nil)), zWadr(XS, YS)))
active(prefix(L)) → mark(cons(nil, zWadr(L, prefix(L))))
active(app(X1, X2)) → app(active(X1), X2)
active(app(X1, X2)) → app(X1, active(X2))
active(cons(X1, X2)) → cons(active(X1), X2)
active(from(X)) → from(active(X))
active(s(X)) → s(active(X))
active(zWadr(X1, X2)) → zWadr(active(X1), X2)
active(zWadr(X1, X2)) → zWadr(X1, active(X2))
active(prefix(X)) → prefix(active(X))
app(mark(X1), X2) → mark(app(X1, X2))
app(X1, mark(X2)) → mark(app(X1, X2))
cons(mark(X1), X2) → mark(cons(X1, X2))
from(mark(X)) → mark(from(X))
s(mark(X)) → mark(s(X))
zWadr(mark(X1), X2) → mark(zWadr(X1, X2))
zWadr(X1, mark(X2)) → mark(zWadr(X1, X2))
prefix(mark(X)) → mark(prefix(X))
proper(app(X1, X2)) → app(proper(X1), proper(X2))
proper(nil) → ok(nil)
proper(cons(X1, X2)) → cons(proper(X1), proper(X2))
proper(from(X)) → from(proper(X))
proper(s(X)) → s(proper(X))
proper(zWadr(X1, X2)) → zWadr(proper(X1), proper(X2))
proper(prefix(X)) → prefix(proper(X))
app(ok(X1), ok(X2)) → ok(app(X1, X2))
cons(ok(X1), ok(X2)) → ok(cons(X1, X2))
from(ok(X)) → ok(from(X))
s(ok(X)) → ok(s(X))
zWadr(ok(X1), ok(X2)) → ok(zWadr(X1, X2))
prefix(ok(X)) → ok(prefix(X))
top(mark(X)) → top(proper(X))
top(ok(X)) → top(active(X))

Q is empty.


↳ QTRS
  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

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

active(app(nil, YS)) → mark(YS)
active(app(cons(X, XS), YS)) → mark(cons(X, app(XS, YS)))
active(from(X)) → mark(cons(X, from(s(X))))
active(zWadr(nil, YS)) → mark(nil)
active(zWadr(XS, nil)) → mark(nil)
active(zWadr(cons(X, XS), cons(Y, YS))) → mark(cons(app(Y, cons(X, nil)), zWadr(XS, YS)))
active(prefix(L)) → mark(cons(nil, zWadr(L, prefix(L))))
active(app(X1, X2)) → app(active(X1), X2)
active(app(X1, X2)) → app(X1, active(X2))
active(cons(X1, X2)) → cons(active(X1), X2)
active(from(X)) → from(active(X))
active(s(X)) → s(active(X))
active(zWadr(X1, X2)) → zWadr(active(X1), X2)
active(zWadr(X1, X2)) → zWadr(X1, active(X2))
active(prefix(X)) → prefix(active(X))
app(mark(X1), X2) → mark(app(X1, X2))
app(X1, mark(X2)) → mark(app(X1, X2))
cons(mark(X1), X2) → mark(cons(X1, X2))
from(mark(X)) → mark(from(X))
s(mark(X)) → mark(s(X))
zWadr(mark(X1), X2) → mark(zWadr(X1, X2))
zWadr(X1, mark(X2)) → mark(zWadr(X1, X2))
prefix(mark(X)) → mark(prefix(X))
proper(app(X1, X2)) → app(proper(X1), proper(X2))
proper(nil) → ok(nil)
proper(cons(X1, X2)) → cons(proper(X1), proper(X2))
proper(from(X)) → from(proper(X))
proper(s(X)) → s(proper(X))
proper(zWadr(X1, X2)) → zWadr(proper(X1), proper(X2))
proper(prefix(X)) → prefix(proper(X))
app(ok(X1), ok(X2)) → ok(app(X1, X2))
cons(ok(X1), ok(X2)) → ok(cons(X1, X2))
from(ok(X)) → ok(from(X))
s(ok(X)) → ok(s(X))
zWadr(ok(X1), ok(X2)) → ok(zWadr(X1, X2))
prefix(ok(X)) → ok(prefix(X))
top(mark(X)) → top(proper(X))
top(ok(X)) → top(active(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:

ACTIVE(app(X1, X2)) → APP(X1, active(X2))
FROM(mark(X)) → FROM(X)
APP(ok(X1), ok(X2)) → APP(X1, X2)
ACTIVE(zWadr(X1, X2)) → ACTIVE(X1)
ACTIVE(cons(X1, X2)) → CONS(active(X1), X2)
APP(X1, mark(X2)) → APP(X1, X2)
ACTIVE(prefix(L)) → CONS(nil, zWadr(L, prefix(L)))
ACTIVE(prefix(X)) → PREFIX(active(X))
PROPER(zWadr(X1, X2)) → PROPER(X1)
ACTIVE(zWadr(cons(X, XS), cons(Y, YS))) → CONS(app(Y, cons(X, nil)), zWadr(XS, YS))
ACTIVE(prefix(L)) → ZWADR(L, prefix(L))
PROPER(cons(X1, X2)) → PROPER(X2)
ACTIVE(cons(X1, X2)) → ACTIVE(X1)
ZWADR(X1, mark(X2)) → ZWADR(X1, X2)
PROPER(from(X)) → FROM(proper(X))
ACTIVE(zWadr(X1, X2)) → ACTIVE(X2)
PROPER(s(X)) → S(proper(X))
ACTIVE(app(X1, X2)) → APP(active(X1), X2)
ZWADR(ok(X1), ok(X2)) → ZWADR(X1, X2)
ACTIVE(zWadr(X1, X2)) → ZWADR(active(X1), X2)
PROPER(prefix(X)) → PREFIX(proper(X))
ACTIVE(s(X)) → ACTIVE(X)
PROPER(prefix(X)) → PROPER(X)
ZWADR(mark(X1), X2) → ZWADR(X1, X2)
FROM(ok(X)) → FROM(X)
ACTIVE(from(X)) → FROM(s(X))
S(ok(X)) → S(X)
PROPER(zWadr(X1, X2)) → ZWADR(proper(X1), proper(X2))
CONS(mark(X1), X2) → CONS(X1, X2)
PREFIX(ok(X)) → PREFIX(X)
ACTIVE(app(cons(X, XS), YS)) → CONS(X, app(XS, YS))
TOP(mark(X)) → PROPER(X)
PROPER(zWadr(X1, X2)) → PROPER(X2)
TOP(ok(X)) → ACTIVE(X)
PREFIX(mark(X)) → PREFIX(X)
PROPER(app(X1, X2)) → APP(proper(X1), proper(X2))
PROPER(cons(X1, X2)) → PROPER(X1)
PROPER(s(X)) → PROPER(X)
PROPER(app(X1, X2)) → PROPER(X2)
PROPER(from(X)) → PROPER(X)
ACTIVE(from(X)) → ACTIVE(X)
ACTIVE(app(X1, X2)) → ACTIVE(X1)
TOP(ok(X)) → TOP(active(X))
ACTIVE(app(X1, X2)) → ACTIVE(X2)
ACTIVE(prefix(X)) → ACTIVE(X)
S(mark(X)) → S(X)
ACTIVE(zWadr(cons(X, XS), cons(Y, YS))) → CONS(X, nil)
PROPER(cons(X1, X2)) → CONS(proper(X1), proper(X2))
CONS(ok(X1), ok(X2)) → CONS(X1, X2)
ACTIVE(from(X)) → S(X)
ACTIVE(app(cons(X, XS), YS)) → APP(XS, YS)
APP(mark(X1), X2) → APP(X1, X2)
ACTIVE(zWadr(cons(X, XS), cons(Y, YS))) → APP(Y, cons(X, nil))
PROPER(app(X1, X2)) → PROPER(X1)
TOP(mark(X)) → TOP(proper(X))
ACTIVE(zWadr(X1, X2)) → ZWADR(X1, active(X2))
ACTIVE(from(X)) → FROM(active(X))
ACTIVE(from(X)) → CONS(X, from(s(X)))
ACTIVE(zWadr(cons(X, XS), cons(Y, YS))) → ZWADR(XS, YS)
ACTIVE(s(X)) → S(active(X))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

active(app(nil, YS)) → mark(YS)
active(app(cons(X, XS), YS)) → mark(cons(X, app(XS, YS)))
active(from(X)) → mark(cons(X, from(s(X))))
active(zWadr(nil, YS)) → mark(nil)
active(zWadr(XS, nil)) → mark(nil)
active(zWadr(cons(X, XS), cons(Y, YS))) → mark(cons(app(Y, cons(X, nil)), zWadr(XS, YS)))
active(prefix(L)) → mark(cons(nil, zWadr(L, prefix(L))))
active(app(X1, X2)) → app(active(X1), X2)
active(app(X1, X2)) → app(X1, active(X2))
active(cons(X1, X2)) → cons(active(X1), X2)
active(from(X)) → from(active(X))
active(s(X)) → s(active(X))
active(zWadr(X1, X2)) → zWadr(active(X1), X2)
active(zWadr(X1, X2)) → zWadr(X1, active(X2))
active(prefix(X)) → prefix(active(X))
app(mark(X1), X2) → mark(app(X1, X2))
app(X1, mark(X2)) → mark(app(X1, X2))
cons(mark(X1), X2) → mark(cons(X1, X2))
from(mark(X)) → mark(from(X))
s(mark(X)) → mark(s(X))
zWadr(mark(X1), X2) → mark(zWadr(X1, X2))
zWadr(X1, mark(X2)) → mark(zWadr(X1, X2))
prefix(mark(X)) → mark(prefix(X))
proper(app(X1, X2)) → app(proper(X1), proper(X2))
proper(nil) → ok(nil)
proper(cons(X1, X2)) → cons(proper(X1), proper(X2))
proper(from(X)) → from(proper(X))
proper(s(X)) → s(proper(X))
proper(zWadr(X1, X2)) → zWadr(proper(X1), proper(X2))
proper(prefix(X)) → prefix(proper(X))
app(ok(X1), ok(X2)) → ok(app(X1, X2))
cons(ok(X1), ok(X2)) → ok(cons(X1, X2))
from(ok(X)) → ok(from(X))
s(ok(X)) → ok(s(X))
zWadr(ok(X1), ok(X2)) → ok(zWadr(X1, X2))
prefix(ok(X)) → ok(prefix(X))
top(mark(X)) → top(proper(X))
top(ok(X)) → top(active(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:

ACTIVE(app(X1, X2)) → APP(X1, active(X2))
FROM(mark(X)) → FROM(X)
APP(ok(X1), ok(X2)) → APP(X1, X2)
ACTIVE(zWadr(X1, X2)) → ACTIVE(X1)
ACTIVE(cons(X1, X2)) → CONS(active(X1), X2)
APP(X1, mark(X2)) → APP(X1, X2)
ACTIVE(prefix(L)) → CONS(nil, zWadr(L, prefix(L)))
ACTIVE(prefix(X)) → PREFIX(active(X))
PROPER(zWadr(X1, X2)) → PROPER(X1)
ACTIVE(zWadr(cons(X, XS), cons(Y, YS))) → CONS(app(Y, cons(X, nil)), zWadr(XS, YS))
ACTIVE(prefix(L)) → ZWADR(L, prefix(L))
PROPER(cons(X1, X2)) → PROPER(X2)
ACTIVE(cons(X1, X2)) → ACTIVE(X1)
ZWADR(X1, mark(X2)) → ZWADR(X1, X2)
PROPER(from(X)) → FROM(proper(X))
ACTIVE(zWadr(X1, X2)) → ACTIVE(X2)
PROPER(s(X)) → S(proper(X))
ACTIVE(app(X1, X2)) → APP(active(X1), X2)
ZWADR(ok(X1), ok(X2)) → ZWADR(X1, X2)
ACTIVE(zWadr(X1, X2)) → ZWADR(active(X1), X2)
PROPER(prefix(X)) → PREFIX(proper(X))
ACTIVE(s(X)) → ACTIVE(X)
PROPER(prefix(X)) → PROPER(X)
ZWADR(mark(X1), X2) → ZWADR(X1, X2)
FROM(ok(X)) → FROM(X)
ACTIVE(from(X)) → FROM(s(X))
S(ok(X)) → S(X)
PROPER(zWadr(X1, X2)) → ZWADR(proper(X1), proper(X2))
CONS(mark(X1), X2) → CONS(X1, X2)
PREFIX(ok(X)) → PREFIX(X)
ACTIVE(app(cons(X, XS), YS)) → CONS(X, app(XS, YS))
TOP(mark(X)) → PROPER(X)
PROPER(zWadr(X1, X2)) → PROPER(X2)
TOP(ok(X)) → ACTIVE(X)
PREFIX(mark(X)) → PREFIX(X)
PROPER(app(X1, X2)) → APP(proper(X1), proper(X2))
PROPER(cons(X1, X2)) → PROPER(X1)
PROPER(s(X)) → PROPER(X)
PROPER(app(X1, X2)) → PROPER(X2)
PROPER(from(X)) → PROPER(X)
ACTIVE(from(X)) → ACTIVE(X)
ACTIVE(app(X1, X2)) → ACTIVE(X1)
TOP(ok(X)) → TOP(active(X))
ACTIVE(app(X1, X2)) → ACTIVE(X2)
ACTIVE(prefix(X)) → ACTIVE(X)
S(mark(X)) → S(X)
ACTIVE(zWadr(cons(X, XS), cons(Y, YS))) → CONS(X, nil)
PROPER(cons(X1, X2)) → CONS(proper(X1), proper(X2))
CONS(ok(X1), ok(X2)) → CONS(X1, X2)
ACTIVE(from(X)) → S(X)
ACTIVE(app(cons(X, XS), YS)) → APP(XS, YS)
APP(mark(X1), X2) → APP(X1, X2)
ACTIVE(zWadr(cons(X, XS), cons(Y, YS))) → APP(Y, cons(X, nil))
PROPER(app(X1, X2)) → PROPER(X1)
TOP(mark(X)) → TOP(proper(X))
ACTIVE(zWadr(X1, X2)) → ZWADR(X1, active(X2))
ACTIVE(from(X)) → FROM(active(X))
ACTIVE(from(X)) → CONS(X, from(s(X)))
ACTIVE(zWadr(cons(X, XS), cons(Y, YS))) → ZWADR(XS, YS)
ACTIVE(s(X)) → S(active(X))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

active(app(nil, YS)) → mark(YS)
active(app(cons(X, XS), YS)) → mark(cons(X, app(XS, YS)))
active(from(X)) → mark(cons(X, from(s(X))))
active(zWadr(nil, YS)) → mark(nil)
active(zWadr(XS, nil)) → mark(nil)
active(zWadr(cons(X, XS), cons(Y, YS))) → mark(cons(app(Y, cons(X, nil)), zWadr(XS, YS)))
active(prefix(L)) → mark(cons(nil, zWadr(L, prefix(L))))
active(app(X1, X2)) → app(active(X1), X2)
active(app(X1, X2)) → app(X1, active(X2))
active(cons(X1, X2)) → cons(active(X1), X2)
active(from(X)) → from(active(X))
active(s(X)) → s(active(X))
active(zWadr(X1, X2)) → zWadr(active(X1), X2)
active(zWadr(X1, X2)) → zWadr(X1, active(X2))
active(prefix(X)) → prefix(active(X))
app(mark(X1), X2) → mark(app(X1, X2))
app(X1, mark(X2)) → mark(app(X1, X2))
cons(mark(X1), X2) → mark(cons(X1, X2))
from(mark(X)) → mark(from(X))
s(mark(X)) → mark(s(X))
zWadr(mark(X1), X2) → mark(zWadr(X1, X2))
zWadr(X1, mark(X2)) → mark(zWadr(X1, X2))
prefix(mark(X)) → mark(prefix(X))
proper(app(X1, X2)) → app(proper(X1), proper(X2))
proper(nil) → ok(nil)
proper(cons(X1, X2)) → cons(proper(X1), proper(X2))
proper(from(X)) → from(proper(X))
proper(s(X)) → s(proper(X))
proper(zWadr(X1, X2)) → zWadr(proper(X1), proper(X2))
proper(prefix(X)) → prefix(proper(X))
app(ok(X1), ok(X2)) → ok(app(X1, X2))
cons(ok(X1), ok(X2)) → ok(cons(X1, X2))
from(ok(X)) → ok(from(X))
s(ok(X)) → ok(s(X))
zWadr(ok(X1), ok(X2)) → ok(zWadr(X1, X2))
prefix(ok(X)) → ok(prefix(X))
top(mark(X)) → top(proper(X))
top(ok(X)) → top(active(X))

Q is empty.
We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
The approximation of the Dependency Graph [15,17,22] contains 9 SCCs with 27 less nodes.

↳ QTRS
  ↳ DependencyPairsProof
    ↳ QDP
      ↳ DependencyGraphProof
        ↳ AND
          ↳ QDP
            ↳ UsableRulesProof
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP

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

PREFIX(ok(X)) → PREFIX(X)
PREFIX(mark(X)) → PREFIX(X)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

active(app(nil, YS)) → mark(YS)
active(app(cons(X, XS), YS)) → mark(cons(X, app(XS, YS)))
active(from(X)) → mark(cons(X, from(s(X))))
active(zWadr(nil, YS)) → mark(nil)
active(zWadr(XS, nil)) → mark(nil)
active(zWadr(cons(X, XS), cons(Y, YS))) → mark(cons(app(Y, cons(X, nil)), zWadr(XS, YS)))
active(prefix(L)) → mark(cons(nil, zWadr(L, prefix(L))))
active(app(X1, X2)) → app(active(X1), X2)
active(app(X1, X2)) → app(X1, active(X2))
active(cons(X1, X2)) → cons(active(X1), X2)
active(from(X)) → from(active(X))
active(s(X)) → s(active(X))
active(zWadr(X1, X2)) → zWadr(active(X1), X2)
active(zWadr(X1, X2)) → zWadr(X1, active(X2))
active(prefix(X)) → prefix(active(X))
app(mark(X1), X2) → mark(app(X1, X2))
app(X1, mark(X2)) → mark(app(X1, X2))
cons(mark(X1), X2) → mark(cons(X1, X2))
from(mark(X)) → mark(from(X))
s(mark(X)) → mark(s(X))
zWadr(mark(X1), X2) → mark(zWadr(X1, X2))
zWadr(X1, mark(X2)) → mark(zWadr(X1, X2))
prefix(mark(X)) → mark(prefix(X))
proper(app(X1, X2)) → app(proper(X1), proper(X2))
proper(nil) → ok(nil)
proper(cons(X1, X2)) → cons(proper(X1), proper(X2))
proper(from(X)) → from(proper(X))
proper(s(X)) → s(proper(X))
proper(zWadr(X1, X2)) → zWadr(proper(X1), proper(X2))
proper(prefix(X)) → prefix(proper(X))
app(ok(X1), ok(X2)) → ok(app(X1, X2))
cons(ok(X1), ok(X2)) → ok(cons(X1, X2))
from(ok(X)) → ok(from(X))
s(ok(X)) → ok(s(X))
zWadr(ok(X1), ok(X2)) → ok(zWadr(X1, X2))
prefix(ok(X)) → ok(prefix(X))
top(mark(X)) → top(proper(X))
top(ok(X)) → top(active(X))

Q is empty.
We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
We can use the usable rules and reduction pair processor [15] with the Ce-compatible extension of the polynomial order that maps every function symbol to the sum of its argument. Then, we can delete all non-usable rules [17] from R.

↳ QTRS
  ↳ DependencyPairsProof
    ↳ QDP
      ↳ DependencyGraphProof
        ↳ AND
          ↳ QDP
            ↳ UsableRulesProof
              ↳ QDP
                ↳ QDPSizeChangeProof
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP

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

PREFIX(ok(X)) → PREFIX(X)
PREFIX(mark(X)) → PREFIX(X)

R is empty.
Q is empty.
We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
By using the subterm criterion [20] together with the size-change analysis [32] we have proven that there are no infinite chains for this DP problem.

From the DPs we obtained the following set of size-change graphs: 



↳ QTRS
  ↳ DependencyPairsProof
    ↳ QDP
      ↳ DependencyGraphProof
        ↳ AND
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP
            ↳ UsableRulesProof
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP

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

ZWADR(ok(X1), ok(X2)) → ZWADR(X1, X2)
ZWADR(mark(X1), X2) → ZWADR(X1, X2)
ZWADR(X1, mark(X2)) → ZWADR(X1, X2)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

active(app(nil, YS)) → mark(YS)
active(app(cons(X, XS), YS)) → mark(cons(X, app(XS, YS)))
active(from(X)) → mark(cons(X, from(s(X))))
active(zWadr(nil, YS)) → mark(nil)
active(zWadr(XS, nil)) → mark(nil)
active(zWadr(cons(X, XS), cons(Y, YS))) → mark(cons(app(Y, cons(X, nil)), zWadr(XS, YS)))
active(prefix(L)) → mark(cons(nil, zWadr(L, prefix(L))))
active(app(X1, X2)) → app(active(X1), X2)
active(app(X1, X2)) → app(X1, active(X2))
active(cons(X1, X2)) → cons(active(X1), X2)
active(from(X)) → from(active(X))
active(s(X)) → s(active(X))
active(zWadr(X1, X2)) → zWadr(active(X1), X2)
active(zWadr(X1, X2)) → zWadr(X1, active(X2))
active(prefix(X)) → prefix(active(X))
app(mark(X1), X2) → mark(app(X1, X2))
app(X1, mark(X2)) → mark(app(X1, X2))
cons(mark(X1), X2) → mark(cons(X1, X2))
from(mark(X)) → mark(from(X))
s(mark(X)) → mark(s(X))
zWadr(mark(X1), X2) → mark(zWadr(X1, X2))
zWadr(X1, mark(X2)) → mark(zWadr(X1, X2))
prefix(mark(X)) → mark(prefix(X))
proper(app(X1, X2)) → app(proper(X1), proper(X2))
proper(nil) → ok(nil)
proper(cons(X1, X2)) → cons(proper(X1), proper(X2))
proper(from(X)) → from(proper(X))
proper(s(X)) → s(proper(X))
proper(zWadr(X1, X2)) → zWadr(proper(X1), proper(X2))
proper(prefix(X)) → prefix(proper(X))
app(ok(X1), ok(X2)) → ok(app(X1, X2))
cons(ok(X1), ok(X2)) → ok(cons(X1, X2))
from(ok(X)) → ok(from(X))
s(ok(X)) → ok(s(X))
zWadr(ok(X1), ok(X2)) → ok(zWadr(X1, X2))
prefix(ok(X)) → ok(prefix(X))
top(mark(X)) → top(proper(X))
top(ok(X)) → top(active(X))

Q is empty.
We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
We can use the usable rules and reduction pair processor [15] with the Ce-compatible extension of the polynomial order that maps every function symbol to the sum of its argument. Then, we can delete all non-usable rules [17] from R.

↳ QTRS
  ↳ DependencyPairsProof
    ↳ QDP
      ↳ DependencyGraphProof
        ↳ AND
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP
            ↳ UsableRulesProof
              ↳ QDP
                ↳ QDPSizeChangeProof
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP

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

ZWADR(ok(X1), ok(X2)) → ZWADR(X1, X2)
ZWADR(mark(X1), X2) → ZWADR(X1, X2)
ZWADR(X1, mark(X2)) → ZWADR(X1, X2)

R is empty.
Q is empty.
We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
By using the subterm criterion [20] together with the size-change analysis [32] we have proven that there are no infinite chains for this DP problem.

From the DPs we obtained the following set of size-change graphs: 



↳ QTRS
  ↳ DependencyPairsProof
    ↳ QDP
      ↳ DependencyGraphProof
        ↳ AND
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP
            ↳ UsableRulesProof
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP

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

S(ok(X)) → S(X)
S(mark(X)) → S(X)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

active(app(nil, YS)) → mark(YS)
active(app(cons(X, XS), YS)) → mark(cons(X, app(XS, YS)))
active(from(X)) → mark(cons(X, from(s(X))))
active(zWadr(nil, YS)) → mark(nil)
active(zWadr(XS, nil)) → mark(nil)
active(zWadr(cons(X, XS), cons(Y, YS))) → mark(cons(app(Y, cons(X, nil)), zWadr(XS, YS)))
active(prefix(L)) → mark(cons(nil, zWadr(L, prefix(L))))
active(app(X1, X2)) → app(active(X1), X2)
active(app(X1, X2)) → app(X1, active(X2))
active(cons(X1, X2)) → cons(active(X1), X2)
active(from(X)) → from(active(X))
active(s(X)) → s(active(X))
active(zWadr(X1, X2)) → zWadr(active(X1), X2)
active(zWadr(X1, X2)) → zWadr(X1, active(X2))
active(prefix(X)) → prefix(active(X))
app(mark(X1), X2) → mark(app(X1, X2))
app(X1, mark(X2)) → mark(app(X1, X2))
cons(mark(X1), X2) → mark(cons(X1, X2))
from(mark(X)) → mark(from(X))
s(mark(X)) → mark(s(X))
zWadr(mark(X1), X2) → mark(zWadr(X1, X2))
zWadr(X1, mark(X2)) → mark(zWadr(X1, X2))
prefix(mark(X)) → mark(prefix(X))
proper(app(X1, X2)) → app(proper(X1), proper(X2))
proper(nil) → ok(nil)
proper(cons(X1, X2)) → cons(proper(X1), proper(X2))
proper(from(X)) → from(proper(X))
proper(s(X)) → s(proper(X))
proper(zWadr(X1, X2)) → zWadr(proper(X1), proper(X2))
proper(prefix(X)) → prefix(proper(X))
app(ok(X1), ok(X2)) → ok(app(X1, X2))
cons(ok(X1), ok(X2)) → ok(cons(X1, X2))
from(ok(X)) → ok(from(X))
s(ok(X)) → ok(s(X))
zWadr(ok(X1), ok(X2)) → ok(zWadr(X1, X2))
prefix(ok(X)) → ok(prefix(X))
top(mark(X)) → top(proper(X))
top(ok(X)) → top(active(X))

Q is empty.
We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
We can use the usable rules and reduction pair processor [15] with the Ce-compatible extension of the polynomial order that maps every function symbol to the sum of its argument. Then, we can delete all non-usable rules [17] from R.

↳ QTRS
  ↳ DependencyPairsProof
    ↳ QDP
      ↳ DependencyGraphProof
        ↳ AND
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP
            ↳ UsableRulesProof
              ↳ QDP
                ↳ QDPSizeChangeProof
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP

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

S(ok(X)) → S(X)
S(mark(X)) → S(X)

R is empty.
Q is empty.
We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
By using the subterm criterion [20] together with the size-change analysis [32] we have proven that there are no infinite chains for this DP problem.

From the DPs we obtained the following set of size-change graphs: 



↳ QTRS
  ↳ DependencyPairsProof
    ↳ QDP
      ↳ DependencyGraphProof
        ↳ AND
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP
            ↳ UsableRulesProof
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP

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

FROM(mark(X)) → FROM(X)
FROM(ok(X)) → FROM(X)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

active(app(nil, YS)) → mark(YS)
active(app(cons(X, XS), YS)) → mark(cons(X, app(XS, YS)))
active(from(X)) → mark(cons(X, from(s(X))))
active(zWadr(nil, YS)) → mark(nil)
active(zWadr(XS, nil)) → mark(nil)
active(zWadr(cons(X, XS), cons(Y, YS))) → mark(cons(app(Y, cons(X, nil)), zWadr(XS, YS)))
active(prefix(L)) → mark(cons(nil, zWadr(L, prefix(L))))
active(app(X1, X2)) → app(active(X1), X2)
active(app(X1, X2)) → app(X1, active(X2))
active(cons(X1, X2)) → cons(active(X1), X2)
active(from(X)) → from(active(X))
active(s(X)) → s(active(X))
active(zWadr(X1, X2)) → zWadr(active(X1), X2)
active(zWadr(X1, X2)) → zWadr(X1, active(X2))
active(prefix(X)) → prefix(active(X))
app(mark(X1), X2) → mark(app(X1, X2))
app(X1, mark(X2)) → mark(app(X1, X2))
cons(mark(X1), X2) → mark(cons(X1, X2))
from(mark(X)) → mark(from(X))
s(mark(X)) → mark(s(X))
zWadr(mark(X1), X2) → mark(zWadr(X1, X2))
zWadr(X1, mark(X2)) → mark(zWadr(X1, X2))
prefix(mark(X)) → mark(prefix(X))
proper(app(X1, X2)) → app(proper(X1), proper(X2))
proper(nil) → ok(nil)
proper(cons(X1, X2)) → cons(proper(X1), proper(X2))
proper(from(X)) → from(proper(X))
proper(s(X)) → s(proper(X))
proper(zWadr(X1, X2)) → zWadr(proper(X1), proper(X2))
proper(prefix(X)) → prefix(proper(X))
app(ok(X1), ok(X2)) → ok(app(X1, X2))
cons(ok(X1), ok(X2)) → ok(cons(X1, X2))
from(ok(X)) → ok(from(X))
s(ok(X)) → ok(s(X))
zWadr(ok(X1), ok(X2)) → ok(zWadr(X1, X2))
prefix(ok(X)) → ok(prefix(X))
top(mark(X)) → top(proper(X))
top(ok(X)) → top(active(X))

Q is empty.
We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
We can use the usable rules and reduction pair processor [15] with the Ce-compatible extension of the polynomial order that maps every function symbol to the sum of its argument. Then, we can delete all non-usable rules [17] from R.

↳ QTRS
  ↳ DependencyPairsProof
    ↳ QDP
      ↳ DependencyGraphProof
        ↳ AND
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP
            ↳ UsableRulesProof
              ↳ QDP
                ↳ QDPSizeChangeProof
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP

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

FROM(mark(X)) → FROM(X)
FROM(ok(X)) → FROM(X)

R is empty.
Q is empty.
We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
By using the subterm criterion [20] together with the size-change analysis [32] we have proven that there are no infinite chains for this DP problem.

From the DPs we obtained the following set of size-change graphs: 



↳ QTRS
  ↳ DependencyPairsProof
    ↳ QDP
      ↳ DependencyGraphProof
        ↳ AND
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP
            ↳ UsableRulesProof
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP

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

CONS(mark(X1), X2) → CONS(X1, X2)
CONS(ok(X1), ok(X2)) → CONS(X1, X2)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

active(app(nil, YS)) → mark(YS)
active(app(cons(X, XS), YS)) → mark(cons(X, app(XS, YS)))
active(from(X)) → mark(cons(X, from(s(X))))
active(zWadr(nil, YS)) → mark(nil)
active(zWadr(XS, nil)) → mark(nil)
active(zWadr(cons(X, XS), cons(Y, YS))) → mark(cons(app(Y, cons(X, nil)), zWadr(XS, YS)))
active(prefix(L)) → mark(cons(nil, zWadr(L, prefix(L))))
active(app(X1, X2)) → app(active(X1), X2)
active(app(X1, X2)) → app(X1, active(X2))
active(cons(X1, X2)) → cons(active(X1), X2)
active(from(X)) → from(active(X))
active(s(X)) → s(active(X))
active(zWadr(X1, X2)) → zWadr(active(X1), X2)
active(zWadr(X1, X2)) → zWadr(X1, active(X2))
active(prefix(X)) → prefix(active(X))
app(mark(X1), X2) → mark(app(X1, X2))
app(X1, mark(X2)) → mark(app(X1, X2))
cons(mark(X1), X2) → mark(cons(X1, X2))
from(mark(X)) → mark(from(X))
s(mark(X)) → mark(s(X))
zWadr(mark(X1), X2) → mark(zWadr(X1, X2))
zWadr(X1, mark(X2)) → mark(zWadr(X1, X2))
prefix(mark(X)) → mark(prefix(X))
proper(app(X1, X2)) → app(proper(X1), proper(X2))
proper(nil) → ok(nil)
proper(cons(X1, X2)) → cons(proper(X1), proper(X2))
proper(from(X)) → from(proper(X))
proper(s(X)) → s(proper(X))
proper(zWadr(X1, X2)) → zWadr(proper(X1), proper(X2))
proper(prefix(X)) → prefix(proper(X))
app(ok(X1), ok(X2)) → ok(app(X1, X2))
cons(ok(X1), ok(X2)) → ok(cons(X1, X2))
from(ok(X)) → ok(from(X))
s(ok(X)) → ok(s(X))
zWadr(ok(X1), ok(X2)) → ok(zWadr(X1, X2))
prefix(ok(X)) → ok(prefix(X))
top(mark(X)) → top(proper(X))
top(ok(X)) → top(active(X))

Q is empty.
We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
We can use the usable rules and reduction pair processor [15] with the Ce-compatible extension of the polynomial order that maps every function symbol to the sum of its argument. Then, we can delete all non-usable rules [17] from R.

↳ QTRS
  ↳ DependencyPairsProof
    ↳ QDP
      ↳ DependencyGraphProof
        ↳ AND
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP
            ↳ UsableRulesProof
              ↳ QDP
                ↳ QDPSizeChangeProof
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP

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

CONS(mark(X1), X2) → CONS(X1, X2)
CONS(ok(X1), ok(X2)) → CONS(X1, X2)

R is empty.
Q is empty.
We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
By using the subterm criterion [20] together with the size-change analysis [32] we have proven that there are no infinite chains for this DP problem.

From the DPs we obtained the following set of size-change graphs: 



↳ QTRS
  ↳ DependencyPairsProof
    ↳ QDP
      ↳ DependencyGraphProof
        ↳ AND
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP
            ↳ UsableRulesProof
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP

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

APP(mark(X1), X2) → APP(X1, X2)
APP(ok(X1), ok(X2)) → APP(X1, X2)
APP(X1, mark(X2)) → APP(X1, X2)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

active(app(nil, YS)) → mark(YS)
active(app(cons(X, XS), YS)) → mark(cons(X, app(XS, YS)))
active(from(X)) → mark(cons(X, from(s(X))))
active(zWadr(nil, YS)) → mark(nil)
active(zWadr(XS, nil)) → mark(nil)
active(zWadr(cons(X, XS), cons(Y, YS))) → mark(cons(app(Y, cons(X, nil)), zWadr(XS, YS)))
active(prefix(L)) → mark(cons(nil, zWadr(L, prefix(L))))
active(app(X1, X2)) → app(active(X1), X2)
active(app(X1, X2)) → app(X1, active(X2))
active(cons(X1, X2)) → cons(active(X1), X2)
active(from(X)) → from(active(X))
active(s(X)) → s(active(X))
active(zWadr(X1, X2)) → zWadr(active(X1), X2)
active(zWadr(X1, X2)) → zWadr(X1, active(X2))
active(prefix(X)) → prefix(active(X))
app(mark(X1), X2) → mark(app(X1, X2))
app(X1, mark(X2)) → mark(app(X1, X2))
cons(mark(X1), X2) → mark(cons(X1, X2))
from(mark(X)) → mark(from(X))
s(mark(X)) → mark(s(X))
zWadr(mark(X1), X2) → mark(zWadr(X1, X2))
zWadr(X1, mark(X2)) → mark(zWadr(X1, X2))
prefix(mark(X)) → mark(prefix(X))
proper(app(X1, X2)) → app(proper(X1), proper(X2))
proper(nil) → ok(nil)
proper(cons(X1, X2)) → cons(proper(X1), proper(X2))
proper(from(X)) → from(proper(X))
proper(s(X)) → s(proper(X))
proper(zWadr(X1, X2)) → zWadr(proper(X1), proper(X2))
proper(prefix(X)) → prefix(proper(X))
app(ok(X1), ok(X2)) → ok(app(X1, X2))
cons(ok(X1), ok(X2)) → ok(cons(X1, X2))
from(ok(X)) → ok(from(X))
s(ok(X)) → ok(s(X))
zWadr(ok(X1), ok(X2)) → ok(zWadr(X1, X2))
prefix(ok(X)) → ok(prefix(X))
top(mark(X)) → top(proper(X))
top(ok(X)) → top(active(X))

Q is empty.
We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
We can use the usable rules and reduction pair processor [15] with the Ce-compatible extension of the polynomial order that maps every function symbol to the sum of its argument. Then, we can delete all non-usable rules [17] from R.

↳ QTRS
  ↳ DependencyPairsProof
    ↳ QDP
      ↳ DependencyGraphProof
        ↳ AND
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP
            ↳ UsableRulesProof
              ↳ QDP
                ↳ QDPSizeChangeProof
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP

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

APP(mark(X1), X2) → APP(X1, X2)
APP(ok(X1), ok(X2)) → APP(X1, X2)
APP(X1, mark(X2)) → APP(X1, X2)

R is empty.
Q is empty.
We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
By using the subterm criterion [20] together with the size-change analysis [32] we have proven that there are no infinite chains for this DP problem.

From the DPs we obtained the following set of size-change graphs: 



↳ QTRS
  ↳ DependencyPairsProof
    ↳ QDP
      ↳ DependencyGraphProof
        ↳ AND
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP
            ↳ UsableRulesProof
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP

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

PROPER(zWadr(X1, X2)) → PROPER(X1)
PROPER(s(X)) → PROPER(X)
PROPER(cons(X1, X2)) → PROPER(X1)
PROPER(zWadr(X1, X2)) → PROPER(X2)
PROPER(app(X1, X2)) → PROPER(X2)
PROPER(cons(X1, X2)) → PROPER(X2)
PROPER(app(X1, X2)) → PROPER(X1)
PROPER(prefix(X)) → PROPER(X)
PROPER(from(X)) → PROPER(X)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

active(app(nil, YS)) → mark(YS)
active(app(cons(X, XS), YS)) → mark(cons(X, app(XS, YS)))
active(from(X)) → mark(cons(X, from(s(X))))
active(zWadr(nil, YS)) → mark(nil)
active(zWadr(XS, nil)) → mark(nil)
active(zWadr(cons(X, XS), cons(Y, YS))) → mark(cons(app(Y, cons(X, nil)), zWadr(XS, YS)))
active(prefix(L)) → mark(cons(nil, zWadr(L, prefix(L))))
active(app(X1, X2)) → app(active(X1), X2)
active(app(X1, X2)) → app(X1, active(X2))
active(cons(X1, X2)) → cons(active(X1), X2)
active(from(X)) → from(active(X))
active(s(X)) → s(active(X))
active(zWadr(X1, X2)) → zWadr(active(X1), X2)
active(zWadr(X1, X2)) → zWadr(X1, active(X2))
active(prefix(X)) → prefix(active(X))
app(mark(X1), X2) → mark(app(X1, X2))
app(X1, mark(X2)) → mark(app(X1, X2))
cons(mark(X1), X2) → mark(cons(X1, X2))
from(mark(X)) → mark(from(X))
s(mark(X)) → mark(s(X))
zWadr(mark(X1), X2) → mark(zWadr(X1, X2))
zWadr(X1, mark(X2)) → mark(zWadr(X1, X2))
prefix(mark(X)) → mark(prefix(X))
proper(app(X1, X2)) → app(proper(X1), proper(X2))
proper(nil) → ok(nil)
proper(cons(X1, X2)) → cons(proper(X1), proper(X2))
proper(from(X)) → from(proper(X))
proper(s(X)) → s(proper(X))
proper(zWadr(X1, X2)) → zWadr(proper(X1), proper(X2))
proper(prefix(X)) → prefix(proper(X))
app(ok(X1), ok(X2)) → ok(app(X1, X2))
cons(ok(X1), ok(X2)) → ok(cons(X1, X2))
from(ok(X)) → ok(from(X))
s(ok(X)) → ok(s(X))
zWadr(ok(X1), ok(X2)) → ok(zWadr(X1, X2))
prefix(ok(X)) → ok(prefix(X))
top(mark(X)) → top(proper(X))
top(ok(X)) → top(active(X))

Q is empty.
We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
We can use the usable rules and reduction pair processor [15] with the Ce-compatible extension of the polynomial order that maps every function symbol to the sum of its argument. Then, we can delete all non-usable rules [17] from R.

↳ QTRS
  ↳ DependencyPairsProof
    ↳ QDP
      ↳ DependencyGraphProof
        ↳ AND
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP
            ↳ UsableRulesProof
              ↳ QDP
                ↳ QDPSizeChangeProof
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP

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

PROPER(cons(X1, X2)) → PROPER(X1)
PROPER(s(X)) → PROPER(X)
PROPER(zWadr(X1, X2)) → PROPER(X1)
PROPER(app(X1, X2)) → PROPER(X2)
PROPER(zWadr(X1, X2)) → PROPER(X2)
PROPER(app(X1, X2)) → PROPER(X1)
PROPER(cons(X1, X2)) → PROPER(X2)
PROPER(from(X)) → PROPER(X)
PROPER(prefix(X)) → PROPER(X)

R is empty.
Q is empty.
We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
By using the subterm criterion [20] together with the size-change analysis [32] we have proven that there are no infinite chains for this DP problem.

From the DPs we obtained the following set of size-change graphs: 



↳ QTRS
  ↳ DependencyPairsProof
    ↳ QDP
      ↳ DependencyGraphProof
        ↳ AND
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP
            ↳ UsableRulesProof
          ↳ QDP

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

ACTIVE(s(X)) → ACTIVE(X)
ACTIVE(zWadr(X1, X2)) → ACTIVE(X2)
ACTIVE(cons(X1, X2)) → ACTIVE(X1)
ACTIVE(zWadr(X1, X2)) → ACTIVE(X1)
ACTIVE(from(X)) → ACTIVE(X)
ACTIVE(app(X1, X2)) → ACTIVE(X1)
ACTIVE(app(X1, X2)) → ACTIVE(X2)
ACTIVE(prefix(X)) → ACTIVE(X)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

active(app(nil, YS)) → mark(YS)
active(app(cons(X, XS), YS)) → mark(cons(X, app(XS, YS)))
active(from(X)) → mark(cons(X, from(s(X))))
active(zWadr(nil, YS)) → mark(nil)
active(zWadr(XS, nil)) → mark(nil)
active(zWadr(cons(X, XS), cons(Y, YS))) → mark(cons(app(Y, cons(X, nil)), zWadr(XS, YS)))
active(prefix(L)) → mark(cons(nil, zWadr(L, prefix(L))))
active(app(X1, X2)) → app(active(X1), X2)
active(app(X1, X2)) → app(X1, active(X2))
active(cons(X1, X2)) → cons(active(X1), X2)
active(from(X)) → from(active(X))
active(s(X)) → s(active(X))
active(zWadr(X1, X2)) → zWadr(active(X1), X2)
active(zWadr(X1, X2)) → zWadr(X1, active(X2))
active(prefix(X)) → prefix(active(X))
app(mark(X1), X2) → mark(app(X1, X2))
app(X1, mark(X2)) → mark(app(X1, X2))
cons(mark(X1), X2) → mark(cons(X1, X2))
from(mark(X)) → mark(from(X))
s(mark(X)) → mark(s(X))
zWadr(mark(X1), X2) → mark(zWadr(X1, X2))
zWadr(X1, mark(X2)) → mark(zWadr(X1, X2))
prefix(mark(X)) → mark(prefix(X))
proper(app(X1, X2)) → app(proper(X1), proper(X2))
proper(nil) → ok(nil)
proper(cons(X1, X2)) → cons(proper(X1), proper(X2))
proper(from(X)) → from(proper(X))
proper(s(X)) → s(proper(X))
proper(zWadr(X1, X2)) → zWadr(proper(X1), proper(X2))
proper(prefix(X)) → prefix(proper(X))
app(ok(X1), ok(X2)) → ok(app(X1, X2))
cons(ok(X1), ok(X2)) → ok(cons(X1, X2))
from(ok(X)) → ok(from(X))
s(ok(X)) → ok(s(X))
zWadr(ok(X1), ok(X2)) → ok(zWadr(X1, X2))
prefix(ok(X)) → ok(prefix(X))
top(mark(X)) → top(proper(X))
top(ok(X)) → top(active(X))

Q is empty.
We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
We can use the usable rules and reduction pair processor [15] with the Ce-compatible extension of the polynomial order that maps every function symbol to the sum of its argument. Then, we can delete all non-usable rules [17] from R.

↳ QTRS
  ↳ DependencyPairsProof
    ↳ QDP
      ↳ DependencyGraphProof
        ↳ AND
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP
            ↳ UsableRulesProof
              ↳ QDP
                ↳ QDPSizeChangeProof
          ↳ QDP

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

ACTIVE(s(X)) → ACTIVE(X)
ACTIVE(zWadr(X1, X2)) → ACTIVE(X2)
ACTIVE(cons(X1, X2)) → ACTIVE(X1)
ACTIVE(zWadr(X1, X2)) → ACTIVE(X1)
ACTIVE(app(X1, X2)) → ACTIVE(X1)
ACTIVE(from(X)) → ACTIVE(X)
ACTIVE(app(X1, X2)) → ACTIVE(X2)
ACTIVE(prefix(X)) → ACTIVE(X)

R is empty.
Q is empty.
We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
By using the subterm criterion [20] together with the size-change analysis [32] we have proven that there are no infinite chains for this DP problem.

From the DPs we obtained the following set of size-change graphs: 



↳ QTRS
  ↳ DependencyPairsProof
    ↳ QDP
      ↳ DependencyGraphProof
        ↳ AND
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP
            ↳ UsableRulesReductionPairsProof

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

TOP(mark(X)) → TOP(proper(X))
TOP(ok(X)) → TOP(active(X))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

active(app(nil, YS)) → mark(YS)
active(app(cons(X, XS), YS)) → mark(cons(X, app(XS, YS)))
active(from(X)) → mark(cons(X, from(s(X))))
active(zWadr(nil, YS)) → mark(nil)
active(zWadr(XS, nil)) → mark(nil)
active(zWadr(cons(X, XS), cons(Y, YS))) → mark(cons(app(Y, cons(X, nil)), zWadr(XS, YS)))
active(prefix(L)) → mark(cons(nil, zWadr(L, prefix(L))))
active(app(X1, X2)) → app(active(X1), X2)
active(app(X1, X2)) → app(X1, active(X2))
active(cons(X1, X2)) → cons(active(X1), X2)
active(from(X)) → from(active(X))
active(s(X)) → s(active(X))
active(zWadr(X1, X2)) → zWadr(active(X1), X2)
active(zWadr(X1, X2)) → zWadr(X1, active(X2))
active(prefix(X)) → prefix(active(X))
app(mark(X1), X2) → mark(app(X1, X2))
app(X1, mark(X2)) → mark(app(X1, X2))
cons(mark(X1), X2) → mark(cons(X1, X2))
from(mark(X)) → mark(from(X))
s(mark(X)) → mark(s(X))
zWadr(mark(X1), X2) → mark(zWadr(X1, X2))
zWadr(X1, mark(X2)) → mark(zWadr(X1, X2))
prefix(mark(X)) → mark(prefix(X))
proper(app(X1, X2)) → app(proper(X1), proper(X2))
proper(nil) → ok(nil)
proper(cons(X1, X2)) → cons(proper(X1), proper(X2))
proper(from(X)) → from(proper(X))
proper(s(X)) → s(proper(X))
proper(zWadr(X1, X2)) → zWadr(proper(X1), proper(X2))
proper(prefix(X)) → prefix(proper(X))
app(ok(X1), ok(X2)) → ok(app(X1, X2))
cons(ok(X1), ok(X2)) → ok(cons(X1, X2))
from(ok(X)) → ok(from(X))
s(ok(X)) → ok(s(X))
zWadr(ok(X1), ok(X2)) → ok(zWadr(X1, X2))
prefix(ok(X)) → ok(prefix(X))
top(mark(X)) → top(proper(X))
top(ok(X)) → top(active(X))

Q is empty.
We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
By using the usable rules with reduction pair processor [15] with a polynomial ordering [25], all dependency pairs and the corresponding usable rules [17] can be oriented non-strictly. All non-usable rules are removed, and those dependency pairs and usable rules that have been oriented strictly or contain non-usable symbols in their left-hand side are removed as well.

No dependency pairs are removed.

No rules are removed from R.

Used ordering: POLO with Polynomial interpretation [25]:

POL(TOP(x1)) = x1   
POL(active(x1)) = 2·x1   
POL(app(x1, x2)) = x1 + x2   
POL(cons(x1, x2)) = x1 + x2   
POL(from(x1)) = 2·x1   
POL(mark(x1)) = x1   
POL(nil) = 0   
POL(ok(x1)) = 2·x1   
POL(prefix(x1)) = x1   
POL(proper(x1)) = x1   
POL(s(x1)) = x1   
POL(zWadr(x1, x2)) = x1 + x2   



↳ QTRS
  ↳ DependencyPairsProof
    ↳ QDP
      ↳ DependencyGraphProof
        ↳ AND
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP
            ↳ UsableRulesReductionPairsProof
              ↳ QDP
                ↳ QDPOrderProof

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

TOP(mark(X)) → TOP(proper(X))
TOP(ok(X)) → TOP(active(X))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

proper(app(X1, X2)) → app(proper(X1), proper(X2))
proper(nil) → ok(nil)
proper(cons(X1, X2)) → cons(proper(X1), proper(X2))
proper(from(X)) → from(proper(X))
proper(s(X)) → s(proper(X))
proper(zWadr(X1, X2)) → zWadr(proper(X1), proper(X2))
proper(prefix(X)) → prefix(proper(X))
prefix(mark(X)) → mark(prefix(X))
prefix(ok(X)) → ok(prefix(X))
zWadr(mark(X1), X2) → mark(zWadr(X1, X2))
zWadr(X1, mark(X2)) → mark(zWadr(X1, X2))
zWadr(ok(X1), ok(X2)) → ok(zWadr(X1, X2))
s(mark(X)) → mark(s(X))
s(ok(X)) → ok(s(X))
from(mark(X)) → mark(from(X))
from(ok(X)) → ok(from(X))
cons(mark(X1), X2) → mark(cons(X1, X2))
cons(ok(X1), ok(X2)) → ok(cons(X1, X2))
app(mark(X1), X2) → mark(app(X1, X2))
app(X1, mark(X2)) → mark(app(X1, X2))
app(ok(X1), ok(X2)) → ok(app(X1, X2))
active(app(nil, YS)) → mark(YS)
active(app(cons(X, XS), YS)) → mark(cons(X, app(XS, YS)))
active(from(X)) → mark(cons(X, from(s(X))))
active(zWadr(nil, YS)) → mark(nil)
active(zWadr(XS, nil)) → mark(nil)
active(zWadr(cons(X, XS), cons(Y, YS))) → mark(cons(app(Y, cons(X, nil)), zWadr(XS, YS)))
active(prefix(L)) → mark(cons(nil, zWadr(L, prefix(L))))
active(app(X1, X2)) → app(active(X1), X2)
active(app(X1, X2)) → app(X1, active(X2))
active(cons(X1, X2)) → cons(active(X1), X2)
active(from(X)) → from(active(X))
active(s(X)) → s(active(X))
active(zWadr(X1, X2)) → zWadr(active(X1), X2)
active(zWadr(X1, X2)) → zWadr(X1, active(X2))
active(prefix(X)) → prefix(active(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.


TOP(mark(X)) → TOP(proper(X))
The remaining pairs can at least be oriented weakly.

TOP(ok(X)) → TOP(active(X))
Used ordering: Matrix interpretation [3]:
Non-tuple symbols:
M( prefix(x1) ) =
/1\
\1/
+
/00\
\11/
·x1

M( from(x1) ) =
/1\
\1/
+
/10\
\01/
·x1

M( cons(x1, x2) ) =
/1\
\0/
+
/00\
\01/
·x1+
/00\
\00/
·x2

M( active(x1) ) =
/0\
\0/
+
/10\
\01/
·x1

M( ok(x1) ) =
/0\
\0/
+
/10\
\01/
·x1

M( mark(x1) ) =
/0\
\1/
+
/10\
\01/
·x1

M( s(x1) ) =
/1\
\1/
+
/00\
\01/
·x1

M( app(x1, x2) ) =
/0\
\1/
+
/10\
\01/
·x1+
/10\
\01/
·x2

M( proper(x1) ) =
/0\
\0/
+
/10\
\01/
·x1

M( zWadr(x1, x2) ) =
/1\
\0/
+
/00\
\11/
·x1+
/00\
\11/
·x2

M( nil ) =
/1\
\0/

Tuple symbols:
M( TOP(x1) ) = 0+
[0,1]
·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:

prefix(ok(X)) → ok(prefix(X))
prefix(mark(X)) → mark(prefix(X))
zWadr(X1, mark(X2)) → mark(zWadr(X1, X2))
zWadr(mark(X1), X2) → mark(zWadr(X1, X2))
proper(s(X)) → s(proper(X))
proper(from(X)) → from(proper(X))
proper(prefix(X)) → prefix(proper(X))
proper(zWadr(X1, X2)) → zWadr(proper(X1), proper(X2))
proper(app(X1, X2)) → app(proper(X1), proper(X2))
proper(cons(X1, X2)) → cons(proper(X1), proper(X2))
proper(nil) → ok(nil)
active(from(X)) → mark(cons(X, from(s(X))))
active(zWadr(nil, YS)) → mark(nil)
active(zWadr(XS, nil)) → mark(nil)
active(zWadr(cons(X, XS), cons(Y, YS))) → mark(cons(app(Y, cons(X, nil)), zWadr(XS, YS)))
app(X1, mark(X2)) → mark(app(X1, X2))
app(ok(X1), ok(X2)) → ok(app(X1, X2))
active(app(nil, YS)) → mark(YS)
active(app(cons(X, XS), YS)) → mark(cons(X, app(XS, YS)))
from(ok(X)) → ok(from(X))
cons(mark(X1), X2) → mark(cons(X1, X2))
cons(ok(X1), ok(X2)) → ok(cons(X1, X2))
app(mark(X1), X2) → mark(app(X1, X2))
zWadr(ok(X1), ok(X2)) → ok(zWadr(X1, X2))
s(mark(X)) → mark(s(X))
s(ok(X)) → ok(s(X))
from(mark(X)) → mark(from(X))
active(prefix(X)) → prefix(active(X))
active(zWadr(X1, X2)) → zWadr(X1, active(X2))
active(zWadr(X1, X2)) → zWadr(active(X1), X2)
active(s(X)) → s(active(X))
active(from(X)) → from(active(X))
active(cons(X1, X2)) → cons(active(X1), X2)
active(app(X1, X2)) → app(X1, active(X2))
active(app(X1, X2)) → app(active(X1), X2)
active(prefix(L)) → mark(cons(nil, zWadr(L, prefix(L))))



↳ QTRS
  ↳ DependencyPairsProof
    ↳ QDP
      ↳ DependencyGraphProof
        ↳ AND
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP
            ↳ UsableRulesReductionPairsProof
              ↳ QDP
                ↳ QDPOrderProof
                  ↳ QDP
                    ↳ UsableRulesReductionPairsProof

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

TOP(ok(X)) → TOP(active(X))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

proper(app(X1, X2)) → app(proper(X1), proper(X2))
proper(nil) → ok(nil)
proper(cons(X1, X2)) → cons(proper(X1), proper(X2))
proper(from(X)) → from(proper(X))
proper(s(X)) → s(proper(X))
proper(zWadr(X1, X2)) → zWadr(proper(X1), proper(X2))
proper(prefix(X)) → prefix(proper(X))
prefix(mark(X)) → mark(prefix(X))
prefix(ok(X)) → ok(prefix(X))
zWadr(mark(X1), X2) → mark(zWadr(X1, X2))
zWadr(X1, mark(X2)) → mark(zWadr(X1, X2))
zWadr(ok(X1), ok(X2)) → ok(zWadr(X1, X2))
s(mark(X)) → mark(s(X))
s(ok(X)) → ok(s(X))
from(mark(X)) → mark(from(X))
from(ok(X)) → ok(from(X))
cons(mark(X1), X2) → mark(cons(X1, X2))
cons(ok(X1), ok(X2)) → ok(cons(X1, X2))
app(mark(X1), X2) → mark(app(X1, X2))
app(X1, mark(X2)) → mark(app(X1, X2))
app(ok(X1), ok(X2)) → ok(app(X1, X2))
active(app(nil, YS)) → mark(YS)
active(app(cons(X, XS), YS)) → mark(cons(X, app(XS, YS)))
active(from(X)) → mark(cons(X, from(s(X))))
active(zWadr(nil, YS)) → mark(nil)
active(zWadr(XS, nil)) → mark(nil)
active(zWadr(cons(X, XS), cons(Y, YS))) → mark(cons(app(Y, cons(X, nil)), zWadr(XS, YS)))
active(prefix(L)) → mark(cons(nil, zWadr(L, prefix(L))))
active(app(X1, X2)) → app(active(X1), X2)
active(app(X1, X2)) → app(X1, active(X2))
active(cons(X1, X2)) → cons(active(X1), X2)
active(from(X)) → from(active(X))
active(s(X)) → s(active(X))
active(zWadr(X1, X2)) → zWadr(active(X1), X2)
active(zWadr(X1, X2)) → zWadr(X1, active(X2))
active(prefix(X)) → prefix(active(X))

Q is empty.
We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
By using the usable rules with reduction pair processor [15] with a polynomial ordering [25], all dependency pairs and the corresponding usable rules [17] can be oriented non-strictly. All non-usable rules are removed, and those dependency pairs and usable rules that have been oriented strictly or contain non-usable symbols in their left-hand side are removed as well.

No dependency pairs are removed.

No rules are removed from R.

Used ordering: POLO with Polynomial interpretation [25]:

POL(TOP(x1)) = x1   
POL(active(x1)) = 2·x1   
POL(app(x1, x2)) = x1 + 2·x2   
POL(cons(x1, x2)) = x1 + x2   
POL(from(x1)) = 2·x1   
POL(mark(x1)) = x1   
POL(nil) = 0   
POL(ok(x1)) = 2·x1   
POL(prefix(x1)) = 2·x1   
POL(s(x1)) = x1   
POL(zWadr(x1, x2)) = x1 + x2   



↳ QTRS
  ↳ DependencyPairsProof
    ↳ QDP
      ↳ DependencyGraphProof
        ↳ AND
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP
            ↳ UsableRulesReductionPairsProof
              ↳ QDP
                ↳ QDPOrderProof
                  ↳ QDP
                    ↳ UsableRulesReductionPairsProof
                      ↳ QDP
                        ↳ RuleRemovalProof

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

TOP(ok(X)) → TOP(active(X))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

active(app(nil, YS)) → mark(YS)
active(app(cons(X, XS), YS)) → mark(cons(X, app(XS, YS)))
active(from(X)) → mark(cons(X, from(s(X))))
active(zWadr(nil, YS)) → mark(nil)
active(zWadr(XS, nil)) → mark(nil)
active(zWadr(cons(X, XS), cons(Y, YS))) → mark(cons(app(Y, cons(X, nil)), zWadr(XS, YS)))
active(prefix(L)) → mark(cons(nil, zWadr(L, prefix(L))))
active(app(X1, X2)) → app(active(X1), X2)
active(app(X1, X2)) → app(X1, active(X2))
active(cons(X1, X2)) → cons(active(X1), X2)
active(from(X)) → from(active(X))
active(s(X)) → s(active(X))
active(zWadr(X1, X2)) → zWadr(active(X1), X2)
active(zWadr(X1, X2)) → zWadr(X1, active(X2))
active(prefix(X)) → prefix(active(X))
prefix(mark(X)) → mark(prefix(X))
prefix(ok(X)) → ok(prefix(X))
zWadr(mark(X1), X2) → mark(zWadr(X1, X2))
zWadr(X1, mark(X2)) → mark(zWadr(X1, X2))
zWadr(ok(X1), ok(X2)) → ok(zWadr(X1, X2))
s(mark(X)) → mark(s(X))
s(ok(X)) → ok(s(X))
from(mark(X)) → mark(from(X))
from(ok(X)) → ok(from(X))
cons(mark(X1), X2) → mark(cons(X1, X2))
cons(ok(X1), ok(X2)) → ok(cons(X1, X2))
app(mark(X1), X2) → mark(app(X1, X2))
app(X1, mark(X2)) → mark(app(X1, X2))
app(ok(X1), ok(X2)) → ok(app(X1, X2))

Q is empty.
We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
By using the rule removal processor [15] with the following polynomial ordering [25], at least one Dependency Pair or term rewrite system rule of this QDP problem can be strictly oriented.
Strictly oriented dependency pairs:

TOP(ok(X)) → TOP(active(X))

Strictly oriented rules of the TRS R:

active(app(nil, YS)) → mark(YS)
active(app(cons(X, XS), YS)) → mark(cons(X, app(XS, YS)))
active(from(X)) → mark(cons(X, from(s(X))))
active(zWadr(nil, YS)) → mark(nil)
active(zWadr(XS, nil)) → mark(nil)
active(zWadr(cons(X, XS), cons(Y, YS))) → mark(cons(app(Y, cons(X, nil)), zWadr(XS, YS)))
active(prefix(L)) → mark(cons(nil, zWadr(L, prefix(L))))
active(app(X1, X2)) → app(X1, active(X2))
active(zWadr(X1, X2)) → zWadr(X1, active(X2))
active(prefix(X)) → prefix(active(X))
zWadr(ok(X1), ok(X2)) → ok(zWadr(X1, X2))
from(ok(X)) → ok(from(X))
cons(ok(X1), ok(X2)) → ok(cons(X1, X2))
app(ok(X1), ok(X2)) → ok(app(X1, X2))

Used ordering: POLO with Polynomial interpretation [25]:

POL(TOP(x1)) = x1   
POL(active(x1)) = 1 + 2·x1   
POL(app(x1, x2)) = 1 + 2·x1 + x2   
POL(cons(x1, x2)) = x1 + x2   
POL(from(x1)) = 1 + 2·x1   
POL(mark(x1)) = x1   
POL(nil) = 0   
POL(ok(x1)) = 2 + 2·x1   
POL(prefix(x1)) = 2 + 2·x1   
POL(s(x1)) = x1   
POL(zWadr(x1, x2)) = 1 + 2·x1 + x2   



↳ QTRS
  ↳ DependencyPairsProof
    ↳ QDP
      ↳ DependencyGraphProof
        ↳ AND
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP
            ↳ UsableRulesReductionPairsProof
              ↳ QDP
                ↳ QDPOrderProof
                  ↳ QDP
                    ↳ UsableRulesReductionPairsProof
                      ↳ QDP
                        ↳ RuleRemovalProof
                          ↳ QDP
                            ↳ PisEmptyProof

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

active(app(X1, X2)) → app(active(X1), X2)
active(cons(X1, X2)) → cons(active(X1), X2)
active(from(X)) → from(active(X))
active(s(X)) → s(active(X))
active(zWadr(X1, X2)) → zWadr(active(X1), X2)
prefix(mark(X)) → mark(prefix(X))
prefix(ok(X)) → ok(prefix(X))
zWadr(mark(X1), X2) → mark(zWadr(X1, X2))
zWadr(X1, mark(X2)) → mark(zWadr(X1, X2))
s(mark(X)) → mark(s(X))
s(ok(X)) → ok(s(X))
from(mark(X)) → mark(from(X))
cons(mark(X1), X2) → mark(cons(X1, X2))
app(mark(X1), X2) → mark(app(X1, X2))
app(X1, mark(X2)) → mark(app(X1, X2))

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.