Termination w.r.t. Q proof of /tmp/aprove_benchmark_example

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

Q is empty.
We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
The approximation of the Dependency Graph [15,17,22] contains 7 SCCs with 20 less nodes.

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ UsableRulesProof

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

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

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

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

PREFIX(active(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:

PREFIX(active(X)) → PREFIX(X)
The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1
PREFIX(mark(X)) → PREFIX(X)
The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ UsableRulesProof

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

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

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

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ UsableRulesProof

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ QDPSizeChangeProof

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

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

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

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

ZWADR(X1, active(X2)) → ZWADR(X1, X2)
The graph contains the following edges 1 >= 1, 2 > 2
ZWADR(mark(X1), X2) → ZWADR(X1, X2)
The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1, 2 >= 2
ZWADR(X1, mark(X2)) → ZWADR(X1, X2)
The graph contains the following edges 1 >= 1, 2 > 2
ZWADR(active(X1), X2) → ZWADR(X1, X2)
The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1, 2 >= 2

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ UsableRulesProof

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

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

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

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ UsableRulesProof

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ QDPSizeChangeProof

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

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

S(active(X)) → S(X)
S(mark(X)) → S(X)

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

S(mark(X)) → S(X)
The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1
S(active(X)) → S(X)
The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ UsableRulesProof

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

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

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

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ UsableRulesProof

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ QDPSizeChangeProof

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

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

FROM(mark(X)) → FROM(X)
FROM(active(X)) → FROM(X)

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

FROM(mark(X)) → FROM(X)
The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1
FROM(active(X)) → FROM(X)
The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ UsableRulesProof

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

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

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

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ UsableRulesProof

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ QDPSizeChangeProof

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

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

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

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

CONS(X1, active(X2)) → CONS(X1, X2)
The graph contains the following edges 1 >= 1, 2 > 2
CONS(mark(X1), X2) → CONS(X1, X2)
The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1, 2 >= 2
CONS(active(X1), X2) → CONS(X1, X2)
The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1, 2 >= 2
CONS(X1, mark(X2)) → CONS(X1, X2)
The graph contains the following edges 1 >= 1, 2 > 2

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ UsableRulesProof

          ↳ QDP

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

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

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ UsableRulesProof

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ QDPSizeChangeProof

          ↳ QDP

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

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

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

APP(X1, active(X2)) → APP(X1, X2)
The graph contains the following edges 1 >= 1, 2 > 2
APP(mark(X1), X2) → APP(X1, X2)
The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1, 2 >= 2
APP(X1, mark(X2)) → APP(X1, X2)
The graph contains the following edges 1 >= 1, 2 > 2
APP(active(X1), X2) → APP(X1, X2)
The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1, 2 >= 2

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ QDPOrderProof

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

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

The remaining pairs can at least be oriented weakly.

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

Used ordering: Polynomial interpretation [25]:

POL(ACTIVE(x₁)) = x₁
POL(MARK(x₁)) = 1
POL(active(x₁)) = 0
POL(app(x₁, x₂)) = 1
POL(cons(x₁, x₂)) = 0
POL(from(x₁)) = 1
POL(mark(x₁)) = 0
POL(nil) = 0
POL(prefix(x₁)) = 1
POL(s(x₁)) = 0
POL(zWadr(x₁, x₂)) = 1

The following usable rules [17] were oriented:

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

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ QDPOrderProof

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ QDPOrderProof

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

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

The remaining pairs can at least be oriented weakly.

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

Used ordering: Polynomial interpretation [25]:

POL(ACTIVE(x₁)) = x₁
POL(MARK(x₁)) = x₁
POL(active(x₁)) = x₁
POL(app(x₁, x₂)) = 1 + x₁ + x₂
POL(cons(x₁, x₂)) = x₁
POL(from(x₁)) = x₁
POL(mark(x₁)) = x₁
POL(nil) = 0
POL(prefix(x₁)) = x₁
POL(s(x₁)) = 1 + x₁
POL(zWadr(x₁, x₂)) = 1 + x₁ + x₂

The following usable rules [17] were oriented:

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

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ QDPOrderProof

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ QDPOrderProof

                  ↳ QDP

                    ↳ QDPOrderProof

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

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

The remaining pairs can at least be oriented weakly.

MARK(zWadr(X1, X2)) → ACTIVE(zWadr(mark(X1), mark(X2)))
MARK(from(X)) → ACTIVE(from(mark(X)))
MARK(app(X1, X2)) → ACTIVE(app(mark(X1), mark(X2)))
ACTIVE(zWadr(cons(X, XS), cons(Y, YS))) → MARK(cons(app(Y, cons(X, nil)), zWadr(XS, YS)))
MARK(cons(X1, X2)) → MARK(X1)
MARK(prefix(X)) → ACTIVE(prefix(mark(X)))

Used ordering: Combined order from the following AFS and order.
ACTIVE(x1) = x1
prefix(x1) = prefix(x1)
MARK(x1) = x1
cons(x1, x2) = x1
nil = nil
zWadr(x1, x2) = zWadr(x1, x2)
from(x1) = from(x1)
mark(x1) = x1
app(x1, x2) = app(x1, x2)
s(x1) = s(x1)
active(x1) = x1

Recursive path order with status [2].
Quasi-Precedence:

[prefix₁, zWadr₂, app₂] > nil > from₁
s₁ > from₁

Status:

prefix₁: [1]
from₁: [1]
app₂: [2,1]
s₁: multiset
zWadr₂: [1,2]
nil: multiset

The following usable rules [17] were oriented:

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

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ QDPOrderProof

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ QDPOrderProof

                  ↳ QDP

                    ↳ QDPOrderProof

                      ↳ QDP

                        ↳ QDPOrderProof

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

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

The remaining pairs can at least be oriented weakly.

ACTIVE(zWadr(cons(X, XS), cons(Y, YS))) → MARK(cons(app(Y, cons(X, nil)), zWadr(XS, YS)))
MARK(app(X1, X2)) → ACTIVE(app(mark(X1), mark(X2)))
MARK(cons(X1, X2)) → MARK(X1)

Used ordering: Polynomial interpretation [25]:

POL(ACTIVE(x₁)) = 0
POL(MARK(x₁)) = x₁
POL(active(x₁)) = x₁
POL(app(x₁, x₂)) = 0
POL(cons(x₁, x₂)) = x₁
POL(from(x₁)) = 1
POL(mark(x₁)) = x₁
POL(nil) = 0
POL(prefix(x₁)) = 1
POL(s(x₁)) = 0
POL(zWadr(x₁, x₂)) = 1

The following usable rules [17] were oriented:

app(active(X1), X2) → app(X1, X2)
app(X1, mark(X2)) → app(X1, X2)
app(X1, active(X2)) → app(X1, X2)
app(mark(X1), X2) → app(X1, X2)
cons(X1, active(X2)) → cons(X1, X2)
cons(mark(X1), X2) → cons(X1, X2)
cons(X1, mark(X2)) → cons(X1, X2)
cons(active(X1), X2) → cons(X1, X2)

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ 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:

MARK(app(X1, X2)) → ACTIVE(app(mark(X1), mark(X2)))
ACTIVE(zWadr(cons(X, XS), cons(Y, YS))) → MARK(cons(app(Y, cons(X, nil)), zWadr(XS, YS)))
MARK(cons(X1, X2)) → MARK(X1)

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

The remaining pairs can at least be oriented weakly.

MARK(app(X1, X2)) → ACTIVE(app(mark(X1), mark(X2)))
MARK(cons(X1, X2)) → MARK(X1)

Used ordering: Polynomial interpretation [25]:

POL(ACTIVE(x₁)) = x₁
POL(MARK(x₁)) = 0
POL(active(x₁)) = x₁
POL(app(x₁, x₂)) = 0
POL(cons(x₁, x₂)) = 1
POL(from(x₁)) = 0
POL(mark(x₁)) = x₁
POL(nil) = 0
POL(prefix(x₁)) = 0
POL(s(x₁)) = x₁
POL(zWadr(x₁, x₂)) = x₂

The following usable rules [17] were oriented:

app(active(X1), X2) → app(X1, X2)
app(X1, mark(X2)) → app(X1, X2)
app(X1, active(X2)) → app(X1, X2)
app(mark(X1), X2) → app(X1, X2)

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ QDPOrderProof

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ QDPOrderProof

                  ↳ QDP

                    ↳ QDPOrderProof

                      ↳ QDP

                        ↳ QDPOrderProof

                          ↳ QDP

                            ↳ QDPOrderProof

                              ↳ QDP

                                ↳ DependencyGraphProof

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

MARK(app(X1, X2)) → ACTIVE(app(mark(X1), mark(X2)))
MARK(cons(X1, X2)) → MARK(X1)

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

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ QDPOrderProof

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ QDPOrderProof

                  ↳ QDP

                    ↳ QDPOrderProof

                      ↳ QDP

                        ↳ QDPOrderProof

                          ↳ QDP

                            ↳ QDPOrderProof

                              ↳ QDP

                                ↳ DependencyGraphProof

                                  ↳ QDP

                                    ↳ UsableRulesProof

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

MARK(cons(X1, X2)) → MARK(X1)

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

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ QDPOrderProof

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ QDPOrderProof

                  ↳ QDP

                    ↳ QDPOrderProof

                      ↳ QDP

                        ↳ QDPOrderProof

                          ↳ QDP

                            ↳ QDPOrderProof

                              ↳ QDP

                                ↳ DependencyGraphProof

                                  ↳ QDP

                                    ↳ UsableRulesProof

                                      ↳ QDP

                                        ↳ QDPSizeChangeProof

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

MARK(cons(X1, X2)) → MARK(X1)

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

MARK(cons(X1, X2)) → MARK(X1)
The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1