Termination w.r.t. Q proof of /tmp/tmplSbNP5/Ex4_4_Luc96b

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(f(g(X), Y)) → mark(f(X, f(g(X), Y)))
active(f(X1, X2)) → f(active(X1), X2)
active(g(X)) → g(active(X))
f(mark(X1), X2) → mark(f(X1, X2))
g(mark(X)) → mark(g(X))
proper(f(X1, X2)) → f(proper(X1), proper(X2))
proper(g(X)) → g(proper(X))
f(ok(X1), ok(X2)) → ok(f(X1, X2))
g(ok(X)) → ok(g(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(f(g(X), Y)) → mark(f(X, f(g(X), Y)))
active(f(X1, X2)) → f(active(X1), X2)
active(g(X)) → g(active(X))
f(mark(X1), X2) → mark(f(X1, X2))
g(mark(X)) → mark(g(X))
proper(f(X1, X2)) → f(proper(X1), proper(X2))
proper(g(X)) → g(proper(X))
f(ok(X1), ok(X2)) → ok(f(X1, X2))
g(ok(X)) → ok(g(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:

PROPER(g(X)) → PROPER(X)
ACTIVE(g(X)) → G(active(X))
TOP(mark(X)) → PROPER(X)
ACTIVE(f(X1, X2)) → F(active(X1), X2)
F(ok(X1), ok(X2)) → F(X1, X2)
TOP(ok(X)) → ACTIVE(X)
G(mark(X)) → G(X)
PROPER(f(X1, X2)) → PROPER(X1)
ACTIVE(f(g(X), Y)) → F(X, f(g(X), Y))
ACTIVE(g(X)) → ACTIVE(X)
PROPER(f(X1, X2)) → PROPER(X2)
TOP(mark(X)) → TOP(proper(X))
G(ok(X)) → G(X)
PROPER(g(X)) → G(proper(X))
ACTIVE(f(X1, X2)) → ACTIVE(X1)
F(mark(X1), X2) → F(X1, X2)
PROPER(f(X1, X2)) → F(proper(X1), proper(X2))
TOP(ok(X)) → TOP(active(X))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

active(f(g(X), Y)) → mark(f(X, f(g(X), Y)))
active(f(X1, X2)) → f(active(X1), X2)
active(g(X)) → g(active(X))
f(mark(X1), X2) → mark(f(X1, X2))
g(mark(X)) → mark(g(X))
proper(f(X1, X2)) → f(proper(X1), proper(X2))
proper(g(X)) → g(proper(X))
f(ok(X1), ok(X2)) → ok(f(X1, X2))
g(ok(X)) → ok(g(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:

PROPER(g(X)) → PROPER(X)
ACTIVE(g(X)) → G(active(X))
TOP(mark(X)) → PROPER(X)
ACTIVE(f(X1, X2)) → F(active(X1), X2)
F(ok(X1), ok(X2)) → F(X1, X2)
TOP(ok(X)) → ACTIVE(X)
G(mark(X)) → G(X)
PROPER(f(X1, X2)) → PROPER(X1)
ACTIVE(f(g(X), Y)) → F(X, f(g(X), Y))
ACTIVE(g(X)) → ACTIVE(X)
PROPER(f(X1, X2)) → PROPER(X2)
TOP(mark(X)) → TOP(proper(X))
G(ok(X)) → G(X)
PROPER(g(X)) → G(proper(X))
ACTIVE(f(X1, X2)) → ACTIVE(X1)
F(mark(X1), X2) → F(X1, X2)
PROPER(f(X1, X2)) → F(proper(X1), proper(X2))
TOP(ok(X)) → TOP(active(X))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

active(f(g(X), Y)) → mark(f(X, f(g(X), Y)))
active(f(X1, X2)) → f(active(X1), X2)
active(g(X)) → g(active(X))
f(mark(X1), X2) → mark(f(X1, X2))
g(mark(X)) → mark(g(X))
proper(f(X1, X2)) → f(proper(X1), proper(X2))
proper(g(X)) → g(proper(X))
f(ok(X1), ok(X2)) → ok(f(X1, X2))
g(ok(X)) → ok(g(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 5 SCCs with 7 less nodes.

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ QDPOrderProof

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

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

G(ok(X)) → G(X)
G(mark(X)) → G(X)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

active(f(g(X), Y)) → mark(f(X, f(g(X), Y)))
active(f(X1, X2)) → f(active(X1), X2)
active(g(X)) → g(active(X))
f(mark(X1), X2) → mark(f(X1, X2))
g(mark(X)) → mark(g(X))
proper(f(X1, X2)) → f(proper(X1), proper(X2))
proper(g(X)) → g(proper(X))
f(ok(X1), ok(X2)) → ok(f(X1, X2))
g(ok(X)) → ok(g(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 use the reduction pair processor [15].

The following pairs can be oriented strictly and are deleted.

G(ok(X)) → G(X)
G(mark(X)) → G(X)

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

POL(ok(x₁)) = 1/2 + (3/2)x_1
POL(mark(x₁)) = 9/4 + x_1
POL(G(x₁)) = (1/2)x_1

The value of delta used in the strict ordering is 1/4.
The following usable rules [17] were oriented: none

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ QDPOrderProof

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ PisEmptyProof

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

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

active(f(g(X), Y)) → mark(f(X, f(g(X), Y)))
active(f(X1, X2)) → f(active(X1), X2)
active(g(X)) → g(active(X))
f(mark(X1), X2) → mark(f(X1, X2))
g(mark(X)) → mark(g(X))
proper(f(X1, X2)) → f(proper(X1), proper(X2))
proper(g(X)) → g(proper(X))
f(ok(X1), ok(X2)) → ok(f(X1, X2))
g(ok(X)) → ok(g(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 TRS P is empty. Hence, there is no (P,Q,R) chain.

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ QDPOrderProof

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

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

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

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

active(f(g(X), Y)) → mark(f(X, f(g(X), Y)))
active(f(X1, X2)) → f(active(X1), X2)
active(g(X)) → g(active(X))
f(mark(X1), X2) → mark(f(X1, X2))
g(mark(X)) → mark(g(X))
proper(f(X1, X2)) → f(proper(X1), proper(X2))
proper(g(X)) → g(proper(X))
f(ok(X1), ok(X2)) → ok(f(X1, X2))
g(ok(X)) → ok(g(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 use the reduction pair processor [15].

The following pairs can be oriented strictly and are deleted.

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

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

POL(mark(x₁)) = 9/4 + (2)x_1
POL(ok(x₁)) = 4 + x_1
POL(F(x₁, x₂)) = (7/2)x_1

The value of delta used in the strict ordering is 63/8.
The following usable rules [17] were oriented: none

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ QDPOrderProof

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ PisEmptyProof

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

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

active(f(g(X), Y)) → mark(f(X, f(g(X), Y)))
active(f(X1, X2)) → f(active(X1), X2)
active(g(X)) → g(active(X))
f(mark(X1), X2) → mark(f(X1, X2))
g(mark(X)) → mark(g(X))
proper(f(X1, X2)) → f(proper(X1), proper(X2))
proper(g(X)) → g(proper(X))
f(ok(X1), ok(X2)) → ok(f(X1, X2))
g(ok(X)) → ok(g(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 TRS P is empty. Hence, there is no (P,Q,R) chain.

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ QDPOrderProof

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

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

PROPER(g(X)) → PROPER(X)
PROPER(f(X1, X2)) → PROPER(X2)
PROPER(f(X1, X2)) → PROPER(X1)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

active(f(g(X), Y)) → mark(f(X, f(g(X), Y)))
active(f(X1, X2)) → f(active(X1), X2)
active(g(X)) → g(active(X))
f(mark(X1), X2) → mark(f(X1, X2))
g(mark(X)) → mark(g(X))
proper(f(X1, X2)) → f(proper(X1), proper(X2))
proper(g(X)) → g(proper(X))
f(ok(X1), ok(X2)) → ok(f(X1, X2))
g(ok(X)) → ok(g(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 use the reduction pair processor [15].

The following pairs can be oriented strictly and are deleted.

PROPER(g(X)) → PROPER(X)
PROPER(f(X1, X2)) → PROPER(X2)
PROPER(f(X1, X2)) → PROPER(X1)

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

POL(PROPER(x₁)) = (4)x_1
POL(g(x₁)) = 1/4 + (11/4)x_1
POL(f(x₁, x₂)) = 3/2 + (4)x_1 + (4)x_2

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

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ QDPOrderProof

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ PisEmptyProof

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

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

active(f(g(X), Y)) → mark(f(X, f(g(X), Y)))
active(f(X1, X2)) → f(active(X1), X2)
active(g(X)) → g(active(X))
f(mark(X1), X2) → mark(f(X1, X2))
g(mark(X)) → mark(g(X))
proper(f(X1, X2)) → f(proper(X1), proper(X2))
proper(g(X)) → g(proper(X))
f(ok(X1), ok(X2)) → ok(f(X1, X2))
g(ok(X)) → ok(g(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 TRS P is empty. Hence, there is no (P,Q,R) chain.

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ QDPOrderProof

          ↳ QDP

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

ACTIVE(g(X)) → ACTIVE(X)
ACTIVE(f(X1, X2)) → ACTIVE(X1)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

active(f(g(X), Y)) → mark(f(X, f(g(X), Y)))
active(f(X1, X2)) → f(active(X1), X2)
active(g(X)) → g(active(X))
f(mark(X1), X2) → mark(f(X1, X2))
g(mark(X)) → mark(g(X))
proper(f(X1, X2)) → f(proper(X1), proper(X2))
proper(g(X)) → g(proper(X))
f(ok(X1), ok(X2)) → ok(f(X1, X2))
g(ok(X)) → ok(g(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 use the reduction pair processor [15].

The following pairs can be oriented strictly and are deleted.

ACTIVE(g(X)) → ACTIVE(X)
ACTIVE(f(X1, X2)) → ACTIVE(X1)

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

POL(g(x₁)) = 1/2 + (3/2)x_1
POL(f(x₁, x₂)) = 9/4 + x_1
POL(ACTIVE(x₁)) = (1/2)x_1

The value of delta used in the strict ordering is 1/4.
The following usable rules [17] were oriented: none

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ QDPOrderProof

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ PisEmptyProof

          ↳ QDP

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

active(f(g(X), Y)) → mark(f(X, f(g(X), Y)))
active(f(X1, X2)) → f(active(X1), X2)
active(g(X)) → g(active(X))
f(mark(X1), X2) → mark(f(X1, X2))
g(mark(X)) → mark(g(X))
proper(f(X1, X2)) → f(proper(X1), proper(X2))
proper(g(X)) → g(proper(X))
f(ok(X1), ok(X2)) → ok(f(X1, X2))
g(ok(X)) → ok(g(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 TRS P is empty. Hence, there is no (P,Q,R) chain.

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ 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:

active(f(g(X), Y)) → mark(f(X, f(g(X), Y)))
active(f(X1, X2)) → f(active(X1), X2)
active(g(X)) → g(active(X))
f(mark(X1), X2) → mark(f(X1, X2))
g(mark(X)) → mark(g(X))
proper(f(X1, X2)) → f(proper(X1), proper(X2))
proper(g(X)) → g(proper(X))
f(ok(X1), ok(X2)) → ok(f(X1, X2))
g(ok(X)) → ok(g(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 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: Polynomial interpretation [25,35]:

POL(active(x₁)) = x_1
POL(f(x₁, x₂)) = (2)x_1
POL(g(x₁)) = 1 + (4)x_1
POL(mark(x₁)) = 2 + (2)x_1
POL(ok(x₁)) = x_1
POL(TOP(x₁)) = (4)x_1
POL(proper(x₁)) = (2)x_1

The value of delta used in the strict ordering is 8.
The following usable rules [17] were oriented:

active(f(g(X), Y)) → mark(f(X, f(g(X), Y)))
active(g(X)) → g(active(X))
active(f(X1, X2)) → f(active(X1), X2)
g(mark(X)) → mark(g(X))
f(mark(X1), X2) → mark(f(X1, X2))
proper(g(X)) → g(proper(X))
proper(f(X1, X2)) → f(proper(X1), proper(X2))
g(ok(X)) → ok(g(X))
f(ok(X1), ok(X2)) → ok(f(X1, X2))

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ QDPOrderProof

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ QDPOrderProof

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(f(g(X), Y)) → mark(f(X, f(g(X), Y)))
active(f(X1, X2)) → f(active(X1), X2)
active(g(X)) → g(active(X))
f(mark(X1), X2) → mark(f(X1, X2))
g(mark(X)) → mark(g(X))
proper(f(X1, X2)) → f(proper(X1), proper(X2))
proper(g(X)) → g(proper(X))
f(ok(X1), ok(X2)) → ok(f(X1, X2))
g(ok(X)) → ok(g(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 use the reduction pair processor [15].

The following pairs can be oriented strictly and are deleted.

TOP(ok(X)) → TOP(active(X))

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

POL(active(x₁)) = 0
POL(f(x₁, x₂)) = x_1
POL(g(x₁)) = (4)x_1
POL(ok(x₁)) = 2
POL(mark(x₁)) = 0
POL(TOP(x₁)) = (1/2)x_1

The value of delta used in the strict ordering is 1.
The following usable rules [17] were oriented:

active(f(g(X), Y)) → mark(f(X, f(g(X), Y)))
active(g(X)) → g(active(X))
active(f(X1, X2)) → f(active(X1), X2)
g(mark(X)) → mark(g(X))
f(mark(X1), X2) → mark(f(X1, X2))
g(ok(X)) → ok(g(X))
f(ok(X1), ok(X2)) → ok(f(X1, X2))

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ QDPOrderProof

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ QDPOrderProof

                  ↳ QDP

                    ↳ PisEmptyProof

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

active(f(g(X), Y)) → mark(f(X, f(g(X), Y)))
active(f(X1, X2)) → f(active(X1), X2)
active(g(X)) → g(active(X))
f(mark(X1), X2) → mark(f(X1, X2))
g(mark(X)) → mark(g(X))
proper(f(X1, X2)) → f(proper(X1), proper(X2))
proper(g(X)) → g(proper(X))
f(ok(X1), ok(X2)) → ok(f(X1, X2))
g(ok(X)) → ok(g(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 TRS P is empty. Hence, there is no (P,Q,R) chain.