Termination w.r.t. Q proof of /tmp/tmpGsxAbP/Ex4_7_15_Bor03

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(0)) → mark(cons(0, f(s(0))))
active(f(s(0))) → mark(f(p(s(0))))
active(p(s(0))) → mark(0)
mark(f(X)) → active(f(mark(X)))
mark(0) → active(0)
mark(cons(X1, X2)) → active(cons(mark(X1), X2))
mark(s(X)) → active(s(mark(X)))
mark(p(X)) → active(p(mark(X)))
f(mark(X)) → f(X)
f(active(X)) → f(X)
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)
s(mark(X)) → s(X)
s(active(X)) → s(X)
p(mark(X)) → p(X)
p(active(X)) → p(X)

Q is empty.

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

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

active(f(0)) → mark(cons(0, f(s(0))))
active(f(s(0))) → mark(f(p(s(0))))
active(p(s(0))) → mark(0)
mark(f(X)) → active(f(mark(X)))
mark(0) → active(0)
mark(cons(X1, X2)) → active(cons(mark(X1), X2))
mark(s(X)) → active(s(mark(X)))
mark(p(X)) → active(p(mark(X)))
f(mark(X)) → f(X)
f(active(X)) → f(X)
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)
s(mark(X)) → s(X)
s(active(X)) → s(X)
p(mark(X)) → p(X)
p(active(X)) → p(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:

CONS(mark(X1), X2) → CONS(X1, X2)
ACTIVE(f(s(0))) → MARK(f(p(s(0))))
MARK(s(X)) → MARK(X)
P(mark(X)) → P(X)
MARK(p(X)) → ACTIVE(p(mark(X)))
MARK(cons(X1, X2)) → MARK(X1)
CONS(X1, mark(X2)) → CONS(X1, X2)
CONS(X1, active(X2)) → CONS(X1, X2)
ACTIVE(f(0)) → F(s(0))
MARK(s(X)) → ACTIVE(s(mark(X)))
MARK(p(X)) → MARK(X)
MARK(f(X)) → MARK(X)
ACTIVE(f(0)) → MARK(cons(0, f(s(0))))
F(active(X)) → F(X)
F(mark(X)) → F(X)
S(active(X)) → S(X)
S(mark(X)) → S(X)
MARK(s(X)) → S(mark(X))
ACTIVE(f(0)) → S(0)
MARK(cons(X1, X2)) → CONS(mark(X1), X2)
P(active(X)) → P(X)
MARK(cons(X1, X2)) → ACTIVE(cons(mark(X1), X2))
MARK(p(X)) → P(mark(X))
MARK(f(X)) → ACTIVE(f(mark(X)))
ACTIVE(f(0)) → CONS(0, f(s(0)))
MARK(0) → ACTIVE(0)
MARK(f(X)) → F(mark(X))
ACTIVE(f(s(0))) → P(s(0))
CONS(active(X1), X2) → CONS(X1, X2)
ACTIVE(p(s(0))) → MARK(0)
ACTIVE(f(s(0))) → F(p(s(0)))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

active(f(0)) → mark(cons(0, f(s(0))))
active(f(s(0))) → mark(f(p(s(0))))
active(p(s(0))) → mark(0)
mark(f(X)) → active(f(mark(X)))
mark(0) → active(0)
mark(cons(X1, X2)) → active(cons(mark(X1), X2))
mark(s(X)) → active(s(mark(X)))
mark(p(X)) → active(p(mark(X)))
f(mark(X)) → f(X)
f(active(X)) → f(X)
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)
s(mark(X)) → s(X)
s(active(X)) → s(X)
p(mark(X)) → p(X)
p(active(X)) → p(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:

CONS(mark(X1), X2) → CONS(X1, X2)
ACTIVE(f(s(0))) → MARK(f(p(s(0))))
MARK(s(X)) → MARK(X)
P(mark(X)) → P(X)
MARK(p(X)) → ACTIVE(p(mark(X)))
MARK(cons(X1, X2)) → MARK(X1)
CONS(X1, mark(X2)) → CONS(X1, X2)
CONS(X1, active(X2)) → CONS(X1, X2)
ACTIVE(f(0)) → F(s(0))
MARK(s(X)) → ACTIVE(s(mark(X)))
MARK(p(X)) → MARK(X)
MARK(f(X)) → MARK(X)
ACTIVE(f(0)) → MARK(cons(0, f(s(0))))
F(active(X)) → F(X)
F(mark(X)) → F(X)
S(active(X)) → S(X)
S(mark(X)) → S(X)
MARK(s(X)) → S(mark(X))
ACTIVE(f(0)) → S(0)
MARK(cons(X1, X2)) → CONS(mark(X1), X2)
P(active(X)) → P(X)
MARK(cons(X1, X2)) → ACTIVE(cons(mark(X1), X2))
MARK(p(X)) → P(mark(X))
MARK(f(X)) → ACTIVE(f(mark(X)))
ACTIVE(f(0)) → CONS(0, f(s(0)))
MARK(0) → ACTIVE(0)
MARK(f(X)) → F(mark(X))
ACTIVE(f(s(0))) → P(s(0))
CONS(active(X1), X2) → CONS(X1, X2)
ACTIVE(p(s(0))) → MARK(0)
ACTIVE(f(s(0))) → F(p(s(0)))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

active(f(0)) → mark(cons(0, f(s(0))))
active(f(s(0))) → mark(f(p(s(0))))
active(p(s(0))) → mark(0)
mark(f(X)) → active(f(mark(X)))
mark(0) → active(0)
mark(cons(X1, X2)) → active(cons(mark(X1), X2))
mark(s(X)) → active(s(mark(X)))
mark(p(X)) → active(p(mark(X)))
f(mark(X)) → f(X)
f(active(X)) → f(X)
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)
s(mark(X)) → s(X)
s(active(X)) → s(X)
p(mark(X)) → p(X)
p(active(X)) → p(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 11 less nodes.

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ QDPOrderProof

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

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

P(active(X)) → P(X)
P(mark(X)) → P(X)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

active(f(0)) → mark(cons(0, f(s(0))))
active(f(s(0))) → mark(f(p(s(0))))
active(p(s(0))) → mark(0)
mark(f(X)) → active(f(mark(X)))
mark(0) → active(0)
mark(cons(X1, X2)) → active(cons(mark(X1), X2))
mark(s(X)) → active(s(mark(X)))
mark(p(X)) → active(p(mark(X)))
f(mark(X)) → f(X)
f(active(X)) → f(X)
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)
s(mark(X)) → s(X)
s(active(X)) → s(X)
p(mark(X)) → p(X)
p(active(X)) → p(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.

P(active(X)) → P(X)
P(mark(X)) → P(X)

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

POL(active(x₁)) = 4 + x_1
POL(P(x₁)) = (4)x_1
POL(mark(x₁)) = 4 + (4)x_1

The value of delta used in the strict ordering is 16.
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(0)) → mark(cons(0, f(s(0))))
active(f(s(0))) → mark(f(p(s(0))))
active(p(s(0))) → mark(0)
mark(f(X)) → active(f(mark(X)))
mark(0) → active(0)
mark(cons(X1, X2)) → active(cons(mark(X1), X2))
mark(s(X)) → active(s(mark(X)))
mark(p(X)) → active(p(mark(X)))
f(mark(X)) → f(X)
f(active(X)) → f(X)
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)
s(mark(X)) → s(X)
s(active(X)) → s(X)
p(mark(X)) → p(X)
p(active(X)) → p(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:

S(mark(X)) → S(X)
S(active(X)) → S(X)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

active(f(0)) → mark(cons(0, f(s(0))))
active(f(s(0))) → mark(f(p(s(0))))
active(p(s(0))) → mark(0)
mark(f(X)) → active(f(mark(X)))
mark(0) → active(0)
mark(cons(X1, X2)) → active(cons(mark(X1), X2))
mark(s(X)) → active(s(mark(X)))
mark(p(X)) → active(p(mark(X)))
f(mark(X)) → f(X)
f(active(X)) → f(X)
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)
s(mark(X)) → s(X)
s(active(X)) → s(X)
p(mark(X)) → p(X)
p(active(X)) → p(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.

S(mark(X)) → S(X)
S(active(X)) → S(X)

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

POL(active(x₁)) = 4 + (4)x_1
POL(mark(x₁)) = 4 + x_1
POL(S(x₁)) = (4)x_1

The value of delta used in the strict ordering is 16.
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(0)) → mark(cons(0, f(s(0))))
active(f(s(0))) → mark(f(p(s(0))))
active(p(s(0))) → mark(0)
mark(f(X)) → active(f(mark(X)))
mark(0) → active(0)
mark(cons(X1, X2)) → active(cons(mark(X1), X2))
mark(s(X)) → active(s(mark(X)))
mark(p(X)) → active(p(mark(X)))
f(mark(X)) → f(X)
f(active(X)) → f(X)
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)
s(mark(X)) → s(X)
s(active(X)) → s(X)
p(mark(X)) → p(X)
p(active(X)) → p(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:

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(f(0)) → mark(cons(0, f(s(0))))
active(f(s(0))) → mark(f(p(s(0))))
active(p(s(0))) → mark(0)
mark(f(X)) → active(f(mark(X)))
mark(0) → active(0)
mark(cons(X1, X2)) → active(cons(mark(X1), X2))
mark(s(X)) → active(s(mark(X)))
mark(p(X)) → active(p(mark(X)))
f(mark(X)) → f(X)
f(active(X)) → f(X)
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)
s(mark(X)) → s(X)
s(active(X)) → s(X)
p(mark(X)) → p(X)
p(active(X)) → p(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.

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

POL(active(x₁)) = 4 + (2)x_1
POL(CONS(x₁, x₂)) = (4)x_1 + (4)x_2
POL(mark(x₁)) = 4 + (2)x_1

The value of delta used in the strict ordering is 16.
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(0)) → mark(cons(0, f(s(0))))
active(f(s(0))) → mark(f(p(s(0))))
active(p(s(0))) → mark(0)
mark(f(X)) → active(f(mark(X)))
mark(0) → active(0)
mark(cons(X1, X2)) → active(cons(mark(X1), X2))
mark(s(X)) → active(s(mark(X)))
mark(p(X)) → active(p(mark(X)))
f(mark(X)) → f(X)
f(active(X)) → f(X)
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)
s(mark(X)) → s(X)
s(active(X)) → s(X)
p(mark(X)) → p(X)
p(active(X)) → p(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:

F(mark(X)) → F(X)
F(active(X)) → F(X)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

active(f(0)) → mark(cons(0, f(s(0))))
active(f(s(0))) → mark(f(p(s(0))))
active(p(s(0))) → mark(0)
mark(f(X)) → active(f(mark(X)))
mark(0) → active(0)
mark(cons(X1, X2)) → active(cons(mark(X1), X2))
mark(s(X)) → active(s(mark(X)))
mark(p(X)) → active(p(mark(X)))
f(mark(X)) → f(X)
f(active(X)) → f(X)
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)
s(mark(X)) → s(X)
s(active(X)) → s(X)
p(mark(X)) → p(X)
p(active(X)) → p(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(X)) → F(X)
F(active(X)) → F(X)

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

POL(active(x₁)) = 4 + (4)x_1
POL(mark(x₁)) = 4 + x_1
POL(F(x₁)) = (4)x_1

The value of delta used in the strict ordering is 16.
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(0)) → mark(cons(0, f(s(0))))
active(f(s(0))) → mark(f(p(s(0))))
active(p(s(0))) → mark(0)
mark(f(X)) → active(f(mark(X)))
mark(0) → active(0)
mark(cons(X1, X2)) → active(cons(mark(X1), X2))
mark(s(X)) → active(s(mark(X)))
mark(p(X)) → active(p(mark(X)))
f(mark(X)) → f(X)
f(active(X)) → f(X)
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)
s(mark(X)) → s(X)
s(active(X)) → s(X)
p(mark(X)) → p(X)
p(active(X)) → p(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:

ACTIVE(f(s(0))) → MARK(f(p(s(0))))
MARK(s(X)) → MARK(X)
MARK(s(X)) → ACTIVE(s(mark(X)))
MARK(cons(X1, X2)) → ACTIVE(cons(mark(X1), X2))
MARK(p(X)) → ACTIVE(p(mark(X)))
MARK(cons(X1, X2)) → MARK(X1)
MARK(p(X)) → MARK(X)
MARK(f(X)) → MARK(X)
MARK(f(X)) → ACTIVE(f(mark(X)))
ACTIVE(f(0)) → MARK(cons(0, f(s(0))))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

active(f(0)) → mark(cons(0, f(s(0))))
active(f(s(0))) → mark(f(p(s(0))))
active(p(s(0))) → mark(0)
mark(f(X)) → active(f(mark(X)))
mark(0) → active(0)
mark(cons(X1, X2)) → active(cons(mark(X1), X2))
mark(s(X)) → active(s(mark(X)))
mark(p(X)) → active(p(mark(X)))
f(mark(X)) → f(X)
f(active(X)) → f(X)
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)
s(mark(X)) → s(X)
s(active(X)) → s(X)
p(mark(X)) → p(X)
p(active(X)) → p(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(s(X)) → ACTIVE(s(mark(X)))
MARK(cons(X1, X2)) → ACTIVE(cons(mark(X1), X2))
MARK(p(X)) → ACTIVE(p(mark(X)))

The remaining pairs can at least be oriented weakly.

ACTIVE(f(s(0))) → MARK(f(p(s(0))))
MARK(s(X)) → MARK(X)
MARK(cons(X1, X2)) → MARK(X1)
MARK(p(X)) → MARK(X)
MARK(f(X)) → MARK(X)
MARK(f(X)) → ACTIVE(f(mark(X)))
ACTIVE(f(0)) → MARK(cons(0, f(s(0))))

Used ordering: Polynomial interpretation [25,35]:

POL(cons(x₁, x₂)) = 0
POL(active(x₁)) = 2 + x_1
POL(f(x₁)) = 1
POL(MARK(x₁)) = 4
POL(mark(x₁)) = 0
POL(s(x₁)) = 0
POL(p(x₁)) = 0
POL(0) = 0
POL(ACTIVE(x₁)) = (4)x_1

The value of delta used in the strict ordering is 4.
The following usable rules [17] were oriented:

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)
f(mark(X)) → f(X)
f(active(X)) → f(X)
s(active(X)) → s(X)
s(mark(X)) → s(X)
p(active(X)) → p(X)
p(mark(X)) → p(X)

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ QDPOrderProof

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ QDPOrderProof

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

ACTIVE(f(s(0))) → MARK(f(p(s(0))))
MARK(s(X)) → MARK(X)
MARK(cons(X1, X2)) → MARK(X1)
MARK(p(X)) → MARK(X)
ACTIVE(f(0)) → MARK(cons(0, f(s(0))))
MARK(f(X)) → ACTIVE(f(mark(X)))
MARK(f(X)) → MARK(X)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

active(f(0)) → mark(cons(0, f(s(0))))
active(f(s(0))) → mark(f(p(s(0))))
active(p(s(0))) → mark(0)
mark(f(X)) → active(f(mark(X)))
mark(0) → active(0)
mark(cons(X1, X2)) → active(cons(mark(X1), X2))
mark(s(X)) → active(s(mark(X)))
mark(p(X)) → active(p(mark(X)))
f(mark(X)) → f(X)
f(active(X)) → f(X)
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)
s(mark(X)) → s(X)
s(active(X)) → s(X)
p(mark(X)) → p(X)
p(active(X)) → p(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(s(X)) → MARK(X)
MARK(cons(X1, X2)) → MARK(X1)
MARK(f(X)) → MARK(X)

The remaining pairs can at least be oriented weakly.

ACTIVE(f(s(0))) → MARK(f(p(s(0))))
MARK(p(X)) → MARK(X)
ACTIVE(f(0)) → MARK(cons(0, f(s(0))))
MARK(f(X)) → ACTIVE(f(mark(X)))

Used ordering: Polynomial interpretation [25,35]:

POL(cons(x₁, x₂)) = 4 + (2)x_1
POL(active(x₁)) = x_1
POL(f(x₁)) = 2 + (4)x_1
POL(MARK(x₁)) = (4)x_1
POL(mark(x₁)) = x_1
POL(s(x₁)) = 1 + x_1
POL(p(x₁)) = x_1
POL(0) = 1
POL(ACTIVE(x₁)) = (4)x_1

The value of delta used in the strict ordering is 4.
The following usable rules [17] were oriented:

active(p(s(0))) → mark(0)
mark(s(X)) → active(s(mark(X)))
mark(p(X)) → active(p(mark(X)))
mark(0) → active(0)
active(f(0)) → mark(cons(0, f(s(0))))
mark(cons(X1, X2)) → active(cons(mark(X1), X2))
active(f(s(0))) → mark(f(p(s(0))))
mark(f(X)) → active(f(mark(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)
f(mark(X)) → f(X)
f(active(X)) → f(X)
s(active(X)) → s(X)
s(mark(X)) → s(X)
p(active(X)) → p(X)
p(mark(X)) → p(X)

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ QDPOrderProof

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ QDPOrderProof

                  ↳ QDP

                    ↳ DependencyGraphProof

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

ACTIVE(f(s(0))) → MARK(f(p(s(0))))
MARK(p(X)) → MARK(X)
MARK(f(X)) → ACTIVE(f(mark(X)))
ACTIVE(f(0)) → MARK(cons(0, f(s(0))))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

active(f(0)) → mark(cons(0, f(s(0))))
active(f(s(0))) → mark(f(p(s(0))))
active(p(s(0))) → mark(0)
mark(f(X)) → active(f(mark(X)))
mark(0) → active(0)
mark(cons(X1, X2)) → active(cons(mark(X1), X2))
mark(s(X)) → active(s(mark(X)))
mark(p(X)) → active(p(mark(X)))
f(mark(X)) → f(X)
f(active(X)) → f(X)
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)
s(mark(X)) → s(X)
s(active(X)) → s(X)
p(mark(X)) → p(X)
p(active(X)) → p(X)

Q is empty.
We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
The approximation of the Dependency Graph [15,17,22] contains 2 SCCs with 1 less node.

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ QDPOrderProof

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ QDPOrderProof

                  ↳ QDP

                    ↳ DependencyGraphProof

                      ↳ AND

                        ↳ QDP

                          ↳ QDPOrderProof

                        ↳ QDP

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

ACTIVE(f(s(0))) → MARK(f(p(s(0))))
MARK(f(X)) → ACTIVE(f(mark(X)))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

active(f(0)) → mark(cons(0, f(s(0))))
active(f(s(0))) → mark(f(p(s(0))))
active(p(s(0))) → mark(0)
mark(f(X)) → active(f(mark(X)))
mark(0) → active(0)
mark(cons(X1, X2)) → active(cons(mark(X1), X2))
mark(s(X)) → active(s(mark(X)))
mark(p(X)) → active(p(mark(X)))
f(mark(X)) → f(X)
f(active(X)) → f(X)
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)
s(mark(X)) → s(X)
s(active(X)) → s(X)
p(mark(X)) → p(X)
p(active(X)) → p(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(f(s(0))) → MARK(f(p(s(0))))
MARK(f(X)) → ACTIVE(f(mark(X)))

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

POL(active(x₁)) = x_1
POL(cons(x₁, x₂)) = 2
POL(f(x₁)) = 2 + x_1
POL(MARK(x₁)) = 1 + (3)x_1
POL(mark(x₁)) = x_1
POL(s(x₁)) = 2 + (4)x_1
POL(p(x₁)) = 0
POL(0) = 0
POL(ACTIVE(x₁)) = 4 + x_1

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

active(p(s(0))) → mark(0)
p(active(X)) → p(X)
p(mark(X)) → p(X)
mark(s(X)) → active(s(mark(X)))
mark(p(X)) → active(p(mark(X)))
mark(0) → active(0)
active(f(0)) → mark(cons(0, f(s(0))))
mark(cons(X1, X2)) → active(cons(mark(X1), X2))
active(f(s(0))) → mark(f(p(s(0))))
mark(f(X)) → active(f(mark(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)
f(mark(X)) → f(X)
f(active(X)) → f(X)
s(active(X)) → s(X)
s(mark(X)) → s(X)

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ QDPOrderProof

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ QDPOrderProof

                  ↳ QDP

                    ↳ DependencyGraphProof

                      ↳ AND

                        ↳ QDP

                          ↳ QDPOrderProof

                            ↳ QDP

                              ↳ PisEmptyProof

                        ↳ QDP

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

active(f(0)) → mark(cons(0, f(s(0))))
active(f(s(0))) → mark(f(p(s(0))))
active(p(s(0))) → mark(0)
mark(f(X)) → active(f(mark(X)))
mark(0) → active(0)
mark(cons(X1, X2)) → active(cons(mark(X1), X2))
mark(s(X)) → active(s(mark(X)))
mark(p(X)) → active(p(mark(X)))
f(mark(X)) → f(X)
f(active(X)) → f(X)
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)
s(mark(X)) → s(X)
s(active(X)) → s(X)
p(mark(X)) → p(X)
p(active(X)) → p(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

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ QDPOrderProof

                  ↳ QDP

                    ↳ DependencyGraphProof

                      ↳ AND

                        ↳ QDP

                        ↳ QDP

                          ↳ QDPOrderProof

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

MARK(p(X)) → MARK(X)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

active(f(0)) → mark(cons(0, f(s(0))))
active(f(s(0))) → mark(f(p(s(0))))
active(p(s(0))) → mark(0)
mark(f(X)) → active(f(mark(X)))
mark(0) → active(0)
mark(cons(X1, X2)) → active(cons(mark(X1), X2))
mark(s(X)) → active(s(mark(X)))
mark(p(X)) → active(p(mark(X)))
f(mark(X)) → f(X)
f(active(X)) → f(X)
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)
s(mark(X)) → s(X)
s(active(X)) → s(X)
p(mark(X)) → p(X)
p(active(X)) → p(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(p(X)) → MARK(X)

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

POL(MARK(x₁)) = (4)x_1
POL(p(x₁)) = 1 + (4)x_1

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

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ QDPOrderProof

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ QDPOrderProof

                  ↳ QDP

                    ↳ DependencyGraphProof

                      ↳ AND

                        ↳ QDP

                        ↳ QDP

                          ↳ QDPOrderProof

                            ↳ QDP

                              ↳ PisEmptyProof

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

active(f(0)) → mark(cons(0, f(s(0))))
active(f(s(0))) → mark(f(p(s(0))))
active(p(s(0))) → mark(0)
mark(f(X)) → active(f(mark(X)))
mark(0) → active(0)
mark(cons(X1, X2)) → active(cons(mark(X1), X2))
mark(s(X)) → active(s(mark(X)))
mark(p(X)) → active(p(mark(X)))
f(mark(X)) → f(X)
f(active(X)) → f(X)
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)
s(mark(X)) → s(X)
s(active(X)) → s(X)
p(mark(X)) → p(X)
p(active(X)) → p(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.