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:

a__zeros → cons(0, zeros)
a__tail(cons(X, XS)) → mark(XS)
mark(zeros) → a__zeros
mark(tail(X)) → a__tail(mark(X))
mark(cons(X1, X2)) → cons(mark(X1), X2)
mark(0) → 0
a__zeros → zeros
a__tail(X) → tail(X)

Q is empty.


↳ QTRS
  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

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

a__zeros → cons(0, zeros)
a__tail(cons(X, XS)) → mark(XS)
mark(zeros) → a__zeros
mark(tail(X)) → a__tail(mark(X))
mark(cons(X1, X2)) → cons(mark(X1), X2)
mark(0) → 0
a__zeros → zeros
a__tail(X) → tail(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:

MARK(tail(X)) → A__TAIL(mark(X))
MARK(zeros) → A__ZEROS
A__TAIL(cons(X, XS)) → MARK(XS)
MARK(tail(X)) → MARK(X)
MARK(cons(X1, X2)) → MARK(X1)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

a__zeros → cons(0, zeros)
a__tail(cons(X, XS)) → mark(XS)
mark(zeros) → a__zeros
mark(tail(X)) → a__tail(mark(X))
mark(cons(X1, X2)) → cons(mark(X1), X2)
mark(0) → 0
a__zeros → zeros
a__tail(X) → tail(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:

MARK(tail(X)) → A__TAIL(mark(X))
MARK(zeros) → A__ZEROS
A__TAIL(cons(X, XS)) → MARK(XS)
MARK(tail(X)) → MARK(X)
MARK(cons(X1, X2)) → MARK(X1)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

a__zeros → cons(0, zeros)
a__tail(cons(X, XS)) → mark(XS)
mark(zeros) → a__zeros
mark(tail(X)) → a__tail(mark(X))
mark(cons(X1, X2)) → cons(mark(X1), X2)
mark(0) → 0
a__zeros → zeros
a__tail(X) → tail(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
        ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDPOrderProof

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

MARK(tail(X)) → A__TAIL(mark(X))
A__TAIL(cons(X, XS)) → MARK(XS)
MARK(tail(X)) → MARK(X)
MARK(cons(X1, X2)) → MARK(X1)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

a__zeros → cons(0, zeros)
a__tail(cons(X, XS)) → mark(XS)
mark(zeros) → a__zeros
mark(tail(X)) → a__tail(mark(X))
mark(cons(X1, X2)) → cons(mark(X1), X2)
mark(0) → 0
a__zeros → zeros
a__tail(X) → tail(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(tail(X)) → A__TAIL(mark(X))
MARK(tail(X)) → MARK(X)
The remaining pairs can at least be oriented weakly.

A__TAIL(cons(X, XS)) → MARK(XS)
MARK(cons(X1, X2)) → MARK(X1)
Used ordering: Polynomial interpretation [25,35]:

POL(cons(x1, x2)) = x_1 + x_2   
POL(MARK(x1)) = (4)x_1   
POL(tail(x1)) = 2 + (4)x_1   
POL(A__TAIL(x1)) = (4)x_1   
POL(a__tail(x1)) = 3 + (4)x_1   
POL(a__zeros) = 1   
POL(zeros) = 0   
POL(mark(x1)) = 1 + (4)x_1   
POL(0) = 0   
The value of delta used in the strict ordering is 4.
The following usable rules [17] were oriented:

a__zeros → cons(0, zeros)
mark(zeros) → a__zeros
a__tail(cons(X, XS)) → mark(XS)
mark(tail(X)) → a__tail(mark(X))
mark(cons(X1, X2)) → cons(mark(X1), X2)
mark(0) → 0
a__zeros → zeros
a__tail(X) → tail(X)



↳ QTRS
  ↳ DependencyPairsProof
    ↳ QDP
      ↳ DependencyGraphProof
        ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDPOrderProof
            ↳ QDP
              ↳ DependencyGraphProof

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

A__TAIL(cons(X, XS)) → MARK(XS)
MARK(cons(X1, X2)) → MARK(X1)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

a__zeros → cons(0, zeros)
a__tail(cons(X, XS)) → mark(XS)
mark(zeros) → a__zeros
mark(tail(X)) → a__tail(mark(X))
mark(cons(X1, X2)) → cons(mark(X1), X2)
mark(0) → 0
a__zeros → zeros
a__tail(X) → tail(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
        ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDPOrderProof
            ↳ QDP
              ↳ DependencyGraphProof
                ↳ QDP
                  ↳ QDPOrderProof

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:

a__zeros → cons(0, zeros)
a__tail(cons(X, XS)) → mark(XS)
mark(zeros) → a__zeros
mark(tail(X)) → a__tail(mark(X))
mark(cons(X1, X2)) → cons(mark(X1), X2)
mark(0) → 0
a__zeros → zeros
a__tail(X) → tail(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)) → MARK(X1)
The remaining pairs can at least be oriented weakly.
none
Used ordering: Polynomial interpretation [25,35]:

POL(cons(x1, x2)) = 1 + (4)x_1   
POL(MARK(x1)) = (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
        ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDPOrderProof
            ↳ QDP
              ↳ DependencyGraphProof
                ↳ QDP
                  ↳ QDPOrderProof
                    ↳ QDP
                      ↳ PisEmptyProof

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

a__zeros → cons(0, zeros)
a__tail(cons(X, XS)) → mark(XS)
mark(zeros) → a__zeros
mark(tail(X)) → a__tail(mark(X))
mark(cons(X1, X2)) → cons(mark(X1), X2)
mark(0) → 0
a__zeros → zeros
a__tail(X) → tail(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.