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:

f(X) → cons(X, n__f(g(X)))
g(0) → s(0)
g(s(X)) → s(s(g(X)))
sel(0, cons(X, Y)) → X
sel(s(X), cons(Y, Z)) → sel(X, activate(Z))
f(X) → n__f(X)
activate(n__f(X)) → f(X)
activate(X) → X

Q is empty.


↳ QTRS
  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

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

f(X) → cons(X, n__f(g(X)))
g(0) → s(0)
g(s(X)) → s(s(g(X)))
sel(0, cons(X, Y)) → X
sel(s(X), cons(Y, Z)) → sel(X, activate(Z))
f(X) → n__f(X)
activate(n__f(X)) → f(X)
activate(X) → 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:

F(X) → G(X)
ACTIVATE(n__f(X)) → F(X)
SEL(s(X), cons(Y, Z)) → ACTIVATE(Z)
G(s(X)) → G(X)
SEL(s(X), cons(Y, Z)) → SEL(X, activate(Z))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

f(X) → cons(X, n__f(g(X)))
g(0) → s(0)
g(s(X)) → s(s(g(X)))
sel(0, cons(X, Y)) → X
sel(s(X), cons(Y, Z)) → sel(X, activate(Z))
f(X) → n__f(X)
activate(n__f(X)) → f(X)
activate(X) → 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:

F(X) → G(X)
ACTIVATE(n__f(X)) → F(X)
SEL(s(X), cons(Y, Z)) → ACTIVATE(Z)
G(s(X)) → G(X)
SEL(s(X), cons(Y, Z)) → SEL(X, activate(Z))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

f(X) → cons(X, n__f(g(X)))
g(0) → s(0)
g(s(X)) → s(s(g(X)))
sel(0, cons(X, Y)) → X
sel(s(X), cons(Y, Z)) → sel(X, activate(Z))
f(X) → n__f(X)
activate(n__f(X)) → f(X)
activate(X) → 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 3 less nodes.

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

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

G(s(X)) → G(X)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

f(X) → cons(X, n__f(g(X)))
g(0) → s(0)
g(s(X)) → s(s(g(X)))
sel(0, cons(X, Y)) → X
sel(s(X), cons(Y, Z)) → sel(X, activate(Z))
f(X) → n__f(X)
activate(n__f(X)) → f(X)
activate(X) → 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

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

G(s(X)) → G(X)

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

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



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

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

SEL(s(X), cons(Y, Z)) → SEL(X, activate(Z))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

f(X) → cons(X, n__f(g(X)))
g(0) → s(0)
g(s(X)) → s(s(g(X)))
sel(0, cons(X, Y)) → X
sel(s(X), cons(Y, Z)) → sel(X, activate(Z))
f(X) → n__f(X)
activate(n__f(X)) → f(X)
activate(X) → X

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: