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:

fib(N) → sel(N, fib1(s(0), s(0)))
fib1(X, Y) → cons(X, n__fib1(Y, add(X, Y)))
add(0, X) → X
add(s(X), Y) → s(add(X, Y))
sel(0, cons(X, XS)) → X
sel(s(N), cons(X, XS)) → sel(N, activate(XS))
fib1(X1, X2) → n__fib1(X1, X2)
activate(n__fib1(X1, X2)) → fib1(X1, X2)
activate(X) → X

Q is empty.


↳ QTRS
  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

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

fib(N) → sel(N, fib1(s(0), s(0)))
fib1(X, Y) → cons(X, n__fib1(Y, add(X, Y)))
add(0, X) → X
add(s(X), Y) → s(add(X, Y))
sel(0, cons(X, XS)) → X
sel(s(N), cons(X, XS)) → sel(N, activate(XS))
fib1(X1, X2) → n__fib1(X1, X2)
activate(n__fib1(X1, X2)) → fib1(X1, X2)
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:

FIB1(X, Y) → ADD(X, Y)
FIB(N) → FIB1(s(0), s(0))
SEL(s(N), cons(X, XS)) → ACTIVATE(XS)
SEL(s(N), cons(X, XS)) → SEL(N, activate(XS))
ADD(s(X), Y) → ADD(X, Y)
FIB(N) → SEL(N, fib1(s(0), s(0)))
ACTIVATE(n__fib1(X1, X2)) → FIB1(X1, X2)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

fib(N) → sel(N, fib1(s(0), s(0)))
fib1(X, Y) → cons(X, n__fib1(Y, add(X, Y)))
add(0, X) → X
add(s(X), Y) → s(add(X, Y))
sel(0, cons(X, XS)) → X
sel(s(N), cons(X, XS)) → sel(N, activate(XS))
fib1(X1, X2) → n__fib1(X1, X2)
activate(n__fib1(X1, X2)) → fib1(X1, X2)
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:

FIB1(X, Y) → ADD(X, Y)
FIB(N) → FIB1(s(0), s(0))
SEL(s(N), cons(X, XS)) → ACTIVATE(XS)
SEL(s(N), cons(X, XS)) → SEL(N, activate(XS))
ADD(s(X), Y) → ADD(X, Y)
FIB(N) → SEL(N, fib1(s(0), s(0)))
ACTIVATE(n__fib1(X1, X2)) → FIB1(X1, X2)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

fib(N) → sel(N, fib1(s(0), s(0)))
fib1(X, Y) → cons(X, n__fib1(Y, add(X, Y)))
add(0, X) → X
add(s(X), Y) → s(add(X, Y))
sel(0, cons(X, XS)) → X
sel(s(N), cons(X, XS)) → sel(N, activate(XS))
fib1(X1, X2) → n__fib1(X1, X2)
activate(n__fib1(X1, X2)) → fib1(X1, X2)
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 5 less nodes.

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

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

ADD(s(X), Y) → ADD(X, Y)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

fib(N) → sel(N, fib1(s(0), s(0)))
fib1(X, Y) → cons(X, n__fib1(Y, add(X, Y)))
add(0, X) → X
add(s(X), Y) → s(add(X, Y))
sel(0, cons(X, XS)) → X
sel(s(N), cons(X, XS)) → sel(N, activate(XS))
fib1(X1, X2) → n__fib1(X1, X2)
activate(n__fib1(X1, X2)) → fib1(X1, X2)
activate(X) → 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.


ADD(s(X), Y) → ADD(X, Y)
The remaining pairs can at least be oriented weakly.
none
Used ordering: Polynomial interpretation [25,35]:

POL(s(x1)) = 1/4 + (7/2)x_1   
POL(ADD(x1, x2)) = (2)x_1   
The value of delta used in the strict ordering is 1/2.
The following usable rules [17] were oriented: none



↳ QTRS
  ↳ DependencyPairsProof
    ↳ QDP
      ↳ DependencyGraphProof
        ↳ AND
          ↳ QDP
            ↳ QDPOrderProof
              ↳ QDP
                ↳ PisEmptyProof
          ↳ QDP

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

fib(N) → sel(N, fib1(s(0), s(0)))
fib1(X, Y) → cons(X, n__fib1(Y, add(X, Y)))
add(0, X) → X
add(s(X), Y) → s(add(X, Y))
sel(0, cons(X, XS)) → X
sel(s(N), cons(X, XS)) → sel(N, activate(XS))
fib1(X1, X2) → n__fib1(X1, X2)
activate(n__fib1(X1, X2)) → fib1(X1, X2)
activate(X) → 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

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

SEL(s(N), cons(X, XS)) → SEL(N, activate(XS))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

fib(N) → sel(N, fib1(s(0), s(0)))
fib1(X, Y) → cons(X, n__fib1(Y, add(X, Y)))
add(0, X) → X
add(s(X), Y) → s(add(X, Y))
sel(0, cons(X, XS)) → X
sel(s(N), cons(X, XS)) → sel(N, activate(XS))
fib1(X1, X2) → n__fib1(X1, X2)
activate(n__fib1(X1, X2)) → fib1(X1, X2)
activate(X) → 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.


SEL(s(N), cons(X, XS)) → SEL(N, activate(XS))
The remaining pairs can at least be oriented weakly.
none
Used ordering: Polynomial interpretation [25,35]:

POL(cons(x1, x2)) = 1/4 + (9/4)x_1 + (11/4)x_2   
POL(add(x1, x2)) = 0   
POL(fib1(x1, x2)) = 4 + (7/2)x_1 + (5/2)x_2   
POL(n__fib1(x1, x2)) = (13/4)x_1 + (7/2)x_2   
POL(s(x1)) = 1/4 + (3/2)x_1   
POL(activate(x1)) = 0   
POL(SEL(x1, x2)) = (4)x_1   
POL(0) = 0   
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
            ↳ QDPOrderProof
              ↳ QDP
                ↳ PisEmptyProof

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

fib(N) → sel(N, fib1(s(0), s(0)))
fib1(X, Y) → cons(X, n__fib1(Y, add(X, Y)))
add(0, X) → X
add(s(X), Y) → s(add(X, Y))
sel(0, cons(X, XS)) → X
sel(s(N), cons(X, XS)) → sel(N, activate(XS))
fib1(X1, X2) → n__fib1(X1, X2)
activate(n__fib1(X1, X2)) → fib1(X1, X2)
activate(X) → 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.