Termination w.r.t. Q proof of /tmp/tmpbOy0ts/ExAppendixB_AEL03

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:

from(X) → cons(X, n__from(n__s(X)))
2ndspos(0, Z) → rnil
2ndspos(s(N), cons(X, Z)) → 2ndspos(s(N), cons2(X, activate(Z)))
2ndspos(s(N), cons2(X, cons(Y, Z))) → rcons(posrecip(Y), 2ndsneg(N, activate(Z)))
2ndsneg(0, Z) → rnil
2ndsneg(s(N), cons(X, Z)) → 2ndsneg(s(N), cons2(X, activate(Z)))
2ndsneg(s(N), cons2(X, cons(Y, Z))) → rcons(negrecip(Y), 2ndspos(N, activate(Z)))
pi(X) → 2ndspos(X, from(0))
plus(0, Y) → Y
plus(s(X), Y) → s(plus(X, Y))
times(0, Y) → 0
times(s(X), Y) → plus(Y, times(X, Y))
square(X) → times(X, X)
from(X) → n__from(X)
s(X) → n__s(X)
activate(n__from(X)) → from(activate(X))
activate(n__s(X)) → s(activate(X))
activate(X) → X

Q is empty.

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

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

from(X) → cons(X, n__from(n__s(X)))
2ndspos(0, Z) → rnil
2ndspos(s(N), cons(X, Z)) → 2ndspos(s(N), cons2(X, activate(Z)))
2ndspos(s(N), cons2(X, cons(Y, Z))) → rcons(posrecip(Y), 2ndsneg(N, activate(Z)))
2ndsneg(0, Z) → rnil
2ndsneg(s(N), cons(X, Z)) → 2ndsneg(s(N), cons2(X, activate(Z)))
2ndsneg(s(N), cons2(X, cons(Y, Z))) → rcons(negrecip(Y), 2ndspos(N, activate(Z)))
pi(X) → 2ndspos(X, from(0))
plus(0, Y) → Y
plus(s(X), Y) → s(plus(X, Y))
times(0, Y) → 0
times(s(X), Y) → plus(Y, times(X, Y))
square(X) → times(X, X)
from(X) → n__from(X)
s(X) → n__s(X)
activate(n__from(X)) → from(activate(X))
activate(n__s(X)) → s(activate(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:

ACTIVATE(n__from(X)) → ACTIVATE(X)
2NDSNEG(s(N), cons2(X, cons(Y, Z))) → ACTIVATE(Z)
SQUARE(X) → TIMES(X, X)
ACTIVATE(n__s(X)) → S(activate(X))
2NDSPOS(s(N), cons(X, Z)) → ACTIVATE(Z)
2NDSNEG(s(N), cons(X, Z)) → 2NDSNEG(s(N), cons2(X, activate(Z)))
ACTIVATE(n__s(X)) → ACTIVATE(X)
PLUS(s(X), Y) → S(plus(X, Y))
2NDSNEG(s(N), cons(X, Z)) → ACTIVATE(Z)
TIMES(s(X), Y) → PLUS(Y, times(X, Y))
2NDSNEG(s(N), cons2(X, cons(Y, Z))) → 2NDSPOS(N, activate(Z))
PI(X) → 2NDSPOS(X, from(0))
PI(X) → FROM(0)
2NDSPOS(s(N), cons2(X, cons(Y, Z))) → 2NDSNEG(N, activate(Z))
2NDSPOS(s(N), cons2(X, cons(Y, Z))) → ACTIVATE(Z)
TIMES(s(X), Y) → TIMES(X, Y)
ACTIVATE(n__from(X)) → FROM(activate(X))
2NDSPOS(s(N), cons(X, Z)) → 2NDSPOS(s(N), cons2(X, activate(Z)))
PLUS(s(X), Y) → PLUS(X, Y)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

from(X) → cons(X, n__from(n__s(X)))
2ndspos(0, Z) → rnil
2ndspos(s(N), cons(X, Z)) → 2ndspos(s(N), cons2(X, activate(Z)))
2ndspos(s(N), cons2(X, cons(Y, Z))) → rcons(posrecip(Y), 2ndsneg(N, activate(Z)))
2ndsneg(0, Z) → rnil
2ndsneg(s(N), cons(X, Z)) → 2ndsneg(s(N), cons2(X, activate(Z)))
2ndsneg(s(N), cons2(X, cons(Y, Z))) → rcons(negrecip(Y), 2ndspos(N, activate(Z)))
pi(X) → 2ndspos(X, from(0))
plus(0, Y) → Y
plus(s(X), Y) → s(plus(X, Y))
times(0, Y) → 0
times(s(X), Y) → plus(Y, times(X, Y))
square(X) → times(X, X)
from(X) → n__from(X)
s(X) → n__s(X)
activate(n__from(X)) → from(activate(X))
activate(n__s(X)) → s(activate(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:

ACTIVATE(n__from(X)) → ACTIVATE(X)
2NDSNEG(s(N), cons2(X, cons(Y, Z))) → ACTIVATE(Z)
SQUARE(X) → TIMES(X, X)
ACTIVATE(n__s(X)) → S(activate(X))
2NDSPOS(s(N), cons(X, Z)) → ACTIVATE(Z)
2NDSNEG(s(N), cons(X, Z)) → 2NDSNEG(s(N), cons2(X, activate(Z)))
ACTIVATE(n__s(X)) → ACTIVATE(X)
PLUS(s(X), Y) → S(plus(X, Y))
2NDSNEG(s(N), cons(X, Z)) → ACTIVATE(Z)
TIMES(s(X), Y) → PLUS(Y, times(X, Y))
2NDSNEG(s(N), cons2(X, cons(Y, Z))) → 2NDSPOS(N, activate(Z))
PI(X) → 2NDSPOS(X, from(0))
PI(X) → FROM(0)
2NDSPOS(s(N), cons2(X, cons(Y, Z))) → 2NDSNEG(N, activate(Z))
2NDSPOS(s(N), cons2(X, cons(Y, Z))) → ACTIVATE(Z)
TIMES(s(X), Y) → TIMES(X, Y)
ACTIVATE(n__from(X)) → FROM(activate(X))
2NDSPOS(s(N), cons(X, Z)) → 2NDSPOS(s(N), cons2(X, activate(Z)))
PLUS(s(X), Y) → PLUS(X, Y)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

from(X) → cons(X, n__from(n__s(X)))
2ndspos(0, Z) → rnil
2ndspos(s(N), cons(X, Z)) → 2ndspos(s(N), cons2(X, activate(Z)))
2ndspos(s(N), cons2(X, cons(Y, Z))) → rcons(posrecip(Y), 2ndsneg(N, activate(Z)))
2ndsneg(0, Z) → rnil
2ndsneg(s(N), cons(X, Z)) → 2ndsneg(s(N), cons2(X, activate(Z)))
2ndsneg(s(N), cons2(X, cons(Y, Z))) → rcons(negrecip(Y), 2ndspos(N, activate(Z)))
pi(X) → 2ndspos(X, from(0))
plus(0, Y) → Y
plus(s(X), Y) → s(plus(X, Y))
times(0, Y) → 0
times(s(X), Y) → plus(Y, times(X, Y))
square(X) → times(X, X)
from(X) → n__from(X)
s(X) → n__s(X)
activate(n__from(X)) → from(activate(X))
activate(n__s(X)) → s(activate(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 4 SCCs with 11 less nodes.

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ QDPOrderProof

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

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

ACTIVATE(n__from(X)) → ACTIVATE(X)
ACTIVATE(n__s(X)) → ACTIVATE(X)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

from(X) → cons(X, n__from(n__s(X)))
2ndspos(0, Z) → rnil
2ndspos(s(N), cons(X, Z)) → 2ndspos(s(N), cons2(X, activate(Z)))
2ndspos(s(N), cons2(X, cons(Y, Z))) → rcons(posrecip(Y), 2ndsneg(N, activate(Z)))
2ndsneg(0, Z) → rnil
2ndsneg(s(N), cons(X, Z)) → 2ndsneg(s(N), cons2(X, activate(Z)))
2ndsneg(s(N), cons2(X, cons(Y, Z))) → rcons(negrecip(Y), 2ndspos(N, activate(Z)))
pi(X) → 2ndspos(X, from(0))
plus(0, Y) → Y
plus(s(X), Y) → s(plus(X, Y))
times(0, Y) → 0
times(s(X), Y) → plus(Y, times(X, Y))
square(X) → times(X, X)
from(X) → n__from(X)
s(X) → n__s(X)
activate(n__from(X)) → from(activate(X))
activate(n__s(X)) → s(activate(X))
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.

ACTIVATE(n__from(X)) → ACTIVATE(X)
ACTIVATE(n__s(X)) → ACTIVATE(X)

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

POL(n__from(x₁)) = 4 + x_1
POL(n__s(x₁)) = 4 + (4)x_1
POL(ACTIVATE(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

            ↳ QDPOrderProof

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ PisEmptyProof

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

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

from(X) → cons(X, n__from(n__s(X)))
2ndspos(0, Z) → rnil
2ndspos(s(N), cons(X, Z)) → 2ndspos(s(N), cons2(X, activate(Z)))
2ndspos(s(N), cons2(X, cons(Y, Z))) → rcons(posrecip(Y), 2ndsneg(N, activate(Z)))
2ndsneg(0, Z) → rnil
2ndsneg(s(N), cons(X, Z)) → 2ndsneg(s(N), cons2(X, activate(Z)))
2ndsneg(s(N), cons2(X, cons(Y, Z))) → rcons(negrecip(Y), 2ndspos(N, activate(Z)))
pi(X) → 2ndspos(X, from(0))
plus(0, Y) → Y
plus(s(X), Y) → s(plus(X, Y))
times(0, Y) → 0
times(s(X), Y) → plus(Y, times(X, Y))
square(X) → times(X, X)
from(X) → n__from(X)
s(X) → n__s(X)
activate(n__from(X)) → from(activate(X))
activate(n__s(X)) → s(activate(X))
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

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

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

PLUS(s(X), Y) → PLUS(X, Y)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

from(X) → cons(X, n__from(n__s(X)))
2ndspos(0, Z) → rnil
2ndspos(s(N), cons(X, Z)) → 2ndspos(s(N), cons2(X, activate(Z)))
2ndspos(s(N), cons2(X, cons(Y, Z))) → rcons(posrecip(Y), 2ndsneg(N, activate(Z)))
2ndsneg(0, Z) → rnil
2ndsneg(s(N), cons(X, Z)) → 2ndsneg(s(N), cons2(X, activate(Z)))
2ndsneg(s(N), cons2(X, cons(Y, Z))) → rcons(negrecip(Y), 2ndspos(N, activate(Z)))
pi(X) → 2ndspos(X, from(0))
plus(0, Y) → Y
plus(s(X), Y) → s(plus(X, Y))
times(0, Y) → 0
times(s(X), Y) → plus(Y, times(X, Y))
square(X) → times(X, X)
from(X) → n__from(X)
s(X) → n__s(X)
activate(n__from(X)) → from(activate(X))
activate(n__s(X)) → s(activate(X))
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.

PLUS(s(X), Y) → PLUS(X, Y)

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

POL(PLUS(x₁, x₂)) = (4)x_1
POL(s(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

            ↳ QDPOrderProof

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ PisEmptyProof

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

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

from(X) → cons(X, n__from(n__s(X)))
2ndspos(0, Z) → rnil
2ndspos(s(N), cons(X, Z)) → 2ndspos(s(N), cons2(X, activate(Z)))
2ndspos(s(N), cons2(X, cons(Y, Z))) → rcons(posrecip(Y), 2ndsneg(N, activate(Z)))
2ndsneg(0, Z) → rnil
2ndsneg(s(N), cons(X, Z)) → 2ndsneg(s(N), cons2(X, activate(Z)))
2ndsneg(s(N), cons2(X, cons(Y, Z))) → rcons(negrecip(Y), 2ndspos(N, activate(Z)))
pi(X) → 2ndspos(X, from(0))
plus(0, Y) → Y
plus(s(X), Y) → s(plus(X, Y))
times(0, Y) → 0
times(s(X), Y) → plus(Y, times(X, Y))
square(X) → times(X, X)
from(X) → n__from(X)
s(X) → n__s(X)
activate(n__from(X)) → from(activate(X))
activate(n__s(X)) → s(activate(X))
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

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ QDPOrderProof

          ↳ QDP

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

TIMES(s(X), Y) → TIMES(X, Y)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

from(X) → cons(X, n__from(n__s(X)))
2ndspos(0, Z) → rnil
2ndspos(s(N), cons(X, Z)) → 2ndspos(s(N), cons2(X, activate(Z)))
2ndspos(s(N), cons2(X, cons(Y, Z))) → rcons(posrecip(Y), 2ndsneg(N, activate(Z)))
2ndsneg(0, Z) → rnil
2ndsneg(s(N), cons(X, Z)) → 2ndsneg(s(N), cons2(X, activate(Z)))
2ndsneg(s(N), cons2(X, cons(Y, Z))) → rcons(negrecip(Y), 2ndspos(N, activate(Z)))
pi(X) → 2ndspos(X, from(0))
plus(0, Y) → Y
plus(s(X), Y) → s(plus(X, Y))
times(0, Y) → 0
times(s(X), Y) → plus(Y, times(X, Y))
square(X) → times(X, X)
from(X) → n__from(X)
s(X) → n__s(X)
activate(n__from(X)) → from(activate(X))
activate(n__s(X)) → s(activate(X))
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.

TIMES(s(X), Y) → TIMES(X, Y)

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

POL(TIMES(x₁, x₂)) = (4)x_1
POL(s(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

            ↳ QDPOrderProof

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ PisEmptyProof

          ↳ QDP

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

from(X) → cons(X, n__from(n__s(X)))
2ndspos(0, Z) → rnil
2ndspos(s(N), cons(X, Z)) → 2ndspos(s(N), cons2(X, activate(Z)))
2ndspos(s(N), cons2(X, cons(Y, Z))) → rcons(posrecip(Y), 2ndsneg(N, activate(Z)))
2ndsneg(0, Z) → rnil
2ndsneg(s(N), cons(X, Z)) → 2ndsneg(s(N), cons2(X, activate(Z)))
2ndsneg(s(N), cons2(X, cons(Y, Z))) → rcons(negrecip(Y), 2ndspos(N, activate(Z)))
pi(X) → 2ndspos(X, from(0))
plus(0, Y) → Y
plus(s(X), Y) → s(plus(X, Y))
times(0, Y) → 0
times(s(X), Y) → plus(Y, times(X, Y))
square(X) → times(X, X)
from(X) → n__from(X)
s(X) → n__s(X)
activate(n__from(X)) → from(activate(X))
activate(n__s(X)) → s(activate(X))
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

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ QDPOrderProof

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

2NDSNEG(s(N), cons2(X, cons(Y, Z))) → 2NDSPOS(N, activate(Z))
2NDSPOS(s(N), cons2(X, cons(Y, Z))) → 2NDSNEG(N, activate(Z))
2NDSPOS(s(N), cons(X, Z)) → 2NDSPOS(s(N), cons2(X, activate(Z)))
2NDSNEG(s(N), cons(X, Z)) → 2NDSNEG(s(N), cons2(X, activate(Z)))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

from(X) → cons(X, n__from(n__s(X)))
2ndspos(0, Z) → rnil
2ndspos(s(N), cons(X, Z)) → 2ndspos(s(N), cons2(X, activate(Z)))
2ndspos(s(N), cons2(X, cons(Y, Z))) → rcons(posrecip(Y), 2ndsneg(N, activate(Z)))
2ndsneg(0, Z) → rnil
2ndsneg(s(N), cons(X, Z)) → 2ndsneg(s(N), cons2(X, activate(Z)))
2ndsneg(s(N), cons2(X, cons(Y, Z))) → rcons(negrecip(Y), 2ndspos(N, activate(Z)))
pi(X) → 2ndspos(X, from(0))
plus(0, Y) → Y
plus(s(X), Y) → s(plus(X, Y))
times(0, Y) → 0
times(s(X), Y) → plus(Y, times(X, Y))
square(X) → times(X, X)
from(X) → n__from(X)
s(X) → n__s(X)
activate(n__from(X)) → from(activate(X))
activate(n__s(X)) → s(activate(X))
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.

2NDSNEG(s(N), cons2(X, cons(Y, Z))) → 2NDSPOS(N, activate(Z))
2NDSPOS(s(N), cons2(X, cons(Y, Z))) → 2NDSNEG(N, activate(Z))

The remaining pairs can at least be oriented weakly.

2NDSPOS(s(N), cons(X, Z)) → 2NDSPOS(s(N), cons2(X, activate(Z)))
2NDSNEG(s(N), cons(X, Z)) → 2NDSNEG(s(N), cons2(X, activate(Z)))

Used ordering: Polynomial interpretation [25,35]:

POL(cons(x₁, x₂)) = 1 + x_2
POL(from(x₁)) = 4
POL(n__from(x₁)) = 3
POL(2NDSNEG(x₁, x₂)) = 4 + (4)x_1
POL(cons2(x₁, x₂)) = (3)x_1
POL(s(x₁)) = 4 + (2)x_1
POL(2NDSPOS(x₁, x₂)) = 3 + (2)x_1
POL(activate(x₁)) = 4 + (4)x_1
POL(n__s(x₁)) = 4 + (2)x_1

The value of delta used in the strict ordering is 7.
The following usable rules [17] were oriented:

s(X) → n__s(X)

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ QDPOrderProof

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ DependencyGraphProof

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

2NDSPOS(s(N), cons(X, Z)) → 2NDSPOS(s(N), cons2(X, activate(Z)))
2NDSNEG(s(N), cons(X, Z)) → 2NDSNEG(s(N), cons2(X, activate(Z)))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

from(X) → cons(X, n__from(n__s(X)))
2ndspos(0, Z) → rnil
2ndspos(s(N), cons(X, Z)) → 2ndspos(s(N), cons2(X, activate(Z)))
2ndspos(s(N), cons2(X, cons(Y, Z))) → rcons(posrecip(Y), 2ndsneg(N, activate(Z)))
2ndsneg(0, Z) → rnil
2ndsneg(s(N), cons(X, Z)) → 2ndsneg(s(N), cons2(X, activate(Z)))
2ndsneg(s(N), cons2(X, cons(Y, Z))) → rcons(negrecip(Y), 2ndspos(N, activate(Z)))
pi(X) → 2ndspos(X, from(0))
plus(0, Y) → Y
plus(s(X), Y) → s(plus(X, Y))
times(0, Y) → 0
times(s(X), Y) → plus(Y, times(X, Y))
square(X) → times(X, X)
from(X) → n__from(X)
s(X) → n__s(X)
activate(n__from(X)) → from(activate(X))
activate(n__s(X)) → s(activate(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 0 SCCs with 2 less nodes.