Termination w.r.t. Q proof of /tmp/tmpqNldyn/ExConc_Zan97

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(X)) → mark(g(h(f(X))))
mark(f(X)) → active(f(mark(X)))
mark(g(X)) → active(g(X))
mark(h(X)) → active(h(mark(X)))
f(mark(X)) → f(X)
f(active(X)) → f(X)
g(mark(X)) → g(X)
g(active(X)) → g(X)
h(mark(X)) → h(X)
h(active(X)) → h(X)

Q is empty.

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

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

active(f(X)) → mark(g(h(f(X))))
mark(f(X)) → active(f(mark(X)))
mark(g(X)) → active(g(X))
mark(h(X)) → active(h(mark(X)))
f(mark(X)) → f(X)
f(active(X)) → f(X)
g(mark(X)) → g(X)
g(active(X)) → g(X)
h(mark(X)) → h(X)
h(active(X)) → h(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(h(X)) → ACTIVE(h(mark(X)))
F(mark(X)) → F(X)
H(active(X)) → H(X)
ACTIVE(f(X)) → H(f(X))
G(active(X)) → G(X)
G(mark(X)) → G(X)
MARK(f(X)) → ACTIVE(f(mark(X)))
MARK(h(X)) → MARK(X)
ACTIVE(f(X)) → G(h(f(X)))
MARK(f(X)) → F(mark(X))
MARK(g(X)) → ACTIVE(g(X))
ACTIVE(f(X)) → MARK(g(h(f(X))))
H(mark(X)) → H(X)
MARK(h(X)) → H(mark(X))
MARK(f(X)) → MARK(X)
F(active(X)) → F(X)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

active(f(X)) → mark(g(h(f(X))))
mark(f(X)) → active(f(mark(X)))
mark(g(X)) → active(g(X))
mark(h(X)) → active(h(mark(X)))
f(mark(X)) → f(X)
f(active(X)) → f(X)
g(mark(X)) → g(X)
g(active(X)) → g(X)
h(mark(X)) → h(X)
h(active(X)) → h(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(h(X)) → ACTIVE(h(mark(X)))
F(mark(X)) → F(X)
H(active(X)) → H(X)
ACTIVE(f(X)) → H(f(X))
G(active(X)) → G(X)
G(mark(X)) → G(X)
MARK(f(X)) → ACTIVE(f(mark(X)))
MARK(h(X)) → MARK(X)
ACTIVE(f(X)) → G(h(f(X)))
MARK(f(X)) → F(mark(X))
MARK(g(X)) → ACTIVE(g(X))
ACTIVE(f(X)) → MARK(g(h(f(X))))
H(mark(X)) → H(X)
MARK(h(X)) → H(mark(X))
MARK(f(X)) → MARK(X)
F(active(X)) → F(X)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

active(f(X)) → mark(g(h(f(X))))
mark(f(X)) → active(f(mark(X)))
mark(g(X)) → active(g(X))
mark(h(X)) → active(h(mark(X)))
f(mark(X)) → f(X)
f(active(X)) → f(X)
g(mark(X)) → g(X)
g(active(X)) → g(X)
h(mark(X)) → h(X)
h(active(X)) → h(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 4 less nodes.

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ UsableRulesProof

            ↳ UsableRulesProof

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

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

H(active(X)) → H(X)
H(mark(X)) → H(X)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

active(f(X)) → mark(g(h(f(X))))
mark(f(X)) → active(f(mark(X)))
mark(g(X)) → active(g(X))
mark(h(X)) → active(h(mark(X)))
f(mark(X)) → f(X)
f(active(X)) → f(X)
g(mark(X)) → g(X)
g(active(X)) → g(X)
h(mark(X)) → h(X)
h(active(X)) → h(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

                ↳ UsableRulesReductionPairsProof

            ↳ UsableRulesProof

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

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

H(active(X)) → H(X)
H(mark(X)) → H(X)

R is empty.
Q is empty.
We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
By using the usable rules with reduction pair processor [15] with a polynomial ordering [25], all dependency pairs and the corresponding usable rules [17] can be oriented non-strictly. All non-usable rules are removed, and those dependency pairs and usable rules that have been oriented strictly or contain non-usable symbols in their left-hand side are removed as well.

The following dependency pairs can be deleted:

H(active(X)) → H(X)
H(mark(X)) → H(X)

No rules are removed from R.

Used ordering: POLO with Polynomial interpretation [25]:

POL(H(x₁)) = 2·x₁
POL(active(x₁)) = 2·x₁
POL(mark(x₁)) = 2·x₁

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ UsableRulesProof

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ UsableRulesReductionPairsProof

                  ↳ QDP

                    ↳ PisEmptyProof

            ↳ UsableRulesProof

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

Q DP problem:
P is empty.
R is empty.
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.
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

            ↳ UsableRulesProof

              ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

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

H(active(X)) → H(X)
H(mark(X)) → H(X)

R is empty.
Q is empty.
We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ UsableRulesProof

            ↳ UsableRulesProof

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

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

G(active(X)) → G(X)
G(mark(X)) → G(X)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

active(f(X)) → mark(g(h(f(X))))
mark(f(X)) → active(f(mark(X)))
mark(g(X)) → active(g(X))
mark(h(X)) → active(h(mark(X)))
f(mark(X)) → f(X)
f(active(X)) → f(X)
g(mark(X)) → g(X)
g(active(X)) → g(X)
h(mark(X)) → h(X)
h(active(X)) → h(X)

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ UsableRulesProof

              ↳ QDP

            ↳ UsableRulesProof

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

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

G(active(X)) → G(X)
G(mark(X)) → G(X)

R is empty.
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

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ UsableRulesProof

            ↳ UsableRulesProof

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ UsableRulesReductionPairsProof

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

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

G(active(X)) → G(X)
G(mark(X)) → G(X)

No rules are removed from R.

Used ordering: POLO with Polynomial interpretation [25]:

POL(G(x₁)) = 2·x₁
POL(active(x₁)) = 2·x₁
POL(mark(x₁)) = 2·x₁

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ UsableRulesProof

            ↳ UsableRulesProof

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ UsableRulesReductionPairsProof

                  ↳ QDP

                    ↳ PisEmptyProof

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

Q DP problem:
P is empty.
R is empty.
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

            ↳ UsableRulesProof

            ↳ UsableRulesProof

          ↳ 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(X)) → mark(g(h(f(X))))
mark(f(X)) → active(f(mark(X)))
mark(g(X)) → active(g(X))
mark(h(X)) → active(h(mark(X)))
f(mark(X)) → f(X)
f(active(X)) → f(X)
g(mark(X)) → g(X)
g(active(X)) → g(X)
h(mark(X)) → h(X)
h(active(X)) → h(X)

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ UsableRulesProof

              ↳ QDP

            ↳ UsableRulesProof

          ↳ QDP

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

F(mark(X)) → F(X)
F(active(X)) → F(X)

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ UsableRulesProof

            ↳ UsableRulesProof

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ UsableRulesReductionPairsProof

          ↳ QDP

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

F(mark(X)) → F(X)
F(active(X)) → F(X)

No rules are removed from R.

Used ordering: POLO with Polynomial interpretation [25]:

POL(F(x₁)) = 2·x₁
POL(active(x₁)) = 2·x₁
POL(mark(x₁)) = 2·x₁

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ UsableRulesProof

            ↳ UsableRulesProof

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ UsableRulesReductionPairsProof

                  ↳ QDP

                    ↳ PisEmptyProof

          ↳ QDP

Q DP problem:
P is empty.
R is empty.
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

            ↳ RuleRemovalProof

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

MARK(h(X)) → ACTIVE(h(mark(X)))
MARK(h(X)) → MARK(X)
MARK(g(X)) → ACTIVE(g(X))
ACTIVE(f(X)) → MARK(g(h(f(X))))
MARK(f(X)) → MARK(X)
MARK(f(X)) → ACTIVE(f(mark(X)))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

active(f(X)) → mark(g(h(f(X))))
mark(f(X)) → active(f(mark(X)))
mark(g(X)) → active(g(X))
mark(h(X)) → active(h(mark(X)))
f(mark(X)) → f(X)
f(active(X)) → f(X)
g(mark(X)) → g(X)
g(active(X)) → g(X)
h(mark(X)) → h(X)
h(active(X)) → h(X)

Q is empty.
We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
By using the rule removal processor [15] with the following polynomial ordering [25], at least one Dependency Pair or term rewrite system rule of this QDP problem can be strictly oriented.
Strictly oriented dependency pairs:

MARK(f(X)) → MARK(X)

Used ordering: POLO with Polynomial interpretation [25]:

POL(ACTIVE(x₁)) = 2·x₁
POL(MARK(x₁)) = 2·x₁
POL(active(x₁)) = x₁
POL(f(x₁)) = 1 + 2·x₁
POL(g(x₁)) = x₁
POL(h(x₁)) = x₁
POL(mark(x₁)) = x₁

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ RuleRemovalProof

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ QDPOrderProof

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

MARK(h(X)) → ACTIVE(h(mark(X)))
MARK(h(X)) → MARK(X)
MARK(g(X)) → ACTIVE(g(X))
ACTIVE(f(X)) → MARK(g(h(f(X))))
MARK(f(X)) → ACTIVE(f(mark(X)))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

active(f(X)) → mark(g(h(f(X))))
mark(f(X)) → active(f(mark(X)))
mark(g(X)) → active(g(X))
mark(h(X)) → active(h(mark(X)))
f(mark(X)) → f(X)
f(active(X)) → f(X)
g(mark(X)) → g(X)
g(active(X)) → g(X)
h(mark(X)) → h(X)
h(active(X)) → h(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(h(X)) → ACTIVE(h(mark(X)))
MARK(g(X)) → ACTIVE(g(X))

The remaining pairs can at least be oriented weakly.

MARK(h(X)) → MARK(X)
ACTIVE(f(X)) → MARK(g(h(f(X))))
MARK(f(X)) → ACTIVE(f(mark(X)))

Used ordering: Polynomial Order [21,25] with Interpretation:

POL( active(x₁) ) = max{0, -1}

POL( MARK(x₁) ) = 1

POL( f(x₁) ) = 1

POL( g(x₁) ) = max{0, -1}

POL( h(x₁) ) = max{0, -1}

POL( mark(x₁) ) = max{0, -1}

POL( ACTIVE(x₁) ) = x₁

The following usable rules [17] were oriented:

g(active(X)) → g(X)
g(mark(X)) → g(X)
f(mark(X)) → f(X)
f(active(X)) → f(X)
h(active(X)) → h(X)
h(mark(X)) → h(X)

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ RuleRemovalProof

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ QDPOrderProof

                  ↳ QDP

                    ↳ QDPOrderProof

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

MARK(h(X)) → MARK(X)
ACTIVE(f(X)) → MARK(g(h(f(X))))
MARK(f(X)) → ACTIVE(f(mark(X)))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

active(f(X)) → mark(g(h(f(X))))
mark(f(X)) → active(f(mark(X)))
mark(g(X)) → active(g(X))
mark(h(X)) → active(h(mark(X)))
f(mark(X)) → f(X)
f(active(X)) → f(X)
g(mark(X)) → g(X)
g(active(X)) → g(X)
h(mark(X)) → h(X)
h(active(X)) → h(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(h(X)) → MARK(X)

The remaining pairs can at least be oriented weakly.

ACTIVE(f(X)) → MARK(g(h(f(X))))
MARK(f(X)) → ACTIVE(f(mark(X)))

Used ordering: Polynomial Order [21,25] with Interpretation:

POL( active(x₁) ) = max{0, x₁ - 1}

POL( MARK(x₁) ) = x₁ + 1

POL( f(x₁) ) = 0

POL( g(x₁) ) = 0

POL( h(x₁) ) = x₁ + 1

POL( mark(x₁) ) = max{0, x₁ - 1}

POL( ACTIVE(x₁) ) = 1

The following usable rules [17] were oriented:

g(active(X)) → g(X)
g(mark(X)) → g(X)

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ RuleRemovalProof

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ QDPOrderProof

                  ↳ QDP

                    ↳ QDPOrderProof

                      ↳ QDP

                        ↳ QDPOrderProof

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

ACTIVE(f(X)) → MARK(g(h(f(X))))
MARK(f(X)) → ACTIVE(f(mark(X)))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

active(f(X)) → mark(g(h(f(X))))
mark(f(X)) → active(f(mark(X)))
mark(g(X)) → active(g(X))
mark(h(X)) → active(h(mark(X)))
f(mark(X)) → f(X)
f(active(X)) → f(X)
g(mark(X)) → g(X)
g(active(X)) → g(X)
h(mark(X)) → h(X)
h(active(X)) → h(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(f(X)) → ACTIVE(f(mark(X)))

The remaining pairs can at least be oriented weakly.

ACTIVE(f(X)) → MARK(g(h(f(X))))

Used ordering: Polynomial Order [21,25] with Interpretation:

POL( active(x₁) ) = 0

POL( MARK(x₁) ) = x₁

POL( f(x₁) ) = 1

POL( g(x₁) ) = max{0, -1}

POL( h(x₁) ) = max{0, x₁ - 1}

POL( mark(x₁) ) = max{0, -1}

POL( ACTIVE(x₁) ) = max{0, -1}

The following usable rules [17] were oriented:

g(active(X)) → g(X)
g(mark(X)) → g(X)

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ RuleRemovalProof

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ QDPOrderProof

                  ↳ QDP

                    ↳ QDPOrderProof

                      ↳ QDP

                        ↳ QDPOrderProof

                          ↳ QDP

                            ↳ DependencyGraphProof

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

ACTIVE(f(X)) → MARK(g(h(f(X))))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

active(f(X)) → mark(g(h(f(X))))
mark(f(X)) → active(f(mark(X)))
mark(g(X)) → active(g(X))
mark(h(X)) → active(h(mark(X)))
f(mark(X)) → f(X)
f(active(X)) → f(X)
g(mark(X)) → g(X)
g(active(X)) → g(X)
h(mark(X)) → h(X)
h(active(X)) → h(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 1 less node.