Termination w.r.t. Q proof of /tmp/tmpkoyHx-/ExSec11_1_Luc02a

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:

terms(N) → cons(recip(sqr(N)), n__terms(s(N)))
sqr(0) → 0
sqr(s(X)) → s(add(sqr(X), dbl(X)))
dbl(0) → 0
dbl(s(X)) → s(s(dbl(X)))
add(0, X) → X
add(s(X), Y) → s(add(X, Y))
first(0, X) → nil
first(s(X), cons(Y, Z)) → cons(Y, n__first(X, activate(Z)))
half(0) → 0
half(s(0)) → 0
half(s(s(X))) → s(half(X))
half(dbl(X)) → X
terms(X) → n__terms(X)
first(X1, X2) → n__first(X1, X2)
activate(n__terms(X)) → terms(X)
activate(n__first(X1, X2)) → first(X1, X2)
activate(X) → X

Q is empty.

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

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

terms(N) → cons(recip(sqr(N)), n__terms(s(N)))
sqr(0) → 0
sqr(s(X)) → s(add(sqr(X), dbl(X)))
dbl(0) → 0
dbl(s(X)) → s(s(dbl(X)))
add(0, X) → X
add(s(X), Y) → s(add(X, Y))
first(0, X) → nil
first(s(X), cons(Y, Z)) → cons(Y, n__first(X, activate(Z)))
half(0) → 0
half(s(0)) → 0
half(s(s(X))) → s(half(X))
half(dbl(X)) → X
terms(X) → n__terms(X)
first(X1, X2) → n__first(X1, X2)
activate(n__terms(X)) → terms(X)
activate(n__first(X1, X2)) → first(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:

HALF(s(s(X))) → HALF(X)
TERMS(N) → SQR(N)
ACTIVATE(n__first(X1, X2)) → FIRST(X1, X2)
SQR(s(X)) → ADD(sqr(X), dbl(X))
ACTIVATE(n__terms(X)) → TERMS(X)
FIRST(s(X), cons(Y, Z)) → ACTIVATE(Z)
SQR(s(X)) → SQR(X)
ADD(s(X), Y) → ADD(X, Y)
DBL(s(X)) → DBL(X)
SQR(s(X)) → DBL(X)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

terms(N) → cons(recip(sqr(N)), n__terms(s(N)))
sqr(0) → 0
sqr(s(X)) → s(add(sqr(X), dbl(X)))
dbl(0) → 0
dbl(s(X)) → s(s(dbl(X)))
add(0, X) → X
add(s(X), Y) → s(add(X, Y))
first(0, X) → nil
first(s(X), cons(Y, Z)) → cons(Y, n__first(X, activate(Z)))
half(0) → 0
half(s(0)) → 0
half(s(s(X))) → s(half(X))
half(dbl(X)) → X
terms(X) → n__terms(X)
first(X1, X2) → n__first(X1, X2)
activate(n__terms(X)) → terms(X)
activate(n__first(X1, X2)) → first(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:

HALF(s(s(X))) → HALF(X)
TERMS(N) → SQR(N)
ACTIVATE(n__first(X1, X2)) → FIRST(X1, X2)
SQR(s(X)) → ADD(sqr(X), dbl(X))
ACTIVATE(n__terms(X)) → TERMS(X)
FIRST(s(X), cons(Y, Z)) → ACTIVATE(Z)
SQR(s(X)) → SQR(X)
ADD(s(X), Y) → ADD(X, Y)
DBL(s(X)) → DBL(X)
SQR(s(X)) → DBL(X)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

terms(N) → cons(recip(sqr(N)), n__terms(s(N)))
sqr(0) → 0
sqr(s(X)) → s(add(sqr(X), dbl(X)))
dbl(0) → 0
dbl(s(X)) → s(s(dbl(X)))
add(0, X) → X
add(s(X), Y) → s(add(X, Y))
first(0, X) → nil
first(s(X), cons(Y, Z)) → cons(Y, n__first(X, activate(Z)))
half(0) → 0
half(s(0)) → 0
half(s(s(X))) → s(half(X))
half(dbl(X)) → X
terms(X) → n__terms(X)
first(X1, X2) → n__first(X1, X2)
activate(n__terms(X)) → terms(X)
activate(n__first(X1, X2)) → first(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 5 SCCs with 4 less nodes.

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ QDPOrderProof

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

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

HALF(s(s(X))) → HALF(X)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

terms(N) → cons(recip(sqr(N)), n__terms(s(N)))
sqr(0) → 0
sqr(s(X)) → s(add(sqr(X), dbl(X)))
dbl(0) → 0
dbl(s(X)) → s(s(dbl(X)))
add(0, X) → X
add(s(X), Y) → s(add(X, Y))
first(0, X) → nil
first(s(X), cons(Y, Z)) → cons(Y, n__first(X, activate(Z)))
half(0) → 0
half(s(0)) → 0
half(s(s(X))) → s(half(X))
half(dbl(X)) → X
terms(X) → n__terms(X)
first(X1, X2) → n__first(X1, X2)
activate(n__terms(X)) → terms(X)
activate(n__first(X1, X2)) → first(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.

HALF(s(s(X))) → HALF(X)

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

POL(HALF(x₁)) = (2)x_1
POL(s(x₁)) = 1 + 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

            ↳ QDPOrderProof

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ PisEmptyProof

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

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

terms(N) → cons(recip(sqr(N)), n__terms(s(N)))
sqr(0) → 0
sqr(s(X)) → s(add(sqr(X), dbl(X)))
dbl(0) → 0
dbl(s(X)) → s(s(dbl(X)))
add(0, X) → X
add(s(X), Y) → s(add(X, Y))
first(0, X) → nil
first(s(X), cons(Y, Z)) → cons(Y, n__first(X, activate(Z)))
half(0) → 0
half(s(0)) → 0
half(s(s(X))) → s(half(X))
half(dbl(X)) → X
terms(X) → n__terms(X)
first(X1, X2) → n__first(X1, X2)
activate(n__terms(X)) → terms(X)
activate(n__first(X1, X2)) → first(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

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ 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:

terms(N) → cons(recip(sqr(N)), n__terms(s(N)))
sqr(0) → 0
sqr(s(X)) → s(add(sqr(X), dbl(X)))
dbl(0) → 0
dbl(s(X)) → s(s(dbl(X)))
add(0, X) → X
add(s(X), Y) → s(add(X, Y))
first(0, X) → nil
first(s(X), cons(Y, Z)) → cons(Y, n__first(X, activate(Z)))
half(0) → 0
half(s(0)) → 0
half(s(s(X))) → s(half(X))
half(dbl(X)) → X
terms(X) → n__terms(X)
first(X1, X2) → n__first(X1, X2)
activate(n__terms(X)) → terms(X)
activate(n__first(X1, X2)) → first(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)x_1
POL(ADD(x₁, x₂)) = (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

          ↳ QDP

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

terms(N) → cons(recip(sqr(N)), n__terms(s(N)))
sqr(0) → 0
sqr(s(X)) → s(add(sqr(X), dbl(X)))
dbl(0) → 0
dbl(s(X)) → s(s(dbl(X)))
add(0, X) → X
add(s(X), Y) → s(add(X, Y))
first(0, X) → nil
first(s(X), cons(Y, Z)) → cons(Y, n__first(X, activate(Z)))
half(0) → 0
half(s(0)) → 0
half(s(s(X))) → s(half(X))
half(dbl(X)) → X
terms(X) → n__terms(X)
first(X1, X2) → n__first(X1, X2)
activate(n__terms(X)) → terms(X)
activate(n__first(X1, X2)) → first(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

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ QDPOrderProof

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

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

DBL(s(X)) → DBL(X)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

terms(N) → cons(recip(sqr(N)), n__terms(s(N)))
sqr(0) → 0
sqr(s(X)) → s(add(sqr(X), dbl(X)))
dbl(0) → 0
dbl(s(X)) → s(s(dbl(X)))
add(0, X) → X
add(s(X), Y) → s(add(X, Y))
first(0, X) → nil
first(s(X), cons(Y, Z)) → cons(Y, n__first(X, activate(Z)))
half(0) → 0
half(s(0)) → 0
half(s(s(X))) → s(half(X))
half(dbl(X)) → X
terms(X) → n__terms(X)
first(X1, X2) → n__first(X1, X2)
activate(n__terms(X)) → terms(X)
activate(n__first(X1, X2)) → first(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.

DBL(s(X)) → DBL(X)

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

POL(DBL(x₁)) = (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

          ↳ QDP

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

terms(N) → cons(recip(sqr(N)), n__terms(s(N)))
sqr(0) → 0
sqr(s(X)) → s(add(sqr(X), dbl(X)))
dbl(0) → 0
dbl(s(X)) → s(s(dbl(X)))
add(0, X) → X
add(s(X), Y) → s(add(X, Y))
first(0, X) → nil
first(s(X), cons(Y, Z)) → cons(Y, n__first(X, activate(Z)))
half(0) → 0
half(s(0)) → 0
half(s(s(X))) → s(half(X))
half(dbl(X)) → X
terms(X) → n__terms(X)
first(X1, X2) → n__first(X1, X2)
activate(n__terms(X)) → terms(X)
activate(n__first(X1, X2)) → first(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

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ QDPOrderProof

          ↳ QDP

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

SQR(s(X)) → SQR(X)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

terms(N) → cons(recip(sqr(N)), n__terms(s(N)))
sqr(0) → 0
sqr(s(X)) → s(add(sqr(X), dbl(X)))
dbl(0) → 0
dbl(s(X)) → s(s(dbl(X)))
add(0, X) → X
add(s(X), Y) → s(add(X, Y))
first(0, X) → nil
first(s(X), cons(Y, Z)) → cons(Y, n__first(X, activate(Z)))
half(0) → 0
half(s(0)) → 0
half(s(s(X))) → s(half(X))
half(dbl(X)) → X
terms(X) → n__terms(X)
first(X1, X2) → n__first(X1, X2)
activate(n__terms(X)) → terms(X)
activate(n__first(X1, X2)) → first(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.

SQR(s(X)) → SQR(X)

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

POL(SQR(x₁)) = (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

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ QDPOrderProof

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ PisEmptyProof

          ↳ QDP

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

terms(N) → cons(recip(sqr(N)), n__terms(s(N)))
sqr(0) → 0
sqr(s(X)) → s(add(sqr(X), dbl(X)))
dbl(0) → 0
dbl(s(X)) → s(s(dbl(X)))
add(0, X) → X
add(s(X), Y) → s(add(X, Y))
first(0, X) → nil
first(s(X), cons(Y, Z)) → cons(Y, n__first(X, activate(Z)))
half(0) → 0
half(s(0)) → 0
half(s(s(X))) → s(half(X))
half(dbl(X)) → X
terms(X) → n__terms(X)
first(X1, X2) → n__first(X1, X2)
activate(n__terms(X)) → terms(X)
activate(n__first(X1, X2)) → first(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

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ QDPOrderProof

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

ACTIVATE(n__first(X1, X2)) → FIRST(X1, X2)
FIRST(s(X), cons(Y, Z)) → ACTIVATE(Z)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

terms(N) → cons(recip(sqr(N)), n__terms(s(N)))
sqr(0) → 0
sqr(s(X)) → s(add(sqr(X), dbl(X)))
dbl(0) → 0
dbl(s(X)) → s(s(dbl(X)))
add(0, X) → X
add(s(X), Y) → s(add(X, Y))
first(0, X) → nil
first(s(X), cons(Y, Z)) → cons(Y, n__first(X, activate(Z)))
half(0) → 0
half(s(0)) → 0
half(s(s(X))) → s(half(X))
half(dbl(X)) → X
terms(X) → n__terms(X)
first(X1, X2) → n__first(X1, X2)
activate(n__terms(X)) → terms(X)
activate(n__first(X1, X2)) → first(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.

ACTIVATE(n__first(X1, X2)) → FIRST(X1, X2)

The remaining pairs can at least be oriented weakly.

FIRST(s(X), cons(Y, Z)) → ACTIVATE(Z)

Used ordering: Polynomial interpretation [25,35]:

POL(n__first(x₁, x₂)) = 3 + x_1 + (2)x_2
POL(FIRST(x₁, x₂)) = (4)x_1 + (3)x_2
POL(cons(x₁, x₂)) = (3)x_2
POL(s(x₁)) = 0
POL(ACTIVATE(x₁)) = (4)x_1

The value of delta used in the strict ordering is 12.
The following usable rules [17] were oriented: none

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ QDPOrderProof

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ DependencyGraphProof

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

FIRST(s(X), cons(Y, Z)) → ACTIVATE(Z)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

terms(N) → cons(recip(sqr(N)), n__terms(s(N)))
sqr(0) → 0
sqr(s(X)) → s(add(sqr(X), dbl(X)))
dbl(0) → 0
dbl(s(X)) → s(s(dbl(X)))
add(0, X) → X
add(s(X), Y) → s(add(X, Y))
first(0, X) → nil
first(s(X), cons(Y, Z)) → cons(Y, n__first(X, activate(Z)))
half(0) → 0
half(s(0)) → 0
half(s(s(X))) → s(half(X))
half(dbl(X)) → X
terms(X) → n__terms(X)
first(X1, X2) → n__first(X1, X2)
activate(n__terms(X)) → terms(X)
activate(n__first(X1, X2)) → first(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 0 SCCs with 1 less node.