Termination w.r.t. Q proof of /tmp/tmpkeD-Z8/ExSec4_2_DLMMU04

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:

natsFrom(N) → cons(N, n__natsFrom(n__s(N)))
fst(pair(XS, YS)) → XS
snd(pair(XS, YS)) → YS
splitAt(0, XS) → pair(nil, XS)
splitAt(s(N), cons(X, XS)) → u(splitAt(N, activate(XS)), N, X, activate(XS))
u(pair(YS, ZS), N, X, XS) → pair(cons(activate(X), YS), ZS)
head(cons(N, XS)) → N
tail(cons(N, XS)) → activate(XS)
sel(N, XS) → head(afterNth(N, XS))
take(N, XS) → fst(splitAt(N, XS))
afterNth(N, XS) → snd(splitAt(N, XS))
natsFrom(X) → n__natsFrom(X)
s(X) → n__s(X)
activate(n__natsFrom(X)) → natsFrom(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:

natsFrom(N) → cons(N, n__natsFrom(n__s(N)))
fst(pair(XS, YS)) → XS
snd(pair(XS, YS)) → YS
splitAt(0, XS) → pair(nil, XS)
splitAt(s(N), cons(X, XS)) → u(splitAt(N, activate(XS)), N, X, activate(XS))
u(pair(YS, ZS), N, X, XS) → pair(cons(activate(X), YS), ZS)
head(cons(N, XS)) → N
tail(cons(N, XS)) → activate(XS)
sel(N, XS) → head(afterNth(N, XS))
take(N, XS) → fst(splitAt(N, XS))
afterNth(N, XS) → snd(splitAt(N, XS))
natsFrom(X) → n__natsFrom(X)
s(X) → n__s(X)
activate(n__natsFrom(X)) → natsFrom(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:

AFTERNTH(N, XS) → SPLITAT(N, XS)
ACTIVATE(n__natsFrom(X)) → NATSFROM(activate(X))
SEL(N, XS) → AFTERNTH(N, XS)
ACTIVATE(n__s(X)) → S(activate(X))
SPLITAT(s(N), cons(X, XS)) → ACTIVATE(XS)
ACTIVATE(n__s(X)) → ACTIVATE(X)
TAKE(N, XS) → SPLITAT(N, XS)
SPLITAT(s(N), cons(X, XS)) → U(splitAt(N, activate(XS)), N, X, activate(XS))
ACTIVATE(n__natsFrom(X)) → ACTIVATE(X)
AFTERNTH(N, XS) → SND(splitAt(N, XS))
SPLITAT(s(N), cons(X, XS)) → SPLITAT(N, activate(XS))
U(pair(YS, ZS), N, X, XS) → ACTIVATE(X)
TAIL(cons(N, XS)) → ACTIVATE(XS)
SEL(N, XS) → HEAD(afterNth(N, XS))
TAKE(N, XS) → FST(splitAt(N, XS))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

natsFrom(N) → cons(N, n__natsFrom(n__s(N)))
fst(pair(XS, YS)) → XS
snd(pair(XS, YS)) → YS
splitAt(0, XS) → pair(nil, XS)
splitAt(s(N), cons(X, XS)) → u(splitAt(N, activate(XS)), N, X, activate(XS))
u(pair(YS, ZS), N, X, XS) → pair(cons(activate(X), YS), ZS)
head(cons(N, XS)) → N
tail(cons(N, XS)) → activate(XS)
sel(N, XS) → head(afterNth(N, XS))
take(N, XS) → fst(splitAt(N, XS))
afterNth(N, XS) → snd(splitAt(N, XS))
natsFrom(X) → n__natsFrom(X)
s(X) → n__s(X)
activate(n__natsFrom(X)) → natsFrom(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:

AFTERNTH(N, XS) → SPLITAT(N, XS)
ACTIVATE(n__natsFrom(X)) → NATSFROM(activate(X))
SEL(N, XS) → AFTERNTH(N, XS)
ACTIVATE(n__s(X)) → S(activate(X))
SPLITAT(s(N), cons(X, XS)) → ACTIVATE(XS)
ACTIVATE(n__s(X)) → ACTIVATE(X)
TAKE(N, XS) → SPLITAT(N, XS)
SPLITAT(s(N), cons(X, XS)) → U(splitAt(N, activate(XS)), N, X, activate(XS))
ACTIVATE(n__natsFrom(X)) → ACTIVATE(X)
AFTERNTH(N, XS) → SND(splitAt(N, XS))
SPLITAT(s(N), cons(X, XS)) → SPLITAT(N, activate(XS))
U(pair(YS, ZS), N, X, XS) → ACTIVATE(X)
TAIL(cons(N, XS)) → ACTIVATE(XS)
SEL(N, XS) → HEAD(afterNth(N, XS))
TAKE(N, XS) → FST(splitAt(N, XS))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

natsFrom(N) → cons(N, n__natsFrom(n__s(N)))
fst(pair(XS, YS)) → XS
snd(pair(XS, YS)) → YS
splitAt(0, XS) → pair(nil, XS)
splitAt(s(N), cons(X, XS)) → u(splitAt(N, activate(XS)), N, X, activate(XS))
u(pair(YS, ZS), N, X, XS) → pair(cons(activate(X), YS), ZS)
head(cons(N, XS)) → N
tail(cons(N, XS)) → activate(XS)
sel(N, XS) → head(afterNth(N, XS))
take(N, XS) → fst(splitAt(N, XS))
afterNth(N, XS) → snd(splitAt(N, XS))
natsFrom(X) → n__natsFrom(X)
s(X) → n__s(X)
activate(n__natsFrom(X)) → natsFrom(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 2 SCCs with 12 less nodes.

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ QDPOrderProof

          ↳ QDP

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

ACTIVATE(n__natsFrom(X)) → ACTIVATE(X)
ACTIVATE(n__s(X)) → ACTIVATE(X)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

natsFrom(N) → cons(N, n__natsFrom(n__s(N)))
fst(pair(XS, YS)) → XS
snd(pair(XS, YS)) → YS
splitAt(0, XS) → pair(nil, XS)
splitAt(s(N), cons(X, XS)) → u(splitAt(N, activate(XS)), N, X, activate(XS))
u(pair(YS, ZS), N, X, XS) → pair(cons(activate(X), YS), ZS)
head(cons(N, XS)) → N
tail(cons(N, XS)) → activate(XS)
sel(N, XS) → head(afterNth(N, XS))
take(N, XS) → fst(splitAt(N, XS))
afterNth(N, XS) → snd(splitAt(N, XS))
natsFrom(X) → n__natsFrom(X)
s(X) → n__s(X)
activate(n__natsFrom(X)) → natsFrom(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__natsFrom(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__natsFrom(x₁)) = 4 + (4)x_1
POL(n__s(x₁)) = 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

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

natsFrom(N) → cons(N, n__natsFrom(n__s(N)))
fst(pair(XS, YS)) → XS
snd(pair(XS, YS)) → YS
splitAt(0, XS) → pair(nil, XS)
splitAt(s(N), cons(X, XS)) → u(splitAt(N, activate(XS)), N, X, activate(XS))
u(pair(YS, ZS), N, X, XS) → pair(cons(activate(X), YS), ZS)
head(cons(N, XS)) → N
tail(cons(N, XS)) → activate(XS)
sel(N, XS) → head(afterNth(N, XS))
take(N, XS) → fst(splitAt(N, XS))
afterNth(N, XS) → snd(splitAt(N, XS))
natsFrom(X) → n__natsFrom(X)
s(X) → n__s(X)
activate(n__natsFrom(X)) → natsFrom(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

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

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

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

natsFrom(N) → cons(N, n__natsFrom(n__s(N)))
fst(pair(XS, YS)) → XS
snd(pair(XS, YS)) → YS
splitAt(0, XS) → pair(nil, XS)
splitAt(s(N), cons(X, XS)) → u(splitAt(N, activate(XS)), N, X, activate(XS))
u(pair(YS, ZS), N, X, XS) → pair(cons(activate(X), YS), ZS)
head(cons(N, XS)) → N
tail(cons(N, XS)) → activate(XS)
sel(N, XS) → head(afterNth(N, XS))
take(N, XS) → fst(splitAt(N, XS))
afterNth(N, XS) → snd(splitAt(N, XS))
natsFrom(X) → n__natsFrom(X)
s(X) → n__s(X)
activate(n__natsFrom(X)) → natsFrom(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.

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

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

POL(cons(x₁, x₂)) = 1 + x_1
POL(SPLITAT(x₁, x₂)) = (2)x_1
POL(n__natsFrom(x₁)) = x_1
POL(s(x₁)) = 3 + (4)x_1
POL(activate(x₁)) = 2 + x_1
POL(n__s(x₁)) = 4 + (2)x_1
POL(natsFrom(x₁)) = 3 + x_1

The value of delta used in the strict ordering is 6.
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:

natsFrom(N) → cons(N, n__natsFrom(n__s(N)))
fst(pair(XS, YS)) → XS
snd(pair(XS, YS)) → YS
splitAt(0, XS) → pair(nil, XS)
splitAt(s(N), cons(X, XS)) → u(splitAt(N, activate(XS)), N, X, activate(XS))
u(pair(YS, ZS), N, X, XS) → pair(cons(activate(X), YS), ZS)
head(cons(N, XS)) → N
tail(cons(N, XS)) → activate(XS)
sel(N, XS) → head(afterNth(N, XS))
take(N, XS) → fst(splitAt(N, XS))
afterNth(N, XS) → snd(splitAt(N, XS))
natsFrom(X) → n__natsFrom(X)
s(X) → n__s(X)
activate(n__natsFrom(X)) → natsFrom(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.