Termination w.r.t. Q proof of /tmp/tmperC33T/OvConsOS_nosorts

Termination w.r.t. Q of the following Term Rewriting System could not be shown:

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

zeros → cons(0, n__zeros)
and(tt, X) → activate(X)
length(nil) → 0
length(cons(N, L)) → s(length(activate(L)))
take(0, IL) → nil
take(s(M), cons(N, IL)) → cons(N, n__take(M, activate(IL)))
zeros → n__zeros
take(X1, X2) → n__take(X1, X2)
activate(n__zeros) → zeros
activate(n__take(X1, X2)) → take(activate(X1), activate(X2))
activate(X) → X

Q is empty.

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

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

zeros → cons(0, n__zeros)
and(tt, X) → activate(X)
length(nil) → 0
length(cons(N, L)) → s(length(activate(L)))
take(0, IL) → nil
take(s(M), cons(N, IL)) → cons(N, n__take(M, activate(IL)))
zeros → n__zeros
take(X1, X2) → n__take(X1, X2)
activate(n__zeros) → zeros
activate(n__take(X1, X2)) → take(activate(X1), activate(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:

LENGTH(cons(N, L)) → LENGTH(activate(L))
LENGTH(cons(N, L)) → ACTIVATE(L)
ACTIVATE(n__take(X1, X2)) → TAKE(activate(X1), activate(X2))
ACTIVATE(n__take(X1, X2)) → ACTIVATE(X1)
AND(tt, X) → ACTIVATE(X)
ACTIVATE(n__take(X1, X2)) → ACTIVATE(X2)
ACTIVATE(n__zeros) → ZEROS
TAKE(s(M), cons(N, IL)) → ACTIVATE(IL)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

zeros → cons(0, n__zeros)
and(tt, X) → activate(X)
length(nil) → 0
length(cons(N, L)) → s(length(activate(L)))
take(0, IL) → nil
take(s(M), cons(N, IL)) → cons(N, n__take(M, activate(IL)))
zeros → n__zeros
take(X1, X2) → n__take(X1, X2)
activate(n__zeros) → zeros
activate(n__take(X1, X2)) → take(activate(X1), activate(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:

LENGTH(cons(N, L)) → LENGTH(activate(L))
LENGTH(cons(N, L)) → ACTIVATE(L)
ACTIVATE(n__take(X1, X2)) → TAKE(activate(X1), activate(X2))
ACTIVATE(n__take(X1, X2)) → ACTIVATE(X1)
AND(tt, X) → ACTIVATE(X)
ACTIVATE(n__take(X1, X2)) → ACTIVATE(X2)
ACTIVATE(n__zeros) → ZEROS
TAKE(s(M), cons(N, IL)) → ACTIVATE(IL)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

zeros → cons(0, n__zeros)
and(tt, X) → activate(X)
length(nil) → 0
length(cons(N, L)) → s(length(activate(L)))
take(0, IL) → nil
take(s(M), cons(N, IL)) → cons(N, n__take(M, activate(IL)))
zeros → n__zeros
take(X1, X2) → n__take(X1, X2)
activate(n__zeros) → zeros
activate(n__take(X1, X2)) → take(activate(X1), activate(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 3 less nodes.

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ QDPOrderProof

          ↳ QDP

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

ACTIVATE(n__take(X1, X2)) → TAKE(activate(X1), activate(X2))
ACTIVATE(n__take(X1, X2)) → ACTIVATE(X1)
ACTIVATE(n__take(X1, X2)) → ACTIVATE(X2)
TAKE(s(M), cons(N, IL)) → ACTIVATE(IL)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

zeros → cons(0, n__zeros)
and(tt, X) → activate(X)
length(nil) → 0
length(cons(N, L)) → s(length(activate(L)))
take(0, IL) → nil
take(s(M), cons(N, IL)) → cons(N, n__take(M, activate(IL)))
zeros → n__zeros
take(X1, X2) → n__take(X1, X2)
activate(n__zeros) → zeros
activate(n__take(X1, X2)) → take(activate(X1), activate(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.

TAKE(s(M), cons(N, IL)) → ACTIVATE(IL)

The remaining pairs can at least be oriented weakly.

ACTIVATE(n__take(X1, X2)) → TAKE(activate(X1), activate(X2))
ACTIVATE(n__take(X1, X2)) → ACTIVATE(X1)
ACTIVATE(n__take(X1, X2)) → ACTIVATE(X2)

Used ordering: Polynomial interpretation [25,35]:

POL(TAKE(x₁, x₂)) = (1/4)x_1 + (1/4)x_2
POL(cons(x₁, x₂)) = (2)x_2
POL(zeros) = 0
POL(n__zeros) = 0
POL(n__take(x₁, x₂)) = (4)x_1 + x_2
POL(activate(x₁)) = x_1
POL(s(x₁)) = 1/4 + (2)x_1
POL(take(x₁, x₂)) = (4)x_1 + x_2
POL(0) = 0
POL(ACTIVATE(x₁)) = (1/4)x_1
POL(nil) = 0

The value of delta used in the strict ordering is 1/16.
The following usable rules [17] were oriented:

activate(n__zeros) → zeros
take(X1, X2) → n__take(X1, X2)
activate(X) → X
activate(n__take(X1, X2)) → take(activate(X1), activate(X2))
zeros → cons(0, n__zeros)
take(0, IL) → nil
take(s(M), cons(N, IL)) → cons(N, n__take(M, activate(IL)))
zeros → n__zeros

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ QDPOrderProof

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ DependencyGraphProof

          ↳ QDP

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

ACTIVATE(n__take(X1, X2)) → TAKE(activate(X1), activate(X2))
ACTIVATE(n__take(X1, X2)) → ACTIVATE(X1)
ACTIVATE(n__take(X1, X2)) → ACTIVATE(X2)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

zeros → cons(0, n__zeros)
and(tt, X) → activate(X)
length(nil) → 0
length(cons(N, L)) → s(length(activate(L)))
take(0, IL) → nil
take(s(M), cons(N, IL)) → cons(N, n__take(M, activate(IL)))
zeros → n__zeros
take(X1, X2) → n__take(X1, X2)
activate(n__zeros) → zeros
activate(n__take(X1, X2)) → take(activate(X1), activate(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 1 SCC with 1 less node.

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ QDPOrderProof

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ DependencyGraphProof

                  ↳ QDP

                    ↳ QDPOrderProof

          ↳ QDP

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

ACTIVATE(n__take(X1, X2)) → ACTIVATE(X1)
ACTIVATE(n__take(X1, X2)) → ACTIVATE(X2)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

zeros → cons(0, n__zeros)
and(tt, X) → activate(X)
length(nil) → 0
length(cons(N, L)) → s(length(activate(L)))
take(0, IL) → nil
take(s(M), cons(N, IL)) → cons(N, n__take(M, activate(IL)))
zeros → n__zeros
take(X1, X2) → n__take(X1, X2)
activate(n__zeros) → zeros
activate(n__take(X1, X2)) → take(activate(X1), activate(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__take(X1, X2)) → ACTIVATE(X1)
ACTIVATE(n__take(X1, X2)) → ACTIVATE(X2)

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

POL(n__take(x₁, x₂)) = 1/4 + (2)x_1 + (2)x_2
POL(ACTIVATE(x₁)) = (1/4)x_1

The value of delta used in the strict ordering is 1/16.
The following usable rules [17] were oriented: none

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ QDPOrderProof

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ DependencyGraphProof

                  ↳ QDP

                    ↳ QDPOrderProof

                      ↳ QDP

                        ↳ PisEmptyProof

          ↳ QDP

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

zeros → cons(0, n__zeros)
and(tt, X) → activate(X)
length(nil) → 0
length(cons(N, L)) → s(length(activate(L)))
take(0, IL) → nil
take(s(M), cons(N, IL)) → cons(N, n__take(M, activate(IL)))
zeros → n__zeros
take(X1, X2) → n__take(X1, X2)
activate(n__zeros) → zeros
activate(n__take(X1, X2)) → take(activate(X1), activate(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

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

LENGTH(cons(N, L)) → LENGTH(activate(L))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

zeros → cons(0, n__zeros)
and(tt, X) → activate(X)
length(nil) → 0
length(cons(N, L)) → s(length(activate(L)))
take(0, IL) → nil
take(s(M), cons(N, IL)) → cons(N, n__take(M, activate(IL)))
zeros → n__zeros
take(X1, X2) → n__take(X1, X2)
activate(n__zeros) → zeros
activate(n__take(X1, X2)) → take(activate(X1), activate(X2))
activate(X) → X

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