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:

__(__(X, Y), Z) → __(X, __(Y, Z))
__(X, nil) → X
__(nil, X) → X
U11(tt) → U12(tt)
U12(tt) → tt
isNePal(__(I, __(P, I))) → U11(tt)
activate(X) → X

Q is empty.


↳ QTRS
  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

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

__(__(X, Y), Z) → __(X, __(Y, Z))
__(X, nil) → X
__(nil, X) → X
U11(tt) → U12(tt)
U12(tt) → tt
isNePal(__(I, __(P, I))) → U11(tt)
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:

__1(__(X, Y), Z) → __1(Y, Z)
ISNEPAL(__(I, __(P, I))) → U111(tt)
U111(tt) → U121(tt)
__1(__(X, Y), Z) → __1(X, __(Y, Z))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

__(__(X, Y), Z) → __(X, __(Y, Z))
__(X, nil) → X
__(nil, X) → X
U11(tt) → U12(tt)
U12(tt) → tt
isNePal(__(I, __(P, I))) → U11(tt)
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:

__1(__(X, Y), Z) → __1(Y, Z)
ISNEPAL(__(I, __(P, I))) → U111(tt)
U111(tt) → U121(tt)
__1(__(X, Y), Z) → __1(X, __(Y, Z))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

__(__(X, Y), Z) → __(X, __(Y, Z))
__(X, nil) → X
__(nil, X) → X
U11(tt) → U12(tt)
U12(tt) → tt
isNePal(__(I, __(P, I))) → U11(tt)
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 2 less nodes.

↳ QTRS
  ↳ DependencyPairsProof
    ↳ QDP
      ↳ DependencyGraphProof
        ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDPOrderProof

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

__1(__(X, Y), Z) → __1(Y, Z)
__1(__(X, Y), Z) → __1(X, __(Y, Z))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

__(__(X, Y), Z) → __(X, __(Y, Z))
__(X, nil) → X
__(nil, X) → X
U11(tt) → U12(tt)
U12(tt) → tt
isNePal(__(I, __(P, I))) → U11(tt)
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.


__1(__(X, Y), Z) → __1(Y, Z)
__1(__(X, Y), Z) → __1(X, __(Y, Z))
The remaining pairs can at least be oriented weakly.
none
Used ordering: Polynomial interpretation [25,35]:

POL(__(x1, x2)) = 1/4 + x_1 + (4)x_2   
POL(__1(x1, x2)) = (5/4)x_1   
POL(nil) = 0   
The value of delta used in the strict ordering is 5/16.
The following usable rules [17] were oriented: none



↳ QTRS
  ↳ DependencyPairsProof
    ↳ QDP
      ↳ DependencyGraphProof
        ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDPOrderProof
            ↳ QDP
              ↳ PisEmptyProof

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

__(__(X, Y), Z) → __(X, __(Y, Z))
__(X, nil) → X
__(nil, X) → X
U11(tt) → U12(tt)
U12(tt) → tt
isNePal(__(I, __(P, I))) → U11(tt)
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.