Termination w.r.t. Q proof of /tmp/aprove_benchmark_example

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:

app(g, app(h, app(g, x))) → app(g, x)
app(g, app(g, x)) → app(g, app(h, app(g, x)))
app(h, app(h, x)) → app(h, app(app(f, app(h, x)), x))
app(app(map, fun), nil) → nil
app(app(map, fun), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → app(app(cons, app(fun, x)), app(app(map, fun), xs))
app(app(filter, fun), nil) → nil
app(app(filter, fun), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → app(app(app(app(filter2, app(fun, x)), fun), x), xs)
app(app(app(app(filter2, true), fun), x), xs) → app(app(cons, x), app(app(filter, fun), xs))
app(app(app(app(filter2, false), fun), x), xs) → app(app(filter, fun), xs)

Q is empty.

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

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

app(g, app(h, app(g, x))) → app(g, x)
app(g, app(g, x)) → app(g, app(h, app(g, x)))
app(h, app(h, x)) → app(h, app(app(f, app(h, x)), x))
app(app(map, fun), nil) → nil
app(app(map, fun), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → app(app(cons, app(fun, x)), app(app(map, fun), xs))
app(app(filter, fun), nil) → nil
app(app(filter, fun), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → app(app(app(app(filter2, app(fun, x)), fun), x), xs)
app(app(app(app(filter2, true), fun), x), xs) → app(app(cons, x), app(app(filter, fun), xs))
app(app(app(app(filter2, false), fun), x), xs) → app(app(filter, fun), xs)

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:

APP(app(app(app(filter2, false), fun), x), xs) → APP(filter, fun)
APP(h, app(h, x)) → APP(app(f, app(h, x)), x)
APP(app(filter, fun), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → APP(app(filter2, app(fun, x)), fun)
APP(app(filter, fun), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → APP(fun, x)
APP(app(filter, fun), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → APP(app(app(filter2, app(fun, x)), fun), x)
APP(app(filter, fun), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → APP(app(app(app(filter2, app(fun, x)), fun), x), xs)
APP(app(map, fun), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → APP(fun, x)
APP(h, app(h, x)) → APP(f, app(h, x))
APP(app(map, fun), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → APP(app(map, fun), xs)
APP(app(app(app(filter2, true), fun), x), xs) → APP(cons, x)
APP(app(filter, fun), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → APP(filter2, app(fun, x))
APP(app(app(app(filter2, false), fun), x), xs) → APP(app(filter, fun), xs)
APP(app(app(app(filter2, true), fun), x), xs) → APP(app(filter, fun), xs)
APP(app(map, fun), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → APP(cons, app(fun, x))
APP(app(app(app(filter2, true), fun), x), xs) → APP(filter, fun)
APP(g, app(g, x)) → APP(h, app(g, x))
APP(g, app(g, x)) → APP(g, app(h, app(g, x)))
APP(app(app(app(filter2, true), fun), x), xs) → APP(app(cons, x), app(app(filter, fun), xs))
APP(h, app(h, x)) → APP(h, app(app(f, app(h, x)), x))
APP(app(map, fun), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → APP(app(cons, app(fun, x)), app(app(map, fun), xs))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

app(g, app(h, app(g, x))) → app(g, x)
app(g, app(g, x)) → app(g, app(h, app(g, x)))
app(h, app(h, x)) → app(h, app(app(f, app(h, x)), x))
app(app(map, fun), nil) → nil
app(app(map, fun), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → app(app(cons, app(fun, x)), app(app(map, fun), xs))
app(app(filter, fun), nil) → nil
app(app(filter, fun), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → app(app(app(app(filter2, app(fun, x)), fun), x), xs)
app(app(app(app(filter2, true), fun), x), xs) → app(app(cons, x), app(app(filter, fun), xs))
app(app(app(app(filter2, false), fun), x), xs) → app(app(filter, fun), xs)

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:

APP(app(app(app(filter2, false), fun), x), xs) → APP(filter, fun)
APP(h, app(h, x)) → APP(app(f, app(h, x)), x)
APP(app(filter, fun), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → APP(app(filter2, app(fun, x)), fun)
APP(app(filter, fun), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → APP(fun, x)
APP(app(filter, fun), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → APP(app(app(filter2, app(fun, x)), fun), x)
APP(app(filter, fun), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → APP(app(app(app(filter2, app(fun, x)), fun), x), xs)
APP(app(map, fun), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → APP(fun, x)
APP(h, app(h, x)) → APP(f, app(h, x))
APP(app(map, fun), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → APP(app(map, fun), xs)
APP(app(app(app(filter2, true), fun), x), xs) → APP(cons, x)
APP(app(filter, fun), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → APP(filter2, app(fun, x))
APP(app(app(app(filter2, false), fun), x), xs) → APP(app(filter, fun), xs)
APP(app(app(app(filter2, true), fun), x), xs) → APP(app(filter, fun), xs)
APP(app(map, fun), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → APP(cons, app(fun, x))
APP(app(app(app(filter2, true), fun), x), xs) → APP(filter, fun)
APP(g, app(g, x)) → APP(h, app(g, x))
APP(g, app(g, x)) → APP(g, app(h, app(g, x)))
APP(app(app(app(filter2, true), fun), x), xs) → APP(app(cons, x), app(app(filter, fun), xs))
APP(h, app(h, x)) → APP(h, app(app(f, app(h, x)), x))
APP(app(map, fun), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → APP(app(cons, app(fun, x)), app(app(map, fun), xs))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

app(g, app(h, app(g, x))) → app(g, x)
app(g, app(g, x)) → app(g, app(h, app(g, x)))
app(h, app(h, x)) → app(h, app(app(f, app(h, x)), x))
app(app(map, fun), nil) → nil
app(app(map, fun), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → app(app(cons, app(fun, x)), app(app(map, fun), xs))
app(app(filter, fun), nil) → nil
app(app(filter, fun), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → app(app(app(app(filter2, app(fun, x)), fun), x), xs)
app(app(app(app(filter2, true), fun), x), xs) → app(app(cons, x), app(app(filter, fun), xs))
app(app(app(app(filter2, false), fun), x), xs) → app(app(filter, fun), xs)

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 14 less nodes.

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ QDPApplicativeOrderProof

          ↳ QDP

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

APP(g, app(g, x)) → APP(g, app(h, app(g, x)))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

app(g, app(h, app(g, x))) → app(g, x)
app(g, app(g, x)) → app(g, app(h, app(g, x)))
app(h, app(h, x)) → app(h, app(app(f, app(h, x)), x))
app(app(map, fun), nil) → nil
app(app(map, fun), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → app(app(cons, app(fun, x)), app(app(map, fun), xs))
app(app(filter, fun), nil) → nil
app(app(filter, fun), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → app(app(app(app(filter2, app(fun, x)), fun), x), xs)
app(app(app(app(filter2, true), fun), x), xs) → app(app(cons, x), app(app(filter, fun), xs))
app(app(app(app(filter2, false), fun), x), xs) → app(app(filter, fun), xs)

Q is empty.
We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
We use the reduction pair processor [15].Here, we combined the reduction pair processor with the A-transformation [17] which results in the following intermediate Q-DP Problem.
The a-transformed P is

g1(g(x)) → g1(h(g(x)))

The a-transformed usable rules are

g(h(g(x))) → g(x)
h(h(x)) → h(f(h(x), x))
g(g(x)) → g(h(g(x)))

The following pairs can be oriented strictly and are deleted.

APP(g, app(g, x)) → APP(g, app(h, app(g, x)))

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

POL(f(x₁, x₂)) = 0
POL(g(x₁)) = 1
POL(g1(x₁)) = x₁
POL(h(x₁)) = 0

The following usable rules [17] were oriented:

app(g, app(h, app(g, x))) → app(g, x)
app(h, app(h, x)) → app(h, app(app(f, app(h, x)), x))
app(g, app(g, x)) → app(g, app(h, app(g, x)))

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ QDPApplicativeOrderProof

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ PisEmptyProof

          ↳ QDP

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

app(g, app(h, app(g, x))) → app(g, x)
app(g, app(g, x)) → app(g, app(h, app(g, x)))
app(h, app(h, x)) → app(h, app(app(f, app(h, x)), x))
app(app(map, fun), nil) → nil
app(app(map, fun), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → app(app(cons, app(fun, x)), app(app(map, fun), xs))
app(app(filter, fun), nil) → nil
app(app(filter, fun), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → app(app(app(app(filter2, app(fun, x)), fun), x), xs)
app(app(app(app(filter2, true), fun), x), xs) → app(app(cons, x), app(app(filter, fun), xs))
app(app(app(app(filter2, false), fun), x), xs) → app(app(filter, fun), xs)

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

            ↳ UsableRulesProof

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

APP(app(filter, fun), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → APP(fun, x)
APP(app(app(app(filter2, false), fun), x), xs) → APP(app(filter, fun), xs)
APP(app(app(app(filter2, true), fun), x), xs) → APP(app(filter, fun), xs)
APP(app(map, fun), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → APP(fun, x)
APP(app(map, fun), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → APP(app(map, fun), xs)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

app(g, app(h, app(g, x))) → app(g, x)
app(g, app(g, x)) → app(g, app(h, app(g, x)))
app(h, app(h, x)) → app(h, app(app(f, app(h, x)), x))
app(app(map, fun), nil) → nil
app(app(map, fun), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → app(app(cons, app(fun, x)), app(app(map, fun), xs))
app(app(filter, fun), nil) → nil
app(app(filter, fun), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → app(app(app(app(filter2, app(fun, x)), fun), x), xs)
app(app(app(app(filter2, true), fun), x), xs) → app(app(cons, x), app(app(filter, fun), xs))
app(app(app(app(filter2, false), fun), x), xs) → app(app(filter, fun), xs)

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

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ QDPSizeChangeProof

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

APP(app(filter, fun), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → APP(fun, x)
APP(app(app(app(filter2, true), fun), x), xs) → APP(app(filter, fun), xs)
APP(app(app(app(filter2, false), fun), x), xs) → APP(app(filter, fun), xs)
APP(app(map, fun), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → APP(fun, x)
APP(app(map, fun), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → APP(app(map, fun), xs)

R is empty.
Q is empty.
We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
By using the subterm criterion [20] together with the size-change analysis [32] we have proven that there are no infinite chains for this DP problem.

From the DPs we obtained the following set of size-change graphs:

APP(app(map, fun), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → APP(app(map, fun), xs)
The graph contains the following edges 1 >= 1, 2 > 2
APP(app(filter, fun), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → APP(fun, x)
The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1, 2 > 2
APP(app(map, fun), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → APP(fun, x)
The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1, 2 > 2
APP(app(app(app(filter2, false), fun), x), xs) → APP(app(filter, fun), xs)
The graph contains the following edges 2 >= 2
APP(app(app(app(filter2, true), fun), x), xs) → APP(app(filter, fun), xs)
The graph contains the following edges 2 >= 2