Termination w.r.t. Q proof of /tmp/tmpY0jBS-/027.trs

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(app(plus, 0), y) → y
app(app(plus, app(s, x)), y) → app(s, app(app(plus, x), y))
app(inc, xs) → app(app(map, app(plus, app(s, 0))), xs)
app(app(map, f), nil) → nil
app(app(map, f), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → app(app(cons, app(f, x)), app(app(map, f), xs))

Q is empty.

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

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

app(app(plus, 0), y) → y
app(app(plus, app(s, x)), y) → app(s, app(app(plus, x), y))
app(inc, xs) → app(app(map, app(plus, app(s, 0))), xs)
app(app(map, f), nil) → nil
app(app(map, f), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → app(app(cons, app(f, x)), app(app(map, f), 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(plus, app(s, x)), y) → APP(app(plus, x), y)
APP(inc, xs) → APP(s, 0)
APP(inc, xs) → APP(map, app(plus, app(s, 0)))
APP(app(plus, app(s, x)), y) → APP(s, app(app(plus, x), y))
APP(inc, xs) → APP(app(map, app(plus, app(s, 0))), xs)
APP(app(map, f), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → APP(cons, app(f, x))
APP(app(plus, app(s, x)), y) → APP(plus, x)
APP(inc, xs) → APP(plus, app(s, 0))
APP(app(map, f), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → APP(f, x)
APP(app(map, f), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → APP(app(map, f), xs)
APP(app(map, f), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → APP(app(cons, app(f, x)), app(app(map, f), xs))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

app(app(plus, 0), y) → y
app(app(plus, app(s, x)), y) → app(s, app(app(plus, x), y))
app(inc, xs) → app(app(map, app(plus, app(s, 0))), xs)
app(app(map, f), nil) → nil
app(app(map, f), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → app(app(cons, app(f, x)), app(app(map, f), 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(plus, app(s, x)), y) → APP(app(plus, x), y)
APP(inc, xs) → APP(s, 0)
APP(inc, xs) → APP(map, app(plus, app(s, 0)))
APP(app(plus, app(s, x)), y) → APP(s, app(app(plus, x), y))
APP(inc, xs) → APP(app(map, app(plus, app(s, 0))), xs)
APP(app(map, f), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → APP(cons, app(f, x))
APP(app(plus, app(s, x)), y) → APP(plus, x)
APP(inc, xs) → APP(plus, app(s, 0))
APP(app(map, f), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → APP(f, x)
APP(app(map, f), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → APP(app(map, f), xs)
APP(app(map, f), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → APP(app(cons, app(f, x)), app(app(map, f), xs))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

app(app(plus, 0), y) → y
app(app(plus, app(s, x)), y) → app(s, app(app(plus, x), y))
app(inc, xs) → app(app(map, app(plus, app(s, 0))), xs)
app(app(map, f), nil) → nil
app(app(map, f), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → app(app(cons, app(f, x)), app(app(map, f), 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 7 less nodes.

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ QDPOrderProof

          ↳ QDP

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

APP(app(plus, app(s, x)), y) → APP(app(plus, x), y)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

app(app(plus, 0), y) → y
app(app(plus, app(s, x)), y) → app(s, app(app(plus, x), y))
app(inc, xs) → app(app(map, app(plus, app(s, 0))), xs)
app(app(map, f), nil) → nil
app(app(map, f), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → app(app(cons, app(f, x)), app(app(map, f), xs))

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.

APP(app(plus, app(s, x)), y) → APP(app(plus, x), y)

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

POL(APP(x₁, x₂)) = (2)x_1
POL(plus) = 0
POL(app(x₁, x₂)) = 1 + x_2
POL(s) = 3

The value of delta used in the strict ordering is 2.
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:

app(app(plus, 0), y) → y
app(app(plus, app(s, x)), y) → app(s, app(app(plus, x), y))
app(inc, xs) → app(app(map, app(plus, app(s, 0))), xs)
app(app(map, f), nil) → nil
app(app(map, f), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → app(app(cons, app(f, x)), app(app(map, f), 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

            ↳ QDPOrderProof

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

APP(inc, xs) → APP(app(map, app(plus, app(s, 0))), xs)
APP(app(map, f), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → APP(f, x)
APP(app(map, f), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → APP(app(map, f), xs)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

app(app(plus, 0), y) → y
app(app(plus, app(s, x)), y) → app(s, app(app(plus, x), y))
app(inc, xs) → app(app(map, app(plus, app(s, 0))), xs)
app(app(map, f), nil) → nil
app(app(map, f), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → app(app(cons, app(f, x)), app(app(map, f), xs))

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.

APP(app(map, f), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → APP(f, x)
APP(app(map, f), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → APP(app(map, f), xs)

The remaining pairs can at least be oriented weakly.

APP(inc, xs) → APP(app(map, app(plus, app(s, 0))), xs)

Used ordering: Polynomial interpretation [25,35]:

POL(APP(x₁, x₂)) = (4)x_2
POL(cons) = 2
POL(map) = 1
POL(plus) = 2
POL(inc) = 0
POL(app(x₁, x₂)) = 4 + (4)x_1 + (4)x_2
POL(s) = 2
POL(0) = 0

The value of delta used in the strict ordering is 208.
The following usable rules [17] were oriented: none

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ QDPOrderProof

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ DependencyGraphProof

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

APP(inc, xs) → APP(app(map, app(plus, app(s, 0))), xs)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

app(app(plus, 0), y) → y
app(app(plus, app(s, x)), y) → app(s, app(app(plus, x), y))
app(inc, xs) → app(app(map, app(plus, app(s, 0))), xs)
app(app(map, f), nil) → nil
app(app(map, f), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → app(app(cons, app(f, x)), app(app(map, f), xs))

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.