Termination w.r.t. Q proof of /tmp/tmpQxxx1k/#4.26.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:

p(0) → 0
p(s(x)) → x
le(0, y) → true
le(s(x), 0) → false
le(s(x), s(y)) → le(x, y)
minus(x, y) → if(le(x, y), x, y)
if(true, x, y) → 0
if(false, x, y) → s(minus(p(x), y))

Q is empty.

↳ QTRS

  ↳ Overlay + Local Confluence

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

p(0) → 0
p(s(x)) → x
le(0, y) → true
le(s(x), 0) → false
le(s(x), s(y)) → le(x, y)
minus(x, y) → if(le(x, y), x, y)
if(true, x, y) → 0
if(false, x, y) → s(minus(p(x), y))

Q is empty.

The TRS is overlay and locally confluent. By [19] we can switch to innermost.

↳ QTRS

  ↳ Overlay + Local Confluence

    ↳ QTRS

      ↳ DependencyPairsProof

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

p(0) → 0
p(s(x)) → x
le(0, y) → true
le(s(x), 0) → false
le(s(x), s(y)) → le(x, y)
minus(x, y) → if(le(x, y), x, y)
if(true, x, y) → 0
if(false, x, y) → s(minus(p(x), y))

The set Q consists of the following terms:

p(0)
p(s(x0))
le(0, x0)
le(s(x0), 0)
le(s(x0), s(x1))
minus(x0, x1)
if(true, x0, x1)
if(false, x0, x1)

Using Dependency Pairs [1,15] we result in the following initial DP problem:
Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:

IF(false, x, y) → P(x)
MINUS(x, y) → LE(x, y)
IF(false, x, y) → MINUS(p(x), y)
MINUS(x, y) → IF(le(x, y), x, y)
LE(s(x), s(y)) → LE(x, y)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

p(0) → 0
p(s(x)) → x
le(0, y) → true
le(s(x), 0) → false
le(s(x), s(y)) → le(x, y)
minus(x, y) → if(le(x, y), x, y)
if(true, x, y) → 0
if(false, x, y) → s(minus(p(x), y))

The set Q consists of the following terms:

p(0)
p(s(x0))
le(0, x0)
le(s(x0), 0)
le(s(x0), s(x1))
minus(x0, x1)
if(true, x0, x1)
if(false, x0, x1)

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

↳ QTRS

  ↳ Overlay + Local Confluence

    ↳ QTRS

      ↳ DependencyPairsProof

        ↳ QDP

          ↳ DependencyGraphProof

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

IF(false, x, y) → P(x)
MINUS(x, y) → LE(x, y)
IF(false, x, y) → MINUS(p(x), y)
MINUS(x, y) → IF(le(x, y), x, y)
LE(s(x), s(y)) → LE(x, y)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

p(0) → 0
p(s(x)) → x
le(0, y) → true
le(s(x), 0) → false
le(s(x), s(y)) → le(x, y)
minus(x, y) → if(le(x, y), x, y)
if(true, x, y) → 0
if(false, x, y) → s(minus(p(x), y))

The set Q consists of the following terms:

p(0)
p(s(x0))
le(0, x0)
le(s(x0), 0)
le(s(x0), s(x1))
minus(x0, x1)
if(true, x0, x1)
if(false, x0, x1)

We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
The approximation of the Dependency Graph [15,17,22] contains 2 SCCs with 2 less nodes.

↳ QTRS

  ↳ Overlay + Local Confluence

    ↳ QTRS

      ↳ DependencyPairsProof

        ↳ QDP

          ↳ DependencyGraphProof

            ↳ AND

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ UsableRulesProof

              ↳ QDP

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

LE(s(x), s(y)) → LE(x, y)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

p(0) → 0
p(s(x)) → x
le(0, y) → true
le(s(x), 0) → false
le(s(x), s(y)) → le(x, y)
minus(x, y) → if(le(x, y), x, y)
if(true, x, y) → 0
if(false, x, y) → s(minus(p(x), y))

The set Q consists of the following terms:

p(0)
p(s(x0))
le(0, x0)
le(s(x0), 0)
le(s(x0), s(x1))
minus(x0, x1)
if(true, x0, x1)
if(false, x0, x1)

We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
As all Q-normal forms are R-normal forms we are in the innermost case. Hence, by the usable rules processor [15] we can delete all non-usable rules [17] from R.

↳ QTRS

  ↳ Overlay + Local Confluence

    ↳ QTRS

      ↳ DependencyPairsProof

        ↳ QDP

          ↳ DependencyGraphProof

            ↳ AND

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ UsableRulesProof

                  ↳ QDP

                    ↳ QReductionProof

              ↳ QDP

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

LE(s(x), s(y)) → LE(x, y)

R is empty.
The set Q consists of the following terms:

p(0)
p(s(x0))
le(0, x0)
le(s(x0), 0)
le(s(x0), s(x1))
minus(x0, x1)
if(true, x0, x1)
if(false, x0, x1)

We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
We deleted the following terms from Q as each root-symbol of these terms does neither occur in P nor in R.

p(0)
p(s(x0))
le(0, x0)
le(s(x0), 0)
le(s(x0), s(x1))
minus(x0, x1)
if(true, x0, x1)
if(false, x0, x1)

↳ QTRS

  ↳ Overlay + Local Confluence

    ↳ QTRS

      ↳ DependencyPairsProof

        ↳ QDP

          ↳ DependencyGraphProof

            ↳ AND

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ UsableRulesProof

                  ↳ QDP

                    ↳ QReductionProof

                      ↳ QDP

                        ↳ QDPSizeChangeProof

              ↳ QDP

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

LE(s(x), s(y)) → LE(x, y)

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:

LE(s(x), s(y)) → LE(x, y)
The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1, 2 > 2

↳ QTRS

  ↳ Overlay + Local Confluence

    ↳ QTRS

      ↳ DependencyPairsProof

        ↳ QDP

          ↳ DependencyGraphProof

            ↳ AND

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ UsableRulesProof

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

IF(false, x, y) → MINUS(p(x), y)
MINUS(x, y) → IF(le(x, y), x, y)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

p(0) → 0
p(s(x)) → x
le(0, y) → true
le(s(x), 0) → false
le(s(x), s(y)) → le(x, y)
minus(x, y) → if(le(x, y), x, y)
if(true, x, y) → 0
if(false, x, y) → s(minus(p(x), y))

The set Q consists of the following terms:

p(0)
p(s(x0))
le(0, x0)
le(s(x0), 0)
le(s(x0), s(x1))
minus(x0, x1)
if(true, x0, x1)
if(false, x0, x1)

↳ QTRS

  ↳ Overlay + Local Confluence

    ↳ QTRS

      ↳ DependencyPairsProof

        ↳ QDP

          ↳ DependencyGraphProof

            ↳ AND

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ UsableRulesProof

                  ↳ QDP

                    ↳ QReductionProof

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

IF(false, x, y) → MINUS(p(x), y)
MINUS(x, y) → IF(le(x, y), x, y)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

le(0, y) → true
le(s(x), 0) → false
le(s(x), s(y)) → le(x, y)
p(0) → 0
p(s(x)) → x

The set Q consists of the following terms:

p(0)
p(s(x0))
le(0, x0)
le(s(x0), 0)
le(s(x0), s(x1))
minus(x0, x1)
if(true, x0, x1)
if(false, x0, x1)

We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
We deleted the following terms from Q as each root-symbol of these terms does neither occur in P nor in R.

minus(x0, x1)
if(true, x0, x1)
if(false, x0, x1)

↳ QTRS

  ↳ Overlay + Local Confluence

    ↳ QTRS

      ↳ DependencyPairsProof

        ↳ QDP

          ↳ DependencyGraphProof

            ↳ AND

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ UsableRulesProof

                  ↳ QDP

                    ↳ QReductionProof

                      ↳ QDP

                        ↳ QDPOrderProof

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

IF(false, x, y) → MINUS(p(x), y)
MINUS(x, y) → IF(le(x, y), x, y)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

le(0, y) → true
le(s(x), 0) → false
le(s(x), s(y)) → le(x, y)
p(0) → 0
p(s(x)) → x

The set Q consists of the following terms:

p(0)
p(s(x0))
le(0, x0)
le(s(x0), 0)
le(s(x0), s(x1))

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.

IF(false, x, y) → MINUS(p(x), y)
MINUS(x, y) → IF(le(x, y), x, y)

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

POL(le(x₁, x₂)) = 5/2 + (5/4)x_1
POL(true) = 5/4
POL(false) = 11/4
POL(MINUS(x₁, x₂)) = 11/4 + (4)x_1 + (1/2)x_2
POL(p(x₁)) = (1/4)x_1
POL(s(x₁)) = 15/4 + (4)x_1
POL(IF(x₁, x₂, x₃)) = 3/4 + (3/4)x_1 + (5/2)x_2 + (1/2)x_3
POL(0) = 0

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

p(s(x)) → x
le(s(x), s(y)) → le(x, y)
p(0) → 0
le(s(x), 0) → false
le(0, y) → true

↳ QTRS

  ↳ Overlay + Local Confluence

    ↳ QTRS

      ↳ DependencyPairsProof

        ↳ QDP

          ↳ DependencyGraphProof

            ↳ AND

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ UsableRulesProof

                  ↳ QDP

                    ↳ QReductionProof

                      ↳ QDP

                        ↳ QDPOrderProof

                          ↳ QDP

                            ↳ PisEmptyProof

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

le(0, y) → true
le(s(x), 0) → false
le(s(x), s(y)) → le(x, y)
p(0) → 0
p(s(x)) → x

The set Q consists of the following terms:

p(0)
p(s(x0))
le(0, x0)
le(s(x0), 0)
le(s(x0), s(x1))

We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
The TRS P is empty. Hence, there is no (P,Q,R) chain.