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:

sum(cons(s(n), x), cons(m, y)) → sum(cons(n, x), cons(s(m), y))
sum(cons(0, x), y) → sum(x, y)
sum(nil, y) → y
weight(cons(n, cons(m, x))) → weight(sum(cons(n, cons(m, x)), cons(0, x)))
weight(cons(n, nil)) → n

Q is empty.


↳ QTRS
  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

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

sum(cons(s(n), x), cons(m, y)) → sum(cons(n, x), cons(s(m), y))
sum(cons(0, x), y) → sum(x, y)
sum(nil, y) → y
weight(cons(n, cons(m, x))) → weight(sum(cons(n, cons(m, x)), cons(0, x)))
weight(cons(n, nil)) → n

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:

WEIGHT(cons(n, cons(m, x))) → WEIGHT(sum(cons(n, cons(m, x)), cons(0, x)))
SUM(cons(0, x), y) → SUM(x, y)
SUM(cons(s(n), x), cons(m, y)) → SUM(cons(n, x), cons(s(m), y))
WEIGHT(cons(n, cons(m, x))) → SUM(cons(n, cons(m, x)), cons(0, x))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

sum(cons(s(n), x), cons(m, y)) → sum(cons(n, x), cons(s(m), y))
sum(cons(0, x), y) → sum(x, y)
sum(nil, y) → y
weight(cons(n, cons(m, x))) → weight(sum(cons(n, cons(m, x)), cons(0, x)))
weight(cons(n, nil)) → n

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:

WEIGHT(cons(n, cons(m, x))) → WEIGHT(sum(cons(n, cons(m, x)), cons(0, x)))
SUM(cons(0, x), y) → SUM(x, y)
SUM(cons(s(n), x), cons(m, y)) → SUM(cons(n, x), cons(s(m), y))
WEIGHT(cons(n, cons(m, x))) → SUM(cons(n, cons(m, x)), cons(0, x))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

sum(cons(s(n), x), cons(m, y)) → sum(cons(n, x), cons(s(m), y))
sum(cons(0, x), y) → sum(x, y)
sum(nil, y) → y
weight(cons(n, cons(m, x))) → weight(sum(cons(n, cons(m, x)), cons(0, x)))
weight(cons(n, nil)) → n

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 1 less node.

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

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

SUM(cons(0, x), y) → SUM(x, y)
SUM(cons(s(n), x), cons(m, y)) → SUM(cons(n, x), cons(s(m), y))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

sum(cons(s(n), x), cons(m, y)) → sum(cons(n, x), cons(s(m), y))
sum(cons(0, x), y) → sum(x, y)
sum(nil, y) → y
weight(cons(n, cons(m, x))) → weight(sum(cons(n, cons(m, x)), cons(0, x)))
weight(cons(n, nil)) → n

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.


SUM(cons(0, x), y) → SUM(x, y)
The remaining pairs can at least be oriented weakly.

SUM(cons(s(n), x), cons(m, y)) → SUM(cons(n, x), cons(s(m), y))
Used ordering: Polynomial interpretation [25,35]:

POL(cons(x1, x2)) = 4 + x_2   
POL(SUM(x1, x2)) = (2)x_1 + (11/4)x_2   
POL(s(x1)) = 3 + (3)x_1   
POL(0) = 3/4   
The value of delta used in the strict ordering is 8.
The following usable rules [17] were oriented: none



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

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

SUM(cons(s(n), x), cons(m, y)) → SUM(cons(n, x), cons(s(m), y))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

sum(cons(s(n), x), cons(m, y)) → sum(cons(n, x), cons(s(m), y))
sum(cons(0, x), y) → sum(x, y)
sum(nil, y) → y
weight(cons(n, cons(m, x))) → weight(sum(cons(n, cons(m, x)), cons(0, x)))
weight(cons(n, nil)) → n

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.


SUM(cons(s(n), x), cons(m, y)) → SUM(cons(n, x), cons(s(m), y))
The remaining pairs can at least be oriented weakly.
none
Used ordering: Polynomial interpretation [25,35]:

POL(cons(x1, x2)) = (4)x_1   
POL(SUM(x1, x2)) = (2)x_1   
POL(s(x1)) = 1/4 + (2)x_1   
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
                ↳ QDPOrderProof
                  ↳ QDP
                    ↳ PisEmptyProof
          ↳ QDP

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

sum(cons(s(n), x), cons(m, y)) → sum(cons(n, x), cons(s(m), y))
sum(cons(0, x), y) → sum(x, y)
sum(nil, y) → y
weight(cons(n, cons(m, x))) → weight(sum(cons(n, cons(m, x)), cons(0, x)))
weight(cons(n, nil)) → n

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:

WEIGHT(cons(n, cons(m, x))) → WEIGHT(sum(cons(n, cons(m, x)), cons(0, x)))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

sum(cons(s(n), x), cons(m, y)) → sum(cons(n, x), cons(s(m), y))
sum(cons(0, x), y) → sum(x, y)
sum(nil, y) → y
weight(cons(n, cons(m, x))) → weight(sum(cons(n, cons(m, x)), cons(0, x)))
weight(cons(n, nil)) → n

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.


WEIGHT(cons(n, cons(m, x))) → WEIGHT(sum(cons(n, cons(m, x)), cons(0, x)))
The remaining pairs can at least be oriented weakly.
none
Used ordering: Polynomial interpretation [25,35]:

POL(cons(x1, x2)) = 2 + (4)x_2   
POL(WEIGHT(x1)) = (4)x_1   
POL(sum(x1, x2)) = 1/2 + (1/4)x_1 + (5/4)x_2   
POL(s(x1)) = 4 + (4)x_1   
POL(0) = 1/4   
POL(nil) = 0   
The value of delta used in the strict ordering is 18.
The following usable rules [17] were oriented:

sum(cons(0, x), y) → sum(x, y)
sum(cons(s(n), x), cons(m, y)) → sum(cons(n, x), cons(s(m), y))
sum(nil, y) → y



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

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

sum(cons(s(n), x), cons(m, y)) → sum(cons(n, x), cons(s(m), y))
sum(cons(0, x), y) → sum(x, y)
sum(nil, y) → y
weight(cons(n, cons(m, x))) → weight(sum(cons(n, cons(m, x)), cons(0, x)))
weight(cons(n, nil)) → n

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.