Termination w.r.t. Q proof of /tmp/tmpeITJcW/ExIntrod

Termination w.r.t. Q of the following Term Rewriting System could not be shown:

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

incr(nil) → nil
incr(cons(X, L)) → cons(s(X), incr(L))
adx(nil) → nil
adx(cons(X, L)) → incr(cons(X, adx(L)))
nats → adx(zeros)
zeros → cons(0, zeros)
head(cons(X, L)) → X
tail(cons(X, L)) → L

Q is empty.

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

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

incr(nil) → nil
incr(cons(X, L)) → cons(s(X), incr(L))
adx(nil) → nil
adx(cons(X, L)) → incr(cons(X, adx(L)))
nats → adx(zeros)
zeros → cons(0, zeros)
head(cons(X, L)) → X
tail(cons(X, L)) → L

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:

ZEROS → ZEROS
ADX(cons(X, L)) → ADX(L)
NATS → ZEROS
ADX(cons(X, L)) → INCR(cons(X, adx(L)))
NATS → ADX(zeros)
INCR(cons(X, L)) → INCR(L)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

incr(nil) → nil
incr(cons(X, L)) → cons(s(X), incr(L))
adx(nil) → nil
adx(cons(X, L)) → incr(cons(X, adx(L)))
nats → adx(zeros)
zeros → cons(0, zeros)
head(cons(X, L)) → X
tail(cons(X, L)) → L

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:

ZEROS → ZEROS
ADX(cons(X, L)) → ADX(L)
NATS → ZEROS
ADX(cons(X, L)) → INCR(cons(X, adx(L)))
NATS → ADX(zeros)
INCR(cons(X, L)) → INCR(L)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

incr(nil) → nil
incr(cons(X, L)) → cons(s(X), incr(L))
adx(nil) → nil
adx(cons(X, L)) → incr(cons(X, adx(L)))
nats → adx(zeros)
zeros → cons(0, zeros)
head(cons(X, L)) → X
tail(cons(X, L)) → L

Q is empty.
We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
The approximation of the Dependency Graph [15,17,22] contains 3 SCCs with 3 less nodes.

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

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

ZEROS → ZEROS

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

incr(nil) → nil
incr(cons(X, L)) → cons(s(X), incr(L))
adx(nil) → nil
adx(cons(X, L)) → incr(cons(X, adx(L)))
nats → adx(zeros)
zeros → cons(0, zeros)
head(cons(X, L)) → X
tail(cons(X, L)) → L

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

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ QDPOrderProof

          ↳ QDP

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

INCR(cons(X, L)) → INCR(L)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

incr(nil) → nil
incr(cons(X, L)) → cons(s(X), incr(L))
adx(nil) → nil
adx(cons(X, L)) → incr(cons(X, adx(L)))
nats → adx(zeros)
zeros → cons(0, zeros)
head(cons(X, L)) → X
tail(cons(X, L)) → L

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.

INCR(cons(X, L)) → INCR(L)

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(INCR(x₁)) = (4)x_1

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

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ QDPOrderProof

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ PisEmptyProof

          ↳ QDP

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

incr(nil) → nil
incr(cons(X, L)) → cons(s(X), incr(L))
adx(nil) → nil
adx(cons(X, L)) → incr(cons(X, adx(L)))
nats → adx(zeros)
zeros → cons(0, zeros)
head(cons(X, L)) → X
tail(cons(X, L)) → L

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

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ QDPOrderProof

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

ADX(cons(X, L)) → ADX(L)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

incr(nil) → nil
incr(cons(X, L)) → cons(s(X), incr(L))
adx(nil) → nil
adx(cons(X, L)) → incr(cons(X, adx(L)))
nats → adx(zeros)
zeros → cons(0, zeros)
head(cons(X, L)) → X
tail(cons(X, L)) → L

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.

ADX(cons(X, L)) → ADX(L)

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

POL(cons(x₁, x₂)) = 1/4 + (4)x_2
POL(ADX(x₁)) = (4)x_1

The value of delta used in the strict ordering is 1.
The following usable rules [17] were oriented: none

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ QDPOrderProof

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ PisEmptyProof

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

incr(nil) → nil
incr(cons(X, L)) → cons(s(X), incr(L))
adx(nil) → nil
adx(cons(X, L)) → incr(cons(X, adx(L)))
nats → adx(zeros)
zeros → cons(0, zeros)
head(cons(X, L)) → X
tail(cons(X, L)) → L

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.