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:

-(x, 0) → x
-(s(x), s(y)) → -(x, y)
+(0, y) → y
+(s(x), y) → s(+(x, y))
*(x, 0) → 0
*(x, s(y)) → +(x, *(x, y))
p(s(x)) → x
f(s(x)) → f(-(p(*(s(x), s(x))), *(s(x), s(x))))

Q is empty.


↳ QTRS
  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

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

-(x, 0) → x
-(s(x), s(y)) → -(x, y)
+(0, y) → y
+(s(x), y) → s(+(x, y))
*(x, 0) → 0
*(x, s(y)) → +(x, *(x, y))
p(s(x)) → x
f(s(x)) → f(-(p(*(s(x), s(x))), *(s(x), s(x))))

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:

-1(s(x), s(y)) → -1(x, y)
F(s(x)) → -1(p(*(s(x), s(x))), *(s(x), s(x)))
F(s(x)) → F(-(p(*(s(x), s(x))), *(s(x), s(x))))
F(s(x)) → P(*(s(x), s(x)))
F(s(x)) → *1(s(x), s(x))
+1(s(x), y) → +1(x, y)
*1(x, s(y)) → *1(x, y)
*1(x, s(y)) → +1(x, *(x, y))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

-(x, 0) → x
-(s(x), s(y)) → -(x, y)
+(0, y) → y
+(s(x), y) → s(+(x, y))
*(x, 0) → 0
*(x, s(y)) → +(x, *(x, y))
p(s(x)) → x
f(s(x)) → f(-(p(*(s(x), s(x))), *(s(x), s(x))))

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:

-1(s(x), s(y)) → -1(x, y)
F(s(x)) → -1(p(*(s(x), s(x))), *(s(x), s(x)))
F(s(x)) → F(-(p(*(s(x), s(x))), *(s(x), s(x))))
F(s(x)) → P(*(s(x), s(x)))
F(s(x)) → *1(s(x), s(x))
+1(s(x), y) → +1(x, y)
*1(x, s(y)) → *1(x, y)
*1(x, s(y)) → +1(x, *(x, y))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

-(x, 0) → x
-(s(x), s(y)) → -(x, y)
+(0, y) → y
+(s(x), y) → s(+(x, y))
*(x, 0) → 0
*(x, s(y)) → +(x, *(x, y))
p(s(x)) → x
f(s(x)) → f(-(p(*(s(x), s(x))), *(s(x), s(x))))

Q is empty.
We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
The approximation of the Dependency Graph [15,17,22] contains 4 SCCs with 4 less nodes.

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

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

+1(s(x), y) → +1(x, y)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

-(x, 0) → x
-(s(x), s(y)) → -(x, y)
+(0, y) → y
+(s(x), y) → s(+(x, y))
*(x, 0) → 0
*(x, s(y)) → +(x, *(x, y))
p(s(x)) → x
f(s(x)) → f(-(p(*(s(x), s(x))), *(s(x), s(x))))

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.


+1(s(x), y) → +1(x, y)
The remaining pairs can at least be oriented weakly.
none
Used ordering: Polynomial interpretation [25,35]:

POL(s(x1)) = 1 + (4)x_1   
POL(+1(x1, x2)) = (4)x_1   
The value of delta used in the strict ordering is 4.
The following usable rules [17] were oriented: none



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

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

-(x, 0) → x
-(s(x), s(y)) → -(x, y)
+(0, y) → y
+(s(x), y) → s(+(x, y))
*(x, 0) → 0
*(x, s(y)) → +(x, *(x, y))
p(s(x)) → x
f(s(x)) → f(-(p(*(s(x), s(x))), *(s(x), s(x))))

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
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP

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

*1(x, s(y)) → *1(x, y)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

-(x, 0) → x
-(s(x), s(y)) → -(x, y)
+(0, y) → y
+(s(x), y) → s(+(x, y))
*(x, 0) → 0
*(x, s(y)) → +(x, *(x, y))
p(s(x)) → x
f(s(x)) → f(-(p(*(s(x), s(x))), *(s(x), s(x))))

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.


*1(x, s(y)) → *1(x, y)
The remaining pairs can at least be oriented weakly.
none
Used ordering: Polynomial interpretation [25,35]:

POL(*1(x1, x2)) = (4)x_2   
POL(s(x1)) = 1 + (4)x_1   
The value of delta used in the strict ordering is 4.
The following usable rules [17] were oriented: none



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

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

-(x, 0) → x
-(s(x), s(y)) → -(x, y)
+(0, y) → y
+(s(x), y) → s(+(x, y))
*(x, 0) → 0
*(x, s(y)) → +(x, *(x, y))
p(s(x)) → x
f(s(x)) → f(-(p(*(s(x), s(x))), *(s(x), s(x))))

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
          ↳ QDP

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

-1(s(x), s(y)) → -1(x, y)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

-(x, 0) → x
-(s(x), s(y)) → -(x, y)
+(0, y) → y
+(s(x), y) → s(+(x, y))
*(x, 0) → 0
*(x, s(y)) → +(x, *(x, y))
p(s(x)) → x
f(s(x)) → f(-(p(*(s(x), s(x))), *(s(x), s(x))))

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.


-1(s(x), s(y)) → -1(x, y)
The remaining pairs can at least be oriented weakly.
none
Used ordering: Polynomial interpretation [25,35]:

POL(-1(x1, x2)) = (3)x_2   
POL(s(x1)) = 4 + (2)x_1   
The value of delta used in the strict ordering is 12.
The following usable rules [17] were oriented: none



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

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

-(x, 0) → x
-(s(x), s(y)) → -(x, y)
+(0, y) → y
+(s(x), y) → s(+(x, y))
*(x, 0) → 0
*(x, s(y)) → +(x, *(x, y))
p(s(x)) → x
f(s(x)) → f(-(p(*(s(x), s(x))), *(s(x), s(x))))

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
          ↳ QDP

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

F(s(x)) → F(-(p(*(s(x), s(x))), *(s(x), s(x))))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

-(x, 0) → x
-(s(x), s(y)) → -(x, y)
+(0, y) → y
+(s(x), y) → s(+(x, y))
*(x, 0) → 0
*(x, s(y)) → +(x, *(x, y))
p(s(x)) → x
f(s(x)) → f(-(p(*(s(x), s(x))), *(s(x), s(x))))

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