Termination w.r.t. Q of the given QTRS could be proven:

0 QTRS
↳1 DependencyPairsProof (⇔)
↳2 QDP
↳3 DependencyGraphProof (⇔)
↳4 AND
  ↳5 QDP
    ↳6 UsableRulesProof (⇔)
    ↳7 QDP
    ↳8 QDPSizeChangeProof (⇔)
    ↳9 TRUE
  ↳10 QDP
    ↳11 UsableRulesProof (⇔)
    ↳12 QDP
    ↳13 QDPSizeChangeProof (⇔)
    ↳14 TRUE
  ↳15 QDP
    ↳16 QDPSizeChangeProof (⇔)
    ↳17 TRUE
  ↳18 QDP
    ↳19 UsableRulesProof (⇔)
    ↳20 QDP
    ↳21 QDPSizeChangeProof (⇔)
    ↳22 TRUE

(0) Obligation:

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

+(x, 0) → x
+(0, x) → x
+(s(x), s(y)) → s(s(+(x, y)))
+(+(x, y), z) → +(x, +(y, z))
*(x, 0) → 0
*(0, x) → 0
*(s(x), s(y)) → s(+(*(x, y), +(x, y)))
*(*(x, y), z) → *(x, *(y, z))
sum(nil) → 0
sum(cons(x, l)) → +(x, sum(l))
prod(nil) → s(0)
prod(cons(x, l)) → *(x, prod(l))

Q is empty.

(1) DependencyPairsProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

Using Dependency Pairs [AG00,LPAR04] we result in the following initial DP problem.

(2) Obligation:

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

+1(s(x), s(y)) → +1(x, y)
+1(+(x, y), z) → +1(x, +(y, z))
+1(+(x, y), z) → +1(y, z)
*1(s(x), s(y)) → +1(*(x, y), +(x, y))
*1(s(x), s(y)) → *1(x, y)
*1(s(x), s(y)) → +1(x, y)
*1(*(x, y), z) → *1(x, *(y, z))
*1(*(x, y), z) → *1(y, z)
SUM(cons(x, l)) → +1(x, sum(l))
SUM(cons(x, l)) → SUM(l)
PROD(cons(x, l)) → *1(x, prod(l))
PROD(cons(x, l)) → PROD(l)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

+(x, 0) → x
+(0, x) → x
+(s(x), s(y)) → s(s(+(x, y)))
+(+(x, y), z) → +(x, +(y, z))
*(x, 0) → 0
*(0, x) → 0
*(s(x), s(y)) → s(+(*(x, y), +(x, y)))
*(*(x, y), z) → *(x, *(y, z))
sum(nil) → 0
sum(cons(x, l)) → +(x, sum(l))
prod(nil) → s(0)
prod(cons(x, l)) → *(x, prod(l))

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

(3) DependencyGraphProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

The approximation of the Dependency Graph [LPAR04,FROCOS05,EDGSTAR] contains 4 SCCs with 4 less nodes.

(4) Complex Obligation (AND)

(5) Obligation:

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

+1(+(x, y), z) → +1(x, +(y, z))
+1(s(x), s(y)) → +1(x, y)
+1(+(x, y), z) → +1(y, z)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

+(x, 0) → x
+(0, x) → x
+(s(x), s(y)) → s(s(+(x, y)))
+(+(x, y), z) → +(x, +(y, z))
*(x, 0) → 0
*(0, x) → 0
*(s(x), s(y)) → s(+(*(x, y), +(x, y)))
*(*(x, y), z) → *(x, *(y, z))
sum(nil) → 0
sum(cons(x, l)) → +(x, sum(l))
prod(nil) → s(0)
prod(cons(x, l)) → *(x, prod(l))

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

(6) UsableRulesProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

We can use the usable rules and reduction pair processor [LPAR04] with the Ce-compatible extension of the polynomial order that maps every function symbol to the sum of its arguments. Then, we can delete all non-usable rules [FROCOS05] from R.

(7) Obligation:

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

+1(+(x, y), z) → +1(x, +(y, z))
+1(s(x), s(y)) → +1(x, y)
+1(+(x, y), z) → +1(y, z)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

+(x, 0) → x
+(0, x) → x
+(s(x), s(y)) → s(s(+(x, y)))
+(+(x, y), z) → +(x, +(y, z))

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

(8) QDPSizeChangeProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

By using the subterm criterion [SUBTERM_CRITERION] together with the size-change analysis [AAECC05] 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:

  • +1(+(x, y), z) → +1(x, +(y, z))
    The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1

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

  • +1(+(x, y), z) → +1(y, z)
    The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1, 2 >= 2

(9) TRUE

(10) Obligation:

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

SUM(cons(x, l)) → SUM(l)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

+(x, 0) → x
+(0, x) → x
+(s(x), s(y)) → s(s(+(x, y)))
+(+(x, y), z) → +(x, +(y, z))
*(x, 0) → 0
*(0, x) → 0
*(s(x), s(y)) → s(+(*(x, y), +(x, y)))
*(*(x, y), z) → *(x, *(y, z))
sum(nil) → 0
sum(cons(x, l)) → +(x, sum(l))
prod(nil) → s(0)
prod(cons(x, l)) → *(x, prod(l))

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

(11) UsableRulesProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

We can use the usable rules and reduction pair processor [LPAR04] with the Ce-compatible extension of the polynomial order that maps every function symbol to the sum of its arguments. Then, we can delete all non-usable rules [FROCOS05] from R.

(12) Obligation:

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

SUM(cons(x, l)) → SUM(l)

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

(13) QDPSizeChangeProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

By using the subterm criterion [SUBTERM_CRITERION] together with the size-change analysis [AAECC05] 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:

  • SUM(cons(x, l)) → SUM(l)
    The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1

(14) TRUE

(15) Obligation:

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

*1(*(x, y), z) → *1(x, *(y, z))
*1(s(x), s(y)) → *1(x, y)
*1(*(x, y), z) → *1(y, z)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

+(x, 0) → x
+(0, x) → x
+(s(x), s(y)) → s(s(+(x, y)))
+(+(x, y), z) → +(x, +(y, z))
*(x, 0) → 0
*(0, x) → 0
*(s(x), s(y)) → s(+(*(x, y), +(x, y)))
*(*(x, y), z) → *(x, *(y, z))
sum(nil) → 0
sum(cons(x, l)) → +(x, sum(l))
prod(nil) → s(0)
prod(cons(x, l)) → *(x, prod(l))

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

(16) QDPSizeChangeProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

By using the subterm criterion [SUBTERM_CRITERION] together with the size-change analysis [AAECC05] 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:

  • *1(*(x, y), z) → *1(x, *(y, z))
    The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1

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

  • *1(*(x, y), z) → *1(y, z)
    The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1, 2 >= 2

(17) TRUE

(18) Obligation:

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

PROD(cons(x, l)) → PROD(l)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

+(x, 0) → x
+(0, x) → x
+(s(x), s(y)) → s(s(+(x, y)))
+(+(x, y), z) → +(x, +(y, z))
*(x, 0) → 0
*(0, x) → 0
*(s(x), s(y)) → s(+(*(x, y), +(x, y)))
*(*(x, y), z) → *(x, *(y, z))
sum(nil) → 0
sum(cons(x, l)) → +(x, sum(l))
prod(nil) → s(0)
prod(cons(x, l)) → *(x, prod(l))

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

(19) UsableRulesProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

We can use the usable rules and reduction pair processor [LPAR04] with the Ce-compatible extension of the polynomial order that maps every function symbol to the sum of its arguments. Then, we can delete all non-usable rules [FROCOS05] from R.

(20) Obligation:

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

PROD(cons(x, l)) → PROD(l)

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

(21) QDPSizeChangeProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

By using the subterm criterion [SUBTERM_CRITERION] together with the size-change analysis [AAECC05] 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:

  • PROD(cons(x, l)) → PROD(l)
    The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1

(22) TRUE