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

(0) Obligation:

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

.(1, x) → x
.(x, 1) → x
.(i(x), x) → 1
.(x, i(x)) → 1
i(1) → 1
i(i(x)) → x
.(i(y), .(y, z)) → z
.(y, .(i(y), z)) → z
.(.(x, y), z) → .(x, .(y, z))
i(.(x, y)) → .(i(y), i(x))

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(.(x, y), z) → .¹(x, .(y, z))
.¹(.(x, y), z) → .¹(y, z)
I(.(x, y)) → .¹(i(y), i(x))
I(.(x, y)) → I(y)
I(.(x, y)) → I(x)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

.(1, x) → x
.(x, 1) → x
.(i(x), x) → 1
.(x, i(x)) → 1
i(1) → 1
i(i(x)) → x
.(i(y), .(y, z)) → z
.(y, .(i(y), z)) → z
.(.(x, y), z) → .(x, .(y, z))
i(.(x, y)) → .(i(y), i(x))

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 2 SCCs with 1 less node.

(4) Complex Obligation (AND)

(5) Obligation:

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

.¹(.(x, y), z) → .¹(y, z)
.¹(.(x, y), z) → .¹(x, .(y, z))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

.(1, x) → x
.(x, 1) → x
.(i(x), x) → 1
.(x, i(x)) → 1
i(1) → 1
i(i(x)) → x
.(i(y), .(y, z)) → z
.(y, .(i(y), z)) → z
.(.(x, y), z) → .(x, .(y, z))
i(.(x, y)) → .(i(y), i(x))

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

(6) QDPOrderProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

We use the reduction pair processor [LPAR04].

The following pairs can be oriented strictly and are deleted.

.¹(.(x, y), z) → .¹(y, z)
.¹(.(x, y), z) → .¹(x, .(y, z))

The remaining pairs can at least be oriented weakly.
Used ordering: Recursive path order with status [RPO].
Quasi-Precedence:

i₁ > [.^1₂, .₂] > 1

Status:

.^1₂: [1,2]
.₂: [1,2]
1: multiset
i₁: [1]

The following usable rules [FROCOS05] were oriented:

.(1, x) → x
.(x, 1) → x
.(i(x), x) → 1
.(x, i(x)) → 1
i(1) → 1
i(i(x)) → x
.(i(y), .(y, z)) → z
.(y, .(i(y), z)) → z
.(.(x, y), z) → .(x, .(y, z))
i(.(x, y)) → .(i(y), i(x))

(7) Obligation:

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

.(1, x) → x
.(x, 1) → x
.(i(x), x) → 1
.(x, i(x)) → 1
i(1) → 1
i(i(x)) → x
.(i(y), .(y, z)) → z
.(y, .(i(y), z)) → z
.(.(x, y), z) → .(x, .(y, z))
i(.(x, y)) → .(i(y), i(x))

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

(8) PisEmptyProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

The TRS P is empty. Hence, there is no (P,Q,R) chain.

(9) TRUE

(10) Obligation:

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

I(.(x, y)) → I(x)
I(.(x, y)) → I(y)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

.(1, x) → x
.(x, 1) → x
.(i(x), x) → 1
.(x, i(x)) → 1
i(1) → 1
i(i(x)) → x
.(i(y), .(y, z)) → z
.(y, .(i(y), z)) → z
.(.(x, y), z) → .(x, .(y, z))
i(.(x, y)) → .(i(y), i(x))

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

(11) QDPOrderProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

We use the reduction pair processor [LPAR04].

The following pairs can be oriented strictly and are deleted.

I(.(x, y)) → I(x)
I(.(x, y)) → I(y)

The remaining pairs can at least be oriented weakly.
Used ordering: Recursive path order with status [RPO].
Quasi-Precedence:

[1, i₁] > [I₁, .₂]

Status:

I₁: [1]
.₂: [1,2]
1: multiset
i₁: multiset

The following usable rules [FROCOS05] were oriented:

.(1, x) → x
.(x, 1) → x
.(i(x), x) → 1
.(x, i(x)) → 1
i(1) → 1
i(i(x)) → x
.(i(y), .(y, z)) → z
.(y, .(i(y), z)) → z
.(.(x, y), z) → .(x, .(y, z))
i(.(x, y)) → .(i(y), i(x))

(12) Obligation:

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

.(1, x) → x
.(x, 1) → x
.(i(x), x) → 1
.(x, i(x)) → 1
i(1) → 1
i(i(x)) → x
.(i(y), .(y, z)) → z
.(y, .(i(y), z)) → z
.(.(x, y), z) → .(x, .(y, z))
i(.(x, y)) → .(i(y), i(x))

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

(13) PisEmptyProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

The TRS P is empty. Hence, there is no (P,Q,R) chain.

(14) TRUE