(0) Obligation:

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

f(f(a)) → f(g(n__f(n__a)))
f(X) → n__f(X)
an__a
activate(n__f(X)) → f(activate(X))
activate(n__a) → a
activate(X) → 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:

F(f(a)) → F(g(n__f(n__a)))
ACTIVATE(n__f(X)) → F(activate(X))
ACTIVATE(n__f(X)) → ACTIVATE(X)
ACTIVATE(n__a) → A

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

f(f(a)) → f(g(n__f(n__a)))
f(X) → n__f(X)
an__a
activate(n__f(X)) → f(activate(X))
activate(n__a) → a
activate(X) → 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 1 SCC with 3 less nodes.

(4) Obligation:

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

ACTIVATE(n__f(X)) → ACTIVATE(X)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

f(f(a)) → f(g(n__f(n__a)))
f(X) → n__f(X)
an__a
activate(n__f(X)) → f(activate(X))
activate(n__a) → a
activate(X) → X

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

(5) QDPOrderProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

We use the reduction pair processor [LPAR04].


The following pairs can be oriented strictly and are deleted.


ACTIVATE(n__f(X)) → ACTIVATE(X)
The remaining pairs can at least be oriented weakly.
Used ordering: Recursive Path Order [RPO].
Precedence:
nf1 > ACTIVATE1

The following usable rules [FROCOS05] were oriented: none

(6) Obligation:

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

f(f(a)) → f(g(n__f(n__a)))
f(X) → n__f(X)
an__a
activate(n__f(X)) → f(activate(X))
activate(n__a) → a
activate(X) → X

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

(7) PisEmptyProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

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

(8) TRUE