(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)
a → n__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)
a → n__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)
a → n__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)
a → n__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