Termination w.r.t. Q proof of /tmp/tmpPMx_3B/Ex4_7_56_Bor03

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 QDPOrderProof (⇔)

    ↳7 QDP

    ↳8 QDPOrderProof (⇔)

    ↳9 QDP

    ↳10 PisEmptyProof (⇔)

    ↳11 TRUE

  ↳12 QDP

    ↳13 QDPOrderProof (⇔)

    ↳14 QDP

    ↳15 PisEmptyProof (⇔)

    ↳16 TRUE

(0) Obligation:

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

from(X) → cons(X, n__from(n__s(X)))
after(0, XS) → XS
after(s(N), cons(X, XS)) → after(N, activate(XS))
from(X) → n__from(X)
s(X) → n__s(X)
activate(n__from(X)) → from(activate(X))
activate(n__s(X)) → s(activate(X))
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:

AFTER(s(N), cons(X, XS)) → AFTER(N, activate(XS))
AFTER(s(N), cons(X, XS)) → ACTIVATE(XS)
ACTIVATE(n__from(X)) → FROM(activate(X))
ACTIVATE(n__from(X)) → ACTIVATE(X)
ACTIVATE(n__s(X)) → S(activate(X))
ACTIVATE(n__s(X)) → ACTIVATE(X)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

from(X) → cons(X, n__from(n__s(X)))
after(0, XS) → XS
after(s(N), cons(X, XS)) → after(N, activate(XS))
from(X) → n__from(X)
s(X) → n__s(X)
activate(n__from(X)) → from(activate(X))
activate(n__s(X)) → s(activate(X))
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 2 SCCs with 3 less nodes.

(4) Complex Obligation (AND)

(5) Obligation:

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

ACTIVATE(n__s(X)) → ACTIVATE(X)
ACTIVATE(n__from(X)) → ACTIVATE(X)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

from(X) → cons(X, n__from(n__s(X)))
after(0, XS) → XS
after(s(N), cons(X, XS)) → after(N, activate(XS))
from(X) → n__from(X)
s(X) → n__s(X)
activate(n__from(X)) → from(activate(X))
activate(n__s(X)) → s(activate(X))
activate(X) → 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.

ACTIVATE(n__from(X)) → ACTIVATE(X)

The remaining pairs can at least be oriented weakly.
Used ordering: Combined order from the following AFS and order.
ACTIVATE(x1) = x1
n__s(x1) = x1
n__from(x1) = n__from(x1)
from(x1) = from(x1)
cons(x1, x2) = x2
after(x1, x2) = after(x1, x2)
0 = 0
s(x1) = x1
activate(x1) = x1

Lexicographic path order with status [LPO].
Quasi-Precedence:

[n_{_from₁}, from₁]

Status:

n_{_from₁}: [1]
from₁: [1]
after₂: [2,1]
0: []

The following usable rules [FROCOS05] were oriented:

from(X) → cons(X, n__from(n__s(X)))
after(0, XS) → XS
after(s(N), cons(X, XS)) → after(N, activate(XS))
from(X) → n__from(X)
s(X) → n__s(X)
activate(n__from(X)) → from(activate(X))
activate(n__s(X)) → s(activate(X))
activate(X) → X

(7) Obligation:

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

ACTIVATE(n__s(X)) → ACTIVATE(X)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

from(X) → cons(X, n__from(n__s(X)))
after(0, XS) → XS
after(s(N), cons(X, XS)) → after(N, activate(XS))
from(X) → n__from(X)
s(X) → n__s(X)
activate(n__from(X)) → from(activate(X))
activate(n__s(X)) → s(activate(X))
activate(X) → X

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

(8) QDPOrderProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

We use the reduction pair processor [LPAR04].

The following pairs can be oriented strictly and are deleted.

ACTIVATE(n__s(X)) → ACTIVATE(X)

The remaining pairs can at least be oriented weakly.
Used ordering: Combined order from the following AFS and order.
ACTIVATE(x1) = x1
n__s(x1) = n__s(x1)
from(x1) = from(x1)
cons(x1, x2) = x2
n__from(x1) = n__from(x1)
after(x1, x2) = after(x1, x2)
0 = 0
s(x1) = s(x1)
activate(x1) = activate(x1)

Lexicographic path order with status [LPO].
Quasi-Precedence:

after₂ > activate₁ > from₁ > [n_{_s₁}, s₁]
after₂ > activate₁ > from₁ > n_{_from₁}

Status:

n_{_s₁}: [1]
from₁: [1]
n_{_from₁}: [1]
after₂: [1,2]
0: []
s₁: [1]
activate₁: [1]

The following usable rules [FROCOS05] were oriented:

from(X) → cons(X, n__from(n__s(X)))
after(0, XS) → XS
after(s(N), cons(X, XS)) → after(N, activate(XS))
from(X) → n__from(X)
s(X) → n__s(X)
activate(n__from(X)) → from(activate(X))
activate(n__s(X)) → s(activate(X))
activate(X) → X

(9) Obligation:

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

from(X) → cons(X, n__from(n__s(X)))
after(0, XS) → XS
after(s(N), cons(X, XS)) → after(N, activate(XS))
from(X) → n__from(X)
s(X) → n__s(X)
activate(n__from(X)) → from(activate(X))
activate(n__s(X)) → s(activate(X))
activate(X) → X

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

(10) PisEmptyProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

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

(11) TRUE

(12) Obligation:

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

AFTER(s(N), cons(X, XS)) → AFTER(N, activate(XS))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

from(X) → cons(X, n__from(n__s(X)))
after(0, XS) → XS
after(s(N), cons(X, XS)) → after(N, activate(XS))
from(X) → n__from(X)
s(X) → n__s(X)
activate(n__from(X)) → from(activate(X))
activate(n__s(X)) → s(activate(X))
activate(X) → X

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

(13) QDPOrderProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

We use the reduction pair processor [LPAR04].

The following pairs can be oriented strictly and are deleted.

AFTER(s(N), cons(X, XS)) → AFTER(N, activate(XS))

The remaining pairs can at least be oriented weakly.
Used ordering: Combined order from the following AFS and order.
AFTER(x1, x2) = x1
s(x1) = s(x1)
cons(x1, x2) = x2
activate(x1) = x1
from(x1) = from
n__from(x1) = n__from
n__s(x1) = n__s(x1)
after(x1, x2) = after(x2)
0 = 0

Lexicographic path order with status [LPO].
Quasi-Precedence:

[s₁, n_{_s₁}] > after₁
[from, n_{_from}]

Status:

s₁: [1]
from: []
n_{_from}: []
n_{_s₁}: [1]
after₁: [1]
0: []

The following usable rules [FROCOS05] were oriented:

from(X) → cons(X, n__from(n__s(X)))
after(0, XS) → XS
after(s(N), cons(X, XS)) → after(N, activate(XS))
from(X) → n__from(X)
s(X) → n__s(X)
activate(n__from(X)) → from(activate(X))
activate(n__s(X)) → s(activate(X))
activate(X) → X

(14) Obligation:

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

from(X) → cons(X, n__from(n__s(X)))
after(0, XS) → XS
after(s(N), cons(X, XS)) → after(N, activate(XS))
from(X) → n__from(X)
s(X) → n__s(X)
activate(n__from(X)) → from(activate(X))
activate(n__s(X)) → s(activate(X))
activate(X) → X

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

(15) PisEmptyProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

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

(0) Obligation:

(1) DependencyPairsProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

(2) Obligation:

(3) DependencyGraphProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

(4) Complex Obligation (AND)

(5) Obligation:

(6) QDPOrderProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

(7) Obligation:

(8) QDPOrderProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

(9) Obligation:

(10) PisEmptyProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

(11) TRUE

(12) Obligation:

(13) QDPOrderProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

(14) Obligation:

(15) PisEmptyProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

(16) TRUE