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 MRRProof (⇔)
    ↳12 QDP
    ↳13 QDPOrderProof (⇔)
    ↳14 QDP
    ↳15 DependencyGraphProof (⇔)
    ↳16 TRUE

(0) Obligation:

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

active(f(a, X, X)) → mark(f(X, b, b))
active(b) → mark(a)
mark(f(X1, X2, X3)) → active(f(X1, mark(X2), X3))
mark(a) → active(a)
mark(b) → active(b)
f(mark(X1), X2, X3) → f(X1, X2, X3)
f(X1, mark(X2), X3) → f(X1, X2, X3)
f(X1, X2, mark(X3)) → f(X1, X2, X3)
f(active(X1), X2, X3) → f(X1, X2, X3)
f(X1, active(X2), X3) → f(X1, X2, X3)
f(X1, X2, active(X3)) → f(X1, X2, X3)

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:

ACTIVE(f(a, X, X)) → MARK(f(X, b, b))
ACTIVE(f(a, X, X)) → F(X, b, b)
ACTIVE(b) → MARK(a)
MARK(f(X1, X2, X3)) → ACTIVE(f(X1, mark(X2), X3))
MARK(f(X1, X2, X3)) → F(X1, mark(X2), X3)
MARK(f(X1, X2, X3)) → MARK(X2)
MARK(a) → ACTIVE(a)
MARK(b) → ACTIVE(b)
F(mark(X1), X2, X3) → F(X1, X2, X3)
F(X1, mark(X2), X3) → F(X1, X2, X3)
F(X1, X2, mark(X3)) → F(X1, X2, X3)
F(active(X1), X2, X3) → F(X1, X2, X3)
F(X1, active(X2), X3) → F(X1, X2, X3)
F(X1, X2, active(X3)) → F(X1, X2, X3)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

active(f(a, X, X)) → mark(f(X, b, b))
active(b) → mark(a)
mark(f(X1, X2, X3)) → active(f(X1, mark(X2), X3))
mark(a) → active(a)
mark(b) → active(b)
f(mark(X1), X2, X3) → f(X1, X2, X3)
f(X1, mark(X2), X3) → f(X1, X2, X3)
f(X1, X2, mark(X3)) → f(X1, X2, X3)
f(active(X1), X2, X3) → f(X1, X2, X3)
f(X1, active(X2), X3) → f(X1, X2, X3)
f(X1, X2, active(X3)) → f(X1, X2, X3)

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 5 less nodes.

(4) Complex Obligation (AND)

(5) Obligation:

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

F(X1, mark(X2), X3) → F(X1, X2, X3)
F(mark(X1), X2, X3) → F(X1, X2, X3)
F(X1, X2, mark(X3)) → F(X1, X2, X3)
F(active(X1), X2, X3) → F(X1, X2, X3)
F(X1, active(X2), X3) → F(X1, X2, X3)
F(X1, X2, active(X3)) → F(X1, X2, X3)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

active(f(a, X, X)) → mark(f(X, b, b))
active(b) → mark(a)
mark(f(X1, X2, X3)) → active(f(X1, mark(X2), X3))
mark(a) → active(a)
mark(b) → active(b)
f(mark(X1), X2, X3) → f(X1, X2, X3)
f(X1, mark(X2), X3) → f(X1, X2, X3)
f(X1, X2, mark(X3)) → f(X1, X2, X3)
f(active(X1), X2, X3) → f(X1, X2, X3)
f(X1, active(X2), X3) → f(X1, X2, X3)
f(X1, X2, active(X3)) → f(X1, X2, X3)

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:

F(X1, mark(X2), X3) → F(X1, X2, X3)
F(mark(X1), X2, X3) → F(X1, X2, X3)
F(X1, X2, mark(X3)) → F(X1, X2, X3)
F(active(X1), X2, X3) → F(X1, X2, X3)
F(X1, active(X2), X3) → F(X1, X2, X3)
F(X1, X2, active(X3)) → F(X1, X2, X3)

R is empty.
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:

  • F(X1, mark(X2), X3) → F(X1, X2, X3)
    The graph contains the following edges 1 >= 1, 2 > 2, 3 >= 3

  • F(mark(X1), X2, X3) → F(X1, X2, X3)
    The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1, 2 >= 2, 3 >= 3

  • F(X1, X2, mark(X3)) → F(X1, X2, X3)
    The graph contains the following edges 1 >= 1, 2 >= 2, 3 > 3

  • F(active(X1), X2, X3) → F(X1, X2, X3)
    The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1, 2 >= 2, 3 >= 3

  • F(X1, active(X2), X3) → F(X1, X2, X3)
    The graph contains the following edges 1 >= 1, 2 > 2, 3 >= 3

  • F(X1, X2, active(X3)) → F(X1, X2, X3)
    The graph contains the following edges 1 >= 1, 2 >= 2, 3 > 3

(9) TRUE

(10) Obligation:

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

MARK(f(X1, X2, X3)) → ACTIVE(f(X1, mark(X2), X3))
ACTIVE(f(a, X, X)) → MARK(f(X, b, b))
MARK(f(X1, X2, X3)) → MARK(X2)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

active(f(a, X, X)) → mark(f(X, b, b))
active(b) → mark(a)
mark(f(X1, X2, X3)) → active(f(X1, mark(X2), X3))
mark(a) → active(a)
mark(b) → active(b)
f(mark(X1), X2, X3) → f(X1, X2, X3)
f(X1, mark(X2), X3) → f(X1, X2, X3)
f(X1, X2, mark(X3)) → f(X1, X2, X3)
f(active(X1), X2, X3) → f(X1, X2, X3)
f(X1, active(X2), X3) → f(X1, X2, X3)
f(X1, X2, active(X3)) → f(X1, X2, X3)

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

(11) MRRProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

By using the rule removal processor [LPAR04] with the following ordering, at least one Dependency Pair or term rewrite system rule of this QDP problem can be strictly oriented.
Strictly oriented dependency pairs:

MARK(f(X1, X2, X3)) → MARK(X2)


Used ordering: Polynomial interpretation [POLO]:

POL(ACTIVE(x1)) = x1   
POL(MARK(x1)) = x1   
POL(a) = 0   
POL(active(x1)) = x1   
POL(b) = 0   
POL(f(x1, x2, x3)) = 1 + x1 + x2 + x3   
POL(mark(x1)) = x1   

(12) Obligation:

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

MARK(f(X1, X2, X3)) → ACTIVE(f(X1, mark(X2), X3))
ACTIVE(f(a, X, X)) → MARK(f(X, b, b))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

active(f(a, X, X)) → mark(f(X, b, b))
active(b) → mark(a)
mark(f(X1, X2, X3)) → active(f(X1, mark(X2), X3))
mark(a) → active(a)
mark(b) → active(b)
f(mark(X1), X2, X3) → f(X1, X2, X3)
f(X1, mark(X2), X3) → f(X1, X2, X3)
f(X1, X2, mark(X3)) → f(X1, X2, X3)
f(active(X1), X2, X3) → f(X1, X2, X3)
f(X1, active(X2), X3) → f(X1, X2, X3)
f(X1, X2, active(X3)) → f(X1, X2, X3)

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.


MARK(f(X1, X2, X3)) → ACTIVE(f(X1, mark(X2), X3))
The remaining pairs can at least be oriented weakly.
Used ordering: Matrix interpretation [MATRO]:

POL(MARK(x1)) =
/1\
\0/
 +
/01\
\00/
·x1

POL(f(x1, x2, x3)) =
/0\
\0/
 +
/00\
\01/
·x1 +
/00\
\00/
·x2 +
/00\
\01/
·x3

POL(ACTIVE(x1)) =
/0\
\0/
 +
/01\
\00/
·x1

POL(mark(x1)) =
/0\
\1/
 +
/00\
\11/
·x1

POL(a) =
/0\
\1/

POL(b) =
/0\
\0/

POL(active(x1)) =
/0\
\0/
 +
/00\
\01/
·x1

The following usable rules [FROCOS05] were oriented:

f(X1, X2, active(X3)) → f(X1, X2, X3)
f(mark(X1), X2, X3) → f(X1, X2, X3)
f(active(X1), X2, X3) → f(X1, X2, X3)
f(X1, active(X2), X3) → f(X1, X2, X3)
f(X1, X2, mark(X3)) → f(X1, X2, X3)
f(X1, mark(X2), X3) → f(X1, X2, X3)

(14) Obligation:

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

ACTIVE(f(a, X, X)) → MARK(f(X, b, b))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

active(f(a, X, X)) → mark(f(X, b, b))
active(b) → mark(a)
mark(f(X1, X2, X3)) → active(f(X1, mark(X2), X3))
mark(a) → active(a)
mark(b) → active(b)
f(mark(X1), X2, X3) → f(X1, X2, X3)
f(X1, mark(X2), X3) → f(X1, X2, X3)
f(X1, X2, mark(X3)) → f(X1, X2, X3)
f(active(X1), X2, X3) → f(X1, X2, X3)
f(X1, active(X2), X3) → f(X1, X2, X3)
f(X1, X2, active(X3)) → f(X1, X2, X3)

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

(15) DependencyGraphProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

The approximation of the Dependency Graph [LPAR04,FROCOS05,EDGSTAR] contains 0 SCCs with 1 less node.

(16) TRUE