Termination w.r.t. Q proof of /home/nowonder/forschung/aprove/satrung/aprove/lpar3/TRCSRSLASHEx6_Luc98_Z.trs

Termination w.r.t. Q of the following Term Rewriting System could be proven:

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

first₂(0, X) -> nil
first₂(s₁(X), cons₂(Y, Z)) -> cons₂(Y, n__first₂(X, activate₁(Z)))
from₁(X) -> cons₂(X, n__from₁(s₁(X)))
first₂(X1, X2) -> n__first₂(X1, X2)
from₁(X) -> n__from₁(X)
activate₁(n__first₂(X1, X2)) -> first₂(X1, X2)
activate₁(n__from₁(X)) -> from₁(X)
activate₁(X) -> X

Q is empty.

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

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

first₂(0, X) -> nil
first₂(s₁(X), cons₂(Y, Z)) -> cons₂(Y, n__first₂(X, activate₁(Z)))
from₁(X) -> cons₂(X, n__from₁(s₁(X)))
first₂(X1, X2) -> n__first₂(X1, X2)
from₁(X) -> n__from₁(X)
activate₁(n__first₂(X1, X2)) -> first₂(X1, X2)
activate₁(n__from₁(X)) -> from₁(X)
activate₁(X) -> X

Q is empty.

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

ACTIVATE₁(n__first₂(X1, X2)) -> FIRST₂(X1, X2)
ACTIVATE₁(n__from₁(X)) -> FROM₁(X)
FIRST₂(s₁(X), cons₂(Y, Z)) -> ACTIVATE₁(Z)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

first₂(0, X) -> nil
first₂(s₁(X), cons₂(Y, Z)) -> cons₂(Y, n__first₂(X, activate₁(Z)))
from₁(X) -> cons₂(X, n__from₁(s₁(X)))
first₂(X1, X2) -> n__first₂(X1, X2)
from₁(X) -> n__from₁(X)
activate₁(n__first₂(X1, X2)) -> first₂(X1, X2)
activate₁(n__from₁(X)) -> from₁(X)
activate₁(X) -> X

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

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

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

ACTIVATE₁(n__first₂(X1, X2)) -> FIRST₂(X1, X2)
ACTIVATE₁(n__from₁(X)) -> FROM₁(X)
FIRST₂(s₁(X), cons₂(Y, Z)) -> ACTIVATE₁(Z)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

first₂(0, X) -> nil
first₂(s₁(X), cons₂(Y, Z)) -> cons₂(Y, n__first₂(X, activate₁(Z)))
from₁(X) -> cons₂(X, n__from₁(s₁(X)))
first₂(X1, X2) -> n__first₂(X1, X2)
from₁(X) -> n__from₁(X)
activate₁(n__first₂(X1, X2)) -> first₂(X1, X2)
activate₁(n__from₁(X)) -> from₁(X)
activate₁(X) -> X

Q is empty.
We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
The approximation of the Dependency Graph contains 1 SCC with 1 less node.

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDPAfsSolverProof

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

ACTIVATE₁(n__first₂(X1, X2)) -> FIRST₂(X1, X2)
FIRST₂(s₁(X), cons₂(Y, Z)) -> ACTIVATE₁(Z)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

first₂(0, X) -> nil
first₂(s₁(X), cons₂(Y, Z)) -> cons₂(Y, n__first₂(X, activate₁(Z)))
from₁(X) -> cons₂(X, n__from₁(s₁(X)))
first₂(X1, X2) -> n__first₂(X1, X2)
from₁(X) -> n__from₁(X)
activate₁(n__first₂(X1, X2)) -> first₂(X1, X2)
activate₁(n__from₁(X)) -> from₁(X)
activate₁(X) -> X

Q is empty.
We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
By using an argument filtering and a montonic ordering, at least one Dependency Pair of this SCC can be strictly oriented.

FIRST₂(s₁(X), cons₂(Y, Z)) -> ACTIVATE₁(Z)

Used argument filtering: ACTIVATE₁(x1) = x1
n__first₂(x1, x2) = x2
FIRST₂(x1, x2) = x2
cons₂(x1, x2) = cons₁(x2)
Used ordering: Quasi Precedence: trivial

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDPAfsSolverProof

            ↳ QDP

              ↳ DependencyGraphProof

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

ACTIVATE₁(n__first₂(X1, X2)) -> FIRST₂(X1, X2)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

first₂(0, X) -> nil
first₂(s₁(X), cons₂(Y, Z)) -> cons₂(Y, n__first₂(X, activate₁(Z)))
from₁(X) -> cons₂(X, n__from₁(s₁(X)))
first₂(X1, X2) -> n__first₂(X1, X2)
from₁(X) -> n__from₁(X)
activate₁(n__first₂(X1, X2)) -> first₂(X1, X2)
activate₁(n__from₁(X)) -> from₁(X)
activate₁(X) -> X

Q is empty.
We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
The approximation of the Dependency Graph contains 0 SCCs with 1 less node.