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:

average2(s1(x), y) -> average2(x, s1(y))
average2(x, s1(s1(s1(y)))) -> s1(average2(s1(x), y))
average2(0, 0) -> 0
average2(0, s1(0)) -> 0
average2(0, s1(s1(0))) -> s1(0)

Q is empty.


QTRS
  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

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

average2(s1(x), y) -> average2(x, s1(y))
average2(x, s1(s1(s1(y)))) -> s1(average2(s1(x), y))
average2(0, 0) -> 0
average2(0, s1(0)) -> 0
average2(0, s1(s1(0))) -> s1(0)

Q is empty.

Using Dependency Pairs [1,13] we result in the following initial DP problem:
Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:

AVERAGE2(x, s1(s1(s1(y)))) -> AVERAGE2(s1(x), y)
AVERAGE2(s1(x), y) -> AVERAGE2(x, s1(y))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

average2(s1(x), y) -> average2(x, s1(y))
average2(x, s1(s1(s1(y)))) -> s1(average2(s1(x), y))
average2(0, 0) -> 0
average2(0, s1(0)) -> 0
average2(0, s1(s1(0))) -> s1(0)

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

↳ QTRS
  ↳ DependencyPairsProof
QDP
      ↳ QDPOrderProof

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

AVERAGE2(x, s1(s1(s1(y)))) -> AVERAGE2(s1(x), y)
AVERAGE2(s1(x), y) -> AVERAGE2(x, s1(y))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

average2(s1(x), y) -> average2(x, s1(y))
average2(x, s1(s1(s1(y)))) -> s1(average2(s1(x), y))
average2(0, 0) -> 0
average2(0, s1(0)) -> 0
average2(0, s1(s1(0))) -> s1(0)

Q is empty.
We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
We use the reduction pair processor [13].


The following pairs can be oriented strictly and are deleted.


AVERAGE2(x, s1(s1(s1(y)))) -> AVERAGE2(s1(x), y)
The remaining pairs can at least be oriented weakly.

AVERAGE2(s1(x), y) -> AVERAGE2(x, s1(y))
Used ordering: Polynomial interpretation [21]:

POL(AVERAGE2(x1, x2)) = 3·x1 + 3·x2   
POL(s1(x1)) = 2 + x1   

The following usable rules [14] were oriented: none



↳ QTRS
  ↳ DependencyPairsProof
    ↳ QDP
      ↳ QDPOrderProof
QDP
          ↳ QDPOrderProof

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

AVERAGE2(s1(x), y) -> AVERAGE2(x, s1(y))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

average2(s1(x), y) -> average2(x, s1(y))
average2(x, s1(s1(s1(y)))) -> s1(average2(s1(x), y))
average2(0, 0) -> 0
average2(0, s1(0)) -> 0
average2(0, s1(s1(0))) -> s1(0)

Q is empty.
We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
We use the reduction pair processor [13].


The following pairs can be oriented strictly and are deleted.


AVERAGE2(s1(x), y) -> AVERAGE2(x, s1(y))
The remaining pairs can at least be oriented weakly.
none
Used ordering: Polynomial interpretation [21]:

POL(AVERAGE2(x1, x2)) = 2·x1   
POL(s1(x1)) = 2 + x1   

The following usable rules [14] were oriented: none



↳ QTRS
  ↳ DependencyPairsProof
    ↳ QDP
      ↳ QDPOrderProof
        ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDPOrderProof
QDP
              ↳ PisEmptyProof

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

average2(s1(x), y) -> average2(x, s1(y))
average2(x, s1(s1(s1(y)))) -> s1(average2(s1(x), y))
average2(0, 0) -> 0
average2(0, s1(0)) -> 0
average2(0, s1(s1(0))) -> s1(0)

Q is empty.
We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
The TRS P is empty. Hence, there is no (P,Q,R) chain.