Termination w.r.t. Q proof of TRS/AG01#3.17.trs

Termination w.r.t. Q of the following Term Rewriting System could not be shown:

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

app₂(nil, k) -> k
app₂(l, nil) -> l
app₂(cons₂(x, l), k) -> cons₂(x, app₂(l, k))
sum₁(cons₂(x, nil)) -> cons₂(x, nil)
sum₁(cons₂(x, cons₂(y, l))) -> sum₁(cons₂(plus₂(x, y), l))
sum₁(app₂(l, cons₂(x, cons₂(y, k)))) -> sum₁(app₂(l, sum₁(cons₂(x, cons₂(y, k)))))
plus₂(0, y) -> y
plus₂(s₁(x), y) -> s₁(plus₂(x, y))

Q is empty.

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

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

app₂(nil, k) -> k
app₂(l, nil) -> l
app₂(cons₂(x, l), k) -> cons₂(x, app₂(l, k))
sum₁(cons₂(x, nil)) -> cons₂(x, nil)
sum₁(cons₂(x, cons₂(y, l))) -> sum₁(cons₂(plus₂(x, y), l))
sum₁(app₂(l, cons₂(x, cons₂(y, k)))) -> sum₁(app₂(l, sum₁(cons₂(x, cons₂(y, k)))))
plus₂(0, y) -> y
plus₂(s₁(x), y) -> s₁(plus₂(x, y))

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:

PLUS₂(s₁(x), y) -> PLUS₂(x, y)
SUM₁(app₂(l, cons₂(x, cons₂(y, k)))) -> APP₂(l, sum₁(cons₂(x, cons₂(y, k))))
SUM₁(cons₂(x, cons₂(y, l))) -> PLUS₂(x, y)
SUM₁(cons₂(x, cons₂(y, l))) -> SUM₁(cons₂(plus₂(x, y), l))
SUM₁(app₂(l, cons₂(x, cons₂(y, k)))) -> SUM₁(cons₂(x, cons₂(y, k)))
SUM₁(app₂(l, cons₂(x, cons₂(y, k)))) -> SUM₁(app₂(l, sum₁(cons₂(x, cons₂(y, k)))))
APP₂(cons₂(x, l), k) -> APP₂(l, k)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

app₂(nil, k) -> k
app₂(l, nil) -> l
app₂(cons₂(x, l), k) -> cons₂(x, app₂(l, k))
sum₁(cons₂(x, nil)) -> cons₂(x, nil)
sum₁(cons₂(x, cons₂(y, l))) -> sum₁(cons₂(plus₂(x, y), l))
sum₁(app₂(l, cons₂(x, cons₂(y, k)))) -> sum₁(app₂(l, sum₁(cons₂(x, cons₂(y, k)))))
plus₂(0, y) -> y
plus₂(s₁(x), y) -> s₁(plus₂(x, y))

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:

PLUS₂(s₁(x), y) -> PLUS₂(x, y)
SUM₁(app₂(l, cons₂(x, cons₂(y, k)))) -> APP₂(l, sum₁(cons₂(x, cons₂(y, k))))
SUM₁(cons₂(x, cons₂(y, l))) -> PLUS₂(x, y)
SUM₁(cons₂(x, cons₂(y, l))) -> SUM₁(cons₂(plus₂(x, y), l))
SUM₁(app₂(l, cons₂(x, cons₂(y, k)))) -> SUM₁(cons₂(x, cons₂(y, k)))
SUM₁(app₂(l, cons₂(x, cons₂(y, k)))) -> SUM₁(app₂(l, sum₁(cons₂(x, cons₂(y, k)))))
APP₂(cons₂(x, l), k) -> APP₂(l, k)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

app₂(nil, k) -> k
app₂(l, nil) -> l
app₂(cons₂(x, l), k) -> cons₂(x, app₂(l, k))
sum₁(cons₂(x, nil)) -> cons₂(x, nil)
sum₁(cons₂(x, cons₂(y, l))) -> sum₁(cons₂(plus₂(x, y), l))
sum₁(app₂(l, cons₂(x, cons₂(y, k)))) -> sum₁(app₂(l, sum₁(cons₂(x, cons₂(y, k)))))
plus₂(0, y) -> y
plus₂(s₁(x), y) -> s₁(plus₂(x, y))

Q is empty.
We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
The approximation of the Dependency Graph [13,14,18] contains 4 SCCs with 3 less nodes.

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ QDPOrderProof

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

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

PLUS₂(s₁(x), y) -> PLUS₂(x, y)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

app₂(nil, k) -> k
app₂(l, nil) -> l
app₂(cons₂(x, l), k) -> cons₂(x, app₂(l, k))
sum₁(cons₂(x, nil)) -> cons₂(x, nil)
sum₁(cons₂(x, cons₂(y, l))) -> sum₁(cons₂(plus₂(x, y), l))
sum₁(app₂(l, cons₂(x, cons₂(y, k)))) -> sum₁(app₂(l, sum₁(cons₂(x, cons₂(y, k)))))
plus₂(0, y) -> y
plus₂(s₁(x), y) -> s₁(plus₂(x, y))

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.

PLUS₂(s₁(x), y) -> PLUS₂(x, y)

The remaining pairs can at least be oriented weakly.
none
Used ordering: Polynomial interpretation [21]:

POL(PLUS₂(x₁, x₂)) = x₁ + x₁·x₂
POL(s₁(x₁)) = 1 + x₁

The following usable rules [14] were oriented: none

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ QDPOrderProof

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ PisEmptyProof

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

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

app₂(nil, k) -> k
app₂(l, nil) -> l
app₂(cons₂(x, l), k) -> cons₂(x, app₂(l, k))
sum₁(cons₂(x, nil)) -> cons₂(x, nil)
sum₁(cons₂(x, cons₂(y, l))) -> sum₁(cons₂(plus₂(x, y), l))
sum₁(app₂(l, cons₂(x, cons₂(y, k)))) -> sum₁(app₂(l, sum₁(cons₂(x, cons₂(y, k)))))
plus₂(0, y) -> y
plus₂(s₁(x), y) -> s₁(plus₂(x, y))

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.

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ QDPOrderProof

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

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

APP₂(cons₂(x, l), k) -> APP₂(l, k)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

app₂(nil, k) -> k
app₂(l, nil) -> l
app₂(cons₂(x, l), k) -> cons₂(x, app₂(l, k))
sum₁(cons₂(x, nil)) -> cons₂(x, nil)
sum₁(cons₂(x, cons₂(y, l))) -> sum₁(cons₂(plus₂(x, y), l))
sum₁(app₂(l, cons₂(x, cons₂(y, k)))) -> sum₁(app₂(l, sum₁(cons₂(x, cons₂(y, k)))))
plus₂(0, y) -> y
plus₂(s₁(x), y) -> s₁(plus₂(x, y))

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.

APP₂(cons₂(x, l), k) -> APP₂(l, k)

The remaining pairs can at least be oriented weakly.
none
Used ordering: Polynomial interpretation [21]:

POL(APP₂(x₁, x₂)) = x₁ + x₁·x₂
POL(cons₂(x₁, x₂)) = 1 + x₂

The following usable rules [14] were oriented: none

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ QDPOrderProof

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ PisEmptyProof

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

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

app₂(nil, k) -> k
app₂(l, nil) -> l
app₂(cons₂(x, l), k) -> cons₂(x, app₂(l, k))
sum₁(cons₂(x, nil)) -> cons₂(x, nil)
sum₁(cons₂(x, cons₂(y, l))) -> sum₁(cons₂(plus₂(x, y), l))
sum₁(app₂(l, cons₂(x, cons₂(y, k)))) -> sum₁(app₂(l, sum₁(cons₂(x, cons₂(y, k)))))
plus₂(0, y) -> y
plus₂(s₁(x), y) -> s₁(plus₂(x, y))

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.

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ QDPOrderProof

          ↳ QDP

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

SUM₁(cons₂(x, cons₂(y, l))) -> SUM₁(cons₂(plus₂(x, y), l))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

app₂(nil, k) -> k
app₂(l, nil) -> l
app₂(cons₂(x, l), k) -> cons₂(x, app₂(l, k))
sum₁(cons₂(x, nil)) -> cons₂(x, nil)
sum₁(cons₂(x, cons₂(y, l))) -> sum₁(cons₂(plus₂(x, y), l))
sum₁(app₂(l, cons₂(x, cons₂(y, k)))) -> sum₁(app₂(l, sum₁(cons₂(x, cons₂(y, k)))))
plus₂(0, y) -> y
plus₂(s₁(x), y) -> s₁(plus₂(x, y))

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.

SUM₁(cons₂(x, cons₂(y, l))) -> SUM₁(cons₂(plus₂(x, y), l))

The remaining pairs can at least be oriented weakly.
none
Used ordering: Polynomial interpretation [21]:

POL(0) = 1
POL(SUM₁(x₁)) = 3·x₁²
POL(cons₂(x₁, x₂)) = 2 + 3·x₁ + 3·x₁·x₂ + 3·x₂
POL(plus₂(x₁, x₂)) = 2·x₁ + 2·x₁·x₂
POL(s₁(x₁)) = 0

The following usable rules [14] were oriented:

plus₂(s₁(x), y) -> s₁(plus₂(x, y))
plus₂(0, y) -> y

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ QDPOrderProof

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ PisEmptyProof

          ↳ QDP

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

app₂(nil, k) -> k
app₂(l, nil) -> l
app₂(cons₂(x, l), k) -> cons₂(x, app₂(l, k))
sum₁(cons₂(x, nil)) -> cons₂(x, nil)
sum₁(cons₂(x, cons₂(y, l))) -> sum₁(cons₂(plus₂(x, y), l))
sum₁(app₂(l, cons₂(x, cons₂(y, k)))) -> sum₁(app₂(l, sum₁(cons₂(x, cons₂(y, k)))))
plus₂(0, y) -> y
plus₂(s₁(x), y) -> s₁(plus₂(x, y))

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.

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

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

SUM₁(app₂(l, cons₂(x, cons₂(y, k)))) -> SUM₁(app₂(l, sum₁(cons₂(x, cons₂(y, k)))))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

app₂(nil, k) -> k
app₂(l, nil) -> l
app₂(cons₂(x, l), k) -> cons₂(x, app₂(l, k))
sum₁(cons₂(x, nil)) -> cons₂(x, nil)
sum₁(cons₂(x, cons₂(y, l))) -> sum₁(cons₂(plus₂(x, y), l))
sum₁(app₂(l, cons₂(x, cons₂(y, k)))) -> sum₁(app₂(l, sum₁(cons₂(x, cons₂(y, k)))))
plus₂(0, y) -> y
plus₂(s₁(x), y) -> s₁(plus₂(x, y))

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