Termination w.r.t. Q proof of TRS/AProVEIJCAR

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:

div₂(0, y) -> 0
div₂(x, y) -> quot₃(x, y, y)
quot₃(0, s₁(y), z) -> 0
quot₃(s₁(x), s₁(y), z) -> quot₃(x, y, z)
quot₃(x, 0, s₁(z)) -> s₁(div₂(x, s₁(z)))

Q is empty.

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

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

div₂(0, y) -> 0
div₂(x, y) -> quot₃(x, y, y)
quot₃(0, s₁(y), z) -> 0
quot₃(s₁(x), s₁(y), z) -> quot₃(x, y, z)
quot₃(x, 0, s₁(z)) -> s₁(div₂(x, s₁(z)))

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:

QUOT₃(x, 0, s₁(z)) -> DIV₂(x, s₁(z))
QUOT₃(s₁(x), s₁(y), z) -> QUOT₃(x, y, z)
DIV₂(x, y) -> QUOT₃(x, y, y)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

div₂(0, y) -> 0
div₂(x, y) -> quot₃(x, y, y)
quot₃(0, s₁(y), z) -> 0
quot₃(s₁(x), s₁(y), z) -> quot₃(x, y, z)
quot₃(x, 0, s₁(z)) -> s₁(div₂(x, s₁(z)))

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:

QUOT₃(x, 0, s₁(z)) -> DIV₂(x, s₁(z))
QUOT₃(s₁(x), s₁(y), z) -> QUOT₃(x, y, z)
DIV₂(x, y) -> QUOT₃(x, y, y)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

div₂(0, y) -> 0
div₂(x, y) -> quot₃(x, y, y)
quot₃(0, s₁(y), z) -> 0
quot₃(s₁(x), s₁(y), z) -> quot₃(x, y, z)
quot₃(x, 0, s₁(z)) -> s₁(div₂(x, s₁(z)))

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.

QUOT₃(s₁(x), s₁(y), z) -> QUOT₃(x, y, z)

The remaining pairs can at least be oriented weakly.

QUOT₃(x, 0, s₁(z)) -> DIV₂(x, s₁(z))
DIV₂(x, y) -> QUOT₃(x, y, y)

Used ordering: Polynomial interpretation [21]:

POL(0) = 1
POL(DIV₂(x₁, x₂)) = 2 + 2·x₁
POL(QUOT₃(x₁, x₂, x₃)) = 2 + 2·x₁
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:

QUOT₃(x, 0, s₁(z)) -> DIV₂(x, s₁(z))
DIV₂(x, y) -> QUOT₃(x, y, y)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

div₂(0, y) -> 0
div₂(x, y) -> quot₃(x, y, y)
quot₃(0, s₁(y), z) -> 0
quot₃(s₁(x), s₁(y), z) -> quot₃(x, y, z)
quot₃(x, 0, s₁(z)) -> s₁(div₂(x, s₁(z)))

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.

QUOT₃(x, 0, s₁(z)) -> DIV₂(x, s₁(z))
DIV₂(x, y) -> QUOT₃(x, y, y)

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

POL(0) = 2
POL(DIV₂(x₁, x₂)) = 2 + 2·x₂
POL(QUOT₃(x₁, x₂, x₃)) = 2·x₂
POL(s₁(x₁)) = 0

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:

div₂(0, y) -> 0
div₂(x, y) -> quot₃(x, y, y)
quot₃(0, s₁(y), z) -> 0
quot₃(s₁(x), s₁(y), z) -> quot₃(x, y, z)
quot₃(x, 0, s₁(z)) -> s₁(div₂(x, s₁(z)))

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.