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:

sum1(0) -> 0
sum1(s1(x)) -> +2(sum1(x), s1(x))
sum11(0) -> 0
sum11(s1(x)) -> s1(+2(sum11(x), +2(x, x)))

Q is empty.


↳ QTRS
  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

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

sum1(0) -> 0
sum1(s1(x)) -> +2(sum1(x), s1(x))
sum11(0) -> 0
sum11(s1(x)) -> s1(+2(sum11(x), +2(x, x)))

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:

SUM11(s1(x)) -> SUM11(x)
SUM1(s1(x)) -> SUM1(x)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

sum1(0) -> 0
sum1(s1(x)) -> +2(sum1(x), s1(x))
sum11(0) -> 0
sum11(s1(x)) -> s1(+2(sum11(x), +2(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:

SUM11(s1(x)) -> SUM11(x)
SUM1(s1(x)) -> SUM1(x)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

sum1(0) -> 0
sum1(s1(x)) -> +2(sum1(x), s1(x))
sum11(0) -> 0
sum11(s1(x)) -> s1(+2(sum11(x), +2(x, x)))

Q is empty.
We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
The approximation of the Dependency Graph [13,14,18] contains 2 SCCs.

↳ QTRS
  ↳ DependencyPairsProof
    ↳ QDP
      ↳ DependencyGraphProof
        ↳ AND
          ↳ QDP
            ↳ QDPOrderProof
          ↳ QDP

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

SUM11(s1(x)) -> SUM11(x)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

sum1(0) -> 0
sum1(s1(x)) -> +2(sum1(x), s1(x))
sum11(0) -> 0
sum11(s1(x)) -> s1(+2(sum11(x), +2(x, x)))

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.


SUM11(s1(x)) -> SUM11(x)
The remaining pairs can at least be oriented weakly.
none
Used ordering: Polynomial interpretation [21]:

POL(SUM11(x1)) = 2·x1   
POL(s1(x1)) = 2 + x1   

The following usable rules [14] were oriented: none



↳ QTRS
  ↳ DependencyPairsProof
    ↳ QDP
      ↳ DependencyGraphProof
        ↳ AND
          ↳ QDP
            ↳ QDPOrderProof
              ↳ QDP
                ↳ PisEmptyProof
          ↳ QDP

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

sum1(0) -> 0
sum1(s1(x)) -> +2(sum1(x), s1(x))
sum11(0) -> 0
sum11(s1(x)) -> s1(+2(sum11(x), +2(x, x)))

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

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

SUM1(s1(x)) -> SUM1(x)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

sum1(0) -> 0
sum1(s1(x)) -> +2(sum1(x), s1(x))
sum11(0) -> 0
sum11(s1(x)) -> s1(+2(sum11(x), +2(x, x)))

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(s1(x)) -> SUM1(x)
The remaining pairs can at least be oriented weakly.
none
Used ordering: Polynomial interpretation [21]:

POL(SUM1(x1)) = 2·x1   
POL(s1(x1)) = 2 + x1   

The following usable rules [14] were oriented: none



↳ QTRS
  ↳ DependencyPairsProof
    ↳ QDP
      ↳ DependencyGraphProof
        ↳ AND
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP
            ↳ QDPOrderProof
              ↳ QDP
                ↳ PisEmptyProof

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

sum1(0) -> 0
sum1(s1(x)) -> +2(sum1(x), s1(x))
sum11(0) -> 0
sum11(s1(x)) -> s1(+2(sum11(x), +2(x, x)))

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.