Termination w.r.t. Q proof of TRS/SK902.51.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:

ack₂(0, y) -> s₁(y)
ack₂(s₁(x), 0) -> ack₂(x, s₁(0))
ack₂(s₁(x), s₁(y)) -> ack₂(x, ack₂(s₁(x), y))

Q is empty.

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

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

ack₂(0, y) -> s₁(y)
ack₂(s₁(x), 0) -> ack₂(x, s₁(0))
ack₂(s₁(x), s₁(y)) -> ack₂(x, ack₂(s₁(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:

ACK₂(s₁(x), s₁(y)) -> ACK₂(s₁(x), y)
ACK₂(s₁(x), s₁(y)) -> ACK₂(x, ack₂(s₁(x), y))
ACK₂(s₁(x), 0) -> ACK₂(x, s₁(0))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

ack₂(0, y) -> s₁(y)
ack₂(s₁(x), 0) -> ack₂(x, s₁(0))
ack₂(s₁(x), s₁(y)) -> ack₂(x, ack₂(s₁(x), y))

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:

ACK₂(s₁(x), s₁(y)) -> ACK₂(s₁(x), y)
ACK₂(s₁(x), s₁(y)) -> ACK₂(x, ack₂(s₁(x), y))
ACK₂(s₁(x), 0) -> ACK₂(x, s₁(0))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

ack₂(0, y) -> s₁(y)
ack₂(s₁(x), 0) -> ack₂(x, s₁(0))
ack₂(s₁(x), s₁(y)) -> ack₂(x, ack₂(s₁(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.

ACK₂(s₁(x), s₁(y)) -> ACK₂(x, ack₂(s₁(x), y))
ACK₂(s₁(x), 0) -> ACK₂(x, s₁(0))

The remaining pairs can at least be oriented weakly.

ACK₂(s₁(x), s₁(y)) -> ACK₂(s₁(x), y)

Used ordering: Polynomial Order [17,21] with Interpretation:

POL( s₁(x₁) ) = x₁ + 2

POL( 0 ) = 0

POL( ack₂(x₁, x₂) ) = max{0, -3}

POL( ACK₂(x₁, x₂) ) = 2x₁ + 3

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:

ACK₂(s₁(x), s₁(y)) -> ACK₂(s₁(x), y)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

ack₂(0, y) -> s₁(y)
ack₂(s₁(x), 0) -> ack₂(x, s₁(0))
ack₂(s₁(x), s₁(y)) -> ack₂(x, ack₂(s₁(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.

ACK₂(s₁(x), s₁(y)) -> ACK₂(s₁(x), y)

The remaining pairs can at least be oriented weakly.
none
Used ordering: Polynomial Order [17,21] with Interpretation:

POL( s₁(x₁) ) = x₁ + 3

POL( ACK₂(x₁, x₂) ) = max{0, 3x₁ + x₂ - 1}

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:

ack₂(0, y) -> s₁(y)
ack₂(s₁(x), 0) -> ack₂(x, s₁(0))
ack₂(s₁(x), s₁(y)) -> ack₂(x, ack₂(s₁(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.