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:

*2(i1(x), x) -> 1
*2(1, y) -> y
*2(x, 0) -> 0
*2(*2(x, y), z) -> *2(x, *2(y, z))

Q is empty.


↳ QTRS
  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

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

*2(i1(x), x) -> 1
*2(1, y) -> y
*2(x, 0) -> 0
*2(*2(x, y), z) -> *2(x, *2(y, 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:

*12(*2(x, y), z) -> *12(y, z)
*12(*2(x, y), z) -> *12(x, *2(y, z))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

*2(i1(x), x) -> 1
*2(1, y) -> y
*2(x, 0) -> 0
*2(*2(x, y), z) -> *2(x, *2(y, 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:

*12(*2(x, y), z) -> *12(y, z)
*12(*2(x, y), z) -> *12(x, *2(y, z))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

*2(i1(x), x) -> 1
*2(1, y) -> y
*2(x, 0) -> 0
*2(*2(x, y), z) -> *2(x, *2(y, 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.


*12(*2(x, y), z) -> *12(y, z)
*12(*2(x, y), z) -> *12(x, *2(y, z))
The remaining pairs can at least be oriented weakly.
none
Used ordering: Polynomial interpretation [21]:

POL(*2(x1, x2)) = 3 + 3·x1 + 2·x1·x2 + 3·x2   
POL(*12(x1, x2)) = 3·x1   
POL(0) = 0   
POL(1) = 0   
POL(i1(x1)) = 0   

The following usable rules [14] were oriented: none



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

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

*2(i1(x), x) -> 1
*2(1, y) -> y
*2(x, 0) -> 0
*2(*2(x, y), z) -> *2(x, *2(y, 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.