Termination w.r.t. Q proof of TRS/AG01#3.48.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:

f(0) → true
f(1) → false
f(s(x)) → f(x)
if(true, s(x), s(y)) → s(x)
if(false, s(x), s(y)) → s(y)
g(x, c(y)) → c(g(x, y))
g(x, c(y)) → g(x, if(f(x), c(g(s(x), y)), c(y)))

Q is empty.

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

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

f(0) → true
f(1) → false
f(s(x)) → f(x)
if(true, s(x), s(y)) → s(x)
if(false, s(x), s(y)) → s(y)
g(x, c(y)) → c(g(x, y))
g(x, c(y)) → g(x, if(f(x), c(g(s(x), y)), c(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:

G(x, c(y)) → G(x, if(f(x), c(g(s(x), y)), c(y)))
G(x, c(y)) → G(x, y)
G(x, c(y)) → IF(f(x), c(g(s(x), y)), c(y))
G(x, c(y)) → G(s(x), y)
G(x, c(y)) → F(x)
F(s(x)) → F(x)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

f(0) → true
f(1) → false
f(s(x)) → f(x)
if(true, s(x), s(y)) → s(x)
if(false, s(x), s(y)) → s(y)
g(x, c(y)) → c(g(x, y))
g(x, c(y)) → g(x, if(f(x), c(g(s(x), y)), c(y)))

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

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ EdgeDeletionProof

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

G(x, c(y)) → G(x, if(f(x), c(g(s(x), y)), c(y)))
G(x, c(y)) → G(x, y)
G(x, c(y)) → IF(f(x), c(g(s(x), y)), c(y))
G(x, c(y)) → G(s(x), y)
G(x, c(y)) → F(x)
F(s(x)) → F(x)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

f(0) → true
f(1) → false
f(s(x)) → f(x)
if(true, s(x), s(y)) → s(x)
if(false, s(x), s(y)) → s(y)
g(x, c(y)) → c(g(x, y))
g(x, c(y)) → g(x, if(f(x), c(g(s(x), y)), c(y)))

Q is empty.
We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
We deleted some edges using various graph approximations

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ EdgeDeletionProof

        ↳ QDP

          ↳ DependencyGraphProof

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

G(x, c(y)) → G(x, if(f(x), c(g(s(x), y)), c(y)))
G(x, c(y)) → G(x, y)
G(x, c(y)) → IF(f(x), c(g(s(x), y)), c(y))
G(x, c(y)) → G(s(x), y)
G(x, c(y)) → F(x)
F(s(x)) → F(x)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

f(0) → true
f(1) → false
f(s(x)) → f(x)
if(true, s(x), s(y)) → s(x)
if(false, s(x), s(y)) → s(y)
g(x, c(y)) → c(g(x, y))
g(x, c(y)) → g(x, if(f(x), c(g(s(x), y)), c(y)))

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 with 3 less nodes.

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ EdgeDeletionProof

        ↳ QDP

          ↳ DependencyGraphProof

            ↳ AND

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ QDPOrderProof

              ↳ QDP

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

F(s(x)) → F(x)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

f(0) → true
f(1) → false
f(s(x)) → f(x)
if(true, s(x), s(y)) → s(x)
if(false, s(x), s(y)) → s(y)
g(x, c(y)) → c(g(x, y))
g(x, c(y)) → g(x, if(f(x), c(g(s(x), y)), c(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.

F(s(x)) → F(x)

The remaining pairs can at least be oriented weakly.
none
Used ordering: Combined order from the following AFS and order.
F(x1) = F(x1)
s(x1) = s(x1)

Recursive path order with status [2].
Precedence:

s₁ > F₁

Status:

s₁: multiset
F₁: multiset

The following usable rules [14] were oriented: none

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ EdgeDeletionProof

        ↳ QDP

          ↳ DependencyGraphProof

            ↳ AND

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ QDPOrderProof

                  ↳ QDP

                    ↳ PisEmptyProof

              ↳ QDP

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

f(0) → true
f(1) → false
f(s(x)) → f(x)
if(true, s(x), s(y)) → s(x)
if(false, s(x), s(y)) → s(y)
g(x, c(y)) → c(g(x, y))
g(x, c(y)) → g(x, if(f(x), c(g(s(x), y)), c(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

      ↳ EdgeDeletionProof

        ↳ QDP

          ↳ DependencyGraphProof

            ↳ AND

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ QDPOrderProof

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

G(x, c(y)) → G(x, y)
G(x, c(y)) → G(s(x), y)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

f(0) → true
f(1) → false
f(s(x)) → f(x)
if(true, s(x), s(y)) → s(x)
if(false, s(x), s(y)) → s(y)
g(x, c(y)) → c(g(x, y))
g(x, c(y)) → g(x, if(f(x), c(g(s(x), y)), c(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.

G(x, c(y)) → G(x, y)
G(x, c(y)) → G(s(x), y)

The remaining pairs can at least be oriented weakly.
none
Used ordering: Combined order from the following AFS and order.
G(x1, x2) = G(x1, x2)
c(x1) = c(x1)
s(x1) = x1

Recursive path order with status [2].
Precedence:

c₁ > G₂

Status:

G₂: [1,2]
c₁: multiset

The following usable rules [14] were oriented: none

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ EdgeDeletionProof

        ↳ QDP

          ↳ DependencyGraphProof

            ↳ AND

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ QDPOrderProof

                  ↳ QDP

                    ↳ PisEmptyProof

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

f(0) → true
f(1) → false
f(s(x)) → f(x)
if(true, s(x), s(y)) → s(x)
if(false, s(x), s(y)) → s(y)
g(x, c(y)) → c(g(x, y))
g(x, c(y)) → g(x, if(f(x), c(g(s(x), y)), c(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.