Termination w.r.t. Q proof of TRS/AG01#3.56.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:

g(c(x, s(y))) → g(c(s(x), y))
f(c(s(x), y)) → f(c(x, s(y)))
f(f(x)) → f(d(f(x)))
f(x) → x

Q is empty.

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

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

g(c(x, s(y))) → g(c(s(x), y))
f(c(s(x), y)) → f(c(x, s(y)))
f(f(x)) → f(d(f(x)))
f(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:

F(f(x)) → F(d(f(x)))
F(c(s(x), y)) → F(c(x, s(y)))
G(c(x, s(y))) → G(c(s(x), y))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

g(c(x, s(y))) → g(c(s(x), y))
f(c(s(x), y)) → f(c(x, s(y)))
f(f(x)) → f(d(f(x)))
f(x) → x

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:

F(f(x)) → F(d(f(x)))
F(c(s(x), y)) → F(c(x, s(y)))
G(c(x, s(y))) → G(c(s(x), y))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

g(c(x, s(y))) → g(c(s(x), y))
f(c(s(x), y)) → f(c(x, s(y)))
f(f(x)) → f(d(f(x)))
f(x) → x

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:

F(f(x)) → F(d(f(x)))
F(c(s(x), y)) → F(c(x, s(y)))
G(c(x, s(y))) → G(c(s(x), y))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

g(c(x, s(y))) → g(c(s(x), y))
f(c(s(x), y)) → f(c(x, s(y)))
f(f(x)) → f(d(f(x)))
f(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 with 1 less node.

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ EdgeDeletionProof

        ↳ QDP

          ↳ DependencyGraphProof

            ↳ AND

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ QDPOrderProof

              ↳ QDP

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

F(c(s(x), y)) → F(c(x, s(y)))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

g(c(x, s(y))) → g(c(s(x), y))
f(c(s(x), y)) → f(c(x, s(y)))
f(f(x)) → f(d(f(x)))
f(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.

F(c(s(x), y)) → F(c(x, s(y)))

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

Recursive path order with status [2].
Quasi-Precedence:

[c₁, s_1]

Status:

c₁: multiset
s₁: 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:

g(c(x, s(y))) → g(c(s(x), y))
f(c(s(x), y)) → f(c(x, s(y)))
f(f(x)) → f(d(f(x)))
f(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

      ↳ EdgeDeletionProof

        ↳ QDP

          ↳ DependencyGraphProof

            ↳ AND

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ QDPOrderProof

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

G(c(x, s(y))) → G(c(s(x), y))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

g(c(x, s(y))) → g(c(s(x), y))
f(c(s(x), y)) → f(c(x, s(y)))
f(f(x)) → f(d(f(x)))
f(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.

G(c(x, s(y))) → G(c(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) = x1
c(x1, x2) = c(x1, x2)
s(x1) = s(x1)

Recursive path order with status [2].
Quasi-Precedence:

c₂ > s₁

Status:

c₂: [2,1]
s₁: 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:

g(c(x, s(y))) → g(c(s(x), y))
f(c(s(x), y)) → f(c(x, s(y)))
f(f(x)) → f(d(f(x)))
f(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.