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:

half(0) → 0
half(s(s(x))) → s(half(x))
log(s(0)) → 0
log(s(s(x))) → s(log(s(half(x))))

Q is empty.


QTRS
  ↳ Overlay + Local Confluence

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

half(0) → 0
half(s(s(x))) → s(half(x))
log(s(0)) → 0
log(s(s(x))) → s(log(s(half(x))))

Q is empty.

The TRS is overlay and locally confluent. By [15] we can switch to innermost.

↳ QTRS
  ↳ Overlay + Local Confluence
QTRS
      ↳ DependencyPairsProof

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

half(0) → 0
half(s(s(x))) → s(half(x))
log(s(0)) → 0
log(s(s(x))) → s(log(s(half(x))))

The set Q consists of the following terms:

half(0)
half(s(s(x0)))
log(s(0))
log(s(s(x0)))


Using Dependency Pairs [1,13] we result in the following initial DP problem:
Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:

LOG(s(s(x))) → HALF(x)
LOG(s(s(x))) → LOG(s(half(x)))
HALF(s(s(x))) → HALF(x)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

half(0) → 0
half(s(s(x))) → s(half(x))
log(s(0)) → 0
log(s(s(x))) → s(log(s(half(x))))

The set Q consists of the following terms:

half(0)
half(s(s(x0)))
log(s(0))
log(s(s(x0)))

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

↳ QTRS
  ↳ Overlay + Local Confluence
    ↳ QTRS
      ↳ DependencyPairsProof
QDP
          ↳ EdgeDeletionProof

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

LOG(s(s(x))) → HALF(x)
LOG(s(s(x))) → LOG(s(half(x)))
HALF(s(s(x))) → HALF(x)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

half(0) → 0
half(s(s(x))) → s(half(x))
log(s(0)) → 0
log(s(s(x))) → s(log(s(half(x))))

The set Q consists of the following terms:

half(0)
half(s(s(x0)))
log(s(0))
log(s(s(x0)))

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

↳ QTRS
  ↳ Overlay + Local Confluence
    ↳ QTRS
      ↳ DependencyPairsProof
        ↳ QDP
          ↳ EdgeDeletionProof
QDP
              ↳ DependencyGraphProof

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

LOG(s(s(x))) → HALF(x)
LOG(s(s(x))) → LOG(s(half(x)))
HALF(s(s(x))) → HALF(x)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

half(0) → 0
half(s(s(x))) → s(half(x))
log(s(0)) → 0
log(s(s(x))) → s(log(s(half(x))))

The set Q consists of the following terms:

half(0)
half(s(s(x0)))
log(s(0))
log(s(s(x0)))

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
  ↳ Overlay + Local Confluence
    ↳ QTRS
      ↳ DependencyPairsProof
        ↳ QDP
          ↳ EdgeDeletionProof
            ↳ QDP
              ↳ DependencyGraphProof
                ↳ AND
QDP
                    ↳ QDPOrderProof
                  ↳ QDP

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

HALF(s(s(x))) → HALF(x)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

half(0) → 0
half(s(s(x))) → s(half(x))
log(s(0)) → 0
log(s(s(x))) → s(log(s(half(x))))

The set Q consists of the following terms:

half(0)
half(s(s(x0)))
log(s(0))
log(s(s(x0)))

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.


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

Recursive Path Order [2].
Precedence:
s1 > HALF1

The following usable rules [14] were oriented: none



↳ QTRS
  ↳ Overlay + Local Confluence
    ↳ 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:

half(0) → 0
half(s(s(x))) → s(half(x))
log(s(0)) → 0
log(s(s(x))) → s(log(s(half(x))))

The set Q consists of the following terms:

half(0)
half(s(s(x0)))
log(s(0))
log(s(s(x0)))

We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
The TRS P is empty. Hence, there is no (P,Q,R) chain.

↳ QTRS
  ↳ Overlay + Local Confluence
    ↳ QTRS
      ↳ DependencyPairsProof
        ↳ QDP
          ↳ EdgeDeletionProof
            ↳ QDP
              ↳ DependencyGraphProof
                ↳ AND
                  ↳ QDP
QDP
                    ↳ QDPOrderProof

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

LOG(s(s(x))) → LOG(s(half(x)))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

half(0) → 0
half(s(s(x))) → s(half(x))
log(s(0)) → 0
log(s(s(x))) → s(log(s(half(x))))

The set Q consists of the following terms:

half(0)
half(s(s(x0)))
log(s(0))
log(s(s(x0)))

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.


LOG(s(s(x))) → LOG(s(half(x)))
The remaining pairs can at least be oriented weakly.
none
Used ordering: Combined order from the following AFS and order.
LOG(x1)  =  x1
s(x1)  =  s(x1)
half(x1)  =  x1
0  =  0

Recursive Path Order [2].
Precedence:
trivial

The following usable rules [14] were oriented:

half(s(s(x))) → s(half(x))
half(0) → 0



↳ QTRS
  ↳ Overlay + Local Confluence
    ↳ 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:

half(0) → 0
half(s(s(x))) → s(half(x))
log(s(0)) → 0
log(s(s(x))) → s(log(s(half(x))))

The set Q consists of the following terms:

half(0)
half(s(s(x0)))
log(s(0))
log(s(s(x0)))

We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
The TRS P is empty. Hence, there is no (P,Q,R) chain.