Termination w.r.t. Q proof of TRS/AProVEJFP

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:

minus_active(0, y) → 0
mark(0) → 0
minus_active(s(x), s(y)) → minus_active(x, y)
mark(s(x)) → s(mark(x))
ge_active(x, 0) → true
mark(minus(x, y)) → minus_active(x, y)
ge_active(0, s(y)) → false
mark(ge(x, y)) → ge_active(x, y)
ge_active(s(x), s(y)) → ge_active(x, y)
mark(div(x, y)) → div_active(mark(x), y)
div_active(0, s(y)) → 0
mark(if(x, y, z)) → if_active(mark(x), y, z)
div_active(s(x), s(y)) → if_active(ge_active(x, y), s(div(minus(x, y), s(y))), 0)
if_active(true, x, y) → mark(x)
minus_active(x, y) → minus(x, y)
if_active(false, x, y) → mark(y)
ge_active(x, y) → ge(x, y)
if_active(x, y, z) → if(x, y, z)
div_active(x, y) → div(x, y)

Q is empty.

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

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

minus_active(0, y) → 0
mark(0) → 0
minus_active(s(x), s(y)) → minus_active(x, y)
mark(s(x)) → s(mark(x))
ge_active(x, 0) → true
mark(minus(x, y)) → minus_active(x, y)
ge_active(0, s(y)) → false
mark(ge(x, y)) → ge_active(x, y)
ge_active(s(x), s(y)) → ge_active(x, y)
mark(div(x, y)) → div_active(mark(x), y)
div_active(0, s(y)) → 0
mark(if(x, y, z)) → if_active(mark(x), y, z)
div_active(s(x), s(y)) → if_active(ge_active(x, y), s(div(minus(x, y), s(y))), 0)
if_active(true, x, y) → mark(x)
minus_active(x, y) → minus(x, y)
if_active(false, x, y) → mark(y)
ge_active(x, y) → ge(x, y)
if_active(x, y, z) → if(x, y, z)
div_active(x, y) → div(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:

DIV_ACTIVE(s(x), s(y)) → GE_ACTIVE(x, y)
IF_ACTIVE(true, x, y) → MARK(x)
GE_ACTIVE(s(x), s(y)) → GE_ACTIVE(x, y)
DIV_ACTIVE(s(x), s(y)) → IF_ACTIVE(ge_active(x, y), s(div(minus(x, y), s(y))), 0)
MARK(if(x, y, z)) → MARK(x)
MARK(s(x)) → MARK(x)
MARK(ge(x, y)) → GE_ACTIVE(x, y)
MARK(div(x, y)) → DIV_ACTIVE(mark(x), y)
MARK(div(x, y)) → MARK(x)
MARK(minus(x, y)) → MINUS_ACTIVE(x, y)
MINUS_ACTIVE(s(x), s(y)) → MINUS_ACTIVE(x, y)
IF_ACTIVE(false, x, y) → MARK(y)
MARK(if(x, y, z)) → IF_ACTIVE(mark(x), y, z)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

minus_active(0, y) → 0
mark(0) → 0
minus_active(s(x), s(y)) → minus_active(x, y)
mark(s(x)) → s(mark(x))
ge_active(x, 0) → true
mark(minus(x, y)) → minus_active(x, y)
ge_active(0, s(y)) → false
mark(ge(x, y)) → ge_active(x, y)
ge_active(s(x), s(y)) → ge_active(x, y)
mark(div(x, y)) → div_active(mark(x), y)
div_active(0, s(y)) → 0
mark(if(x, y, z)) → if_active(mark(x), y, z)
div_active(s(x), s(y)) → if_active(ge_active(x, y), s(div(minus(x, y), s(y))), 0)
if_active(true, x, y) → mark(x)
minus_active(x, y) → minus(x, y)
if_active(false, x, y) → mark(y)
ge_active(x, y) → ge(x, y)
if_active(x, y, z) → if(x, y, z)
div_active(x, y) → div(x, 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:

DIV_ACTIVE(s(x), s(y)) → GE_ACTIVE(x, y)
IF_ACTIVE(true, x, y) → MARK(x)
GE_ACTIVE(s(x), s(y)) → GE_ACTIVE(x, y)
DIV_ACTIVE(s(x), s(y)) → IF_ACTIVE(ge_active(x, y), s(div(minus(x, y), s(y))), 0)
MARK(if(x, y, z)) → MARK(x)
MARK(s(x)) → MARK(x)
MARK(ge(x, y)) → GE_ACTIVE(x, y)
MARK(div(x, y)) → DIV_ACTIVE(mark(x), y)
MARK(div(x, y)) → MARK(x)
MARK(minus(x, y)) → MINUS_ACTIVE(x, y)
MINUS_ACTIVE(s(x), s(y)) → MINUS_ACTIVE(x, y)
IF_ACTIVE(false, x, y) → MARK(y)
MARK(if(x, y, z)) → IF_ACTIVE(mark(x), y, z)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

minus_active(0, y) → 0
mark(0) → 0
minus_active(s(x), s(y)) → minus_active(x, y)
mark(s(x)) → s(mark(x))
ge_active(x, 0) → true
mark(minus(x, y)) → minus_active(x, y)
ge_active(0, s(y)) → false
mark(ge(x, y)) → ge_active(x, y)
ge_active(s(x), s(y)) → ge_active(x, y)
mark(div(x, y)) → div_active(mark(x), y)
div_active(0, s(y)) → 0
mark(if(x, y, z)) → if_active(mark(x), y, z)
div_active(s(x), s(y)) → if_active(ge_active(x, y), s(div(minus(x, y), s(y))), 0)
if_active(true, x, y) → mark(x)
minus_active(x, y) → minus(x, y)
if_active(false, x, y) → mark(y)
ge_active(x, y) → ge(x, y)
if_active(x, y, z) → if(x, y, z)
div_active(x, y) → div(x, 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:

IF_ACTIVE(true, x, y) → MARK(x)
DIV_ACTIVE(s(x), s(y)) → GE_ACTIVE(x, y)
GE_ACTIVE(s(x), s(y)) → GE_ACTIVE(x, y)
DIV_ACTIVE(s(x), s(y)) → IF_ACTIVE(ge_active(x, y), s(div(minus(x, y), s(y))), 0)
MARK(if(x, y, z)) → MARK(x)
MARK(s(x)) → MARK(x)
MARK(ge(x, y)) → GE_ACTIVE(x, y)
MARK(div(x, y)) → DIV_ACTIVE(mark(x), y)
MARK(div(x, y)) → MARK(x)
MARK(minus(x, y)) → MINUS_ACTIVE(x, y)
IF_ACTIVE(false, x, y) → MARK(y)
MINUS_ACTIVE(s(x), s(y)) → MINUS_ACTIVE(x, y)
MARK(if(x, y, z)) → IF_ACTIVE(mark(x), y, z)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

minus_active(0, y) → 0
mark(0) → 0
minus_active(s(x), s(y)) → minus_active(x, y)
mark(s(x)) → s(mark(x))
ge_active(x, 0) → true
mark(minus(x, y)) → minus_active(x, y)
ge_active(0, s(y)) → false
mark(ge(x, y)) → ge_active(x, y)
ge_active(s(x), s(y)) → ge_active(x, y)
mark(div(x, y)) → div_active(mark(x), y)
div_active(0, s(y)) → 0
mark(if(x, y, z)) → if_active(mark(x), y, z)
div_active(s(x), s(y)) → if_active(ge_active(x, y), s(div(minus(x, y), s(y))), 0)
if_active(true, x, y) → mark(x)
minus_active(x, y) → minus(x, y)
if_active(false, x, y) → mark(y)
ge_active(x, y) → ge(x, y)
if_active(x, y, z) → if(x, y, z)
div_active(x, y) → div(x, y)

Q is empty.
We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
The approximation of the Dependency Graph [13,14,18] contains 3 SCCs with 3 less nodes.

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ EdgeDeletionProof

        ↳ QDP

          ↳ DependencyGraphProof

            ↳ AND

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ QDPOrderProof

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

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

GE_ACTIVE(s(x), s(y)) → GE_ACTIVE(x, y)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

minus_active(0, y) → 0
mark(0) → 0
minus_active(s(x), s(y)) → minus_active(x, y)
mark(s(x)) → s(mark(x))
ge_active(x, 0) → true
mark(minus(x, y)) → minus_active(x, y)
ge_active(0, s(y)) → false
mark(ge(x, y)) → ge_active(x, y)
ge_active(s(x), s(y)) → ge_active(x, y)
mark(div(x, y)) → div_active(mark(x), y)
div_active(0, s(y)) → 0
mark(if(x, y, z)) → if_active(mark(x), y, z)
div_active(s(x), s(y)) → if_active(ge_active(x, y), s(div(minus(x, y), s(y))), 0)
if_active(true, x, y) → mark(x)
minus_active(x, y) → minus(x, y)
if_active(false, x, y) → mark(y)
ge_active(x, y) → ge(x, y)
if_active(x, y, z) → if(x, y, z)
div_active(x, y) → div(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.

GE_ACTIVE(s(x), s(y)) → GE_ACTIVE(x, y)

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

Lexicographic path order with status [19].
Quasi-Precedence:

s₁ > GE_ACTIVE₁

Status:

GE_ACTIVE₁: [1]
s₁: [1]

The following usable rules [14] were oriented: none

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ EdgeDeletionProof

        ↳ QDP

          ↳ DependencyGraphProof

            ↳ AND

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ QDPOrderProof

                  ↳ QDP

                    ↳ PisEmptyProof

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

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

minus_active(0, y) → 0
mark(0) → 0
minus_active(s(x), s(y)) → minus_active(x, y)
mark(s(x)) → s(mark(x))
ge_active(x, 0) → true
mark(minus(x, y)) → minus_active(x, y)
ge_active(0, s(y)) → false
mark(ge(x, y)) → ge_active(x, y)
ge_active(s(x), s(y)) → ge_active(x, y)
mark(div(x, y)) → div_active(mark(x), y)
div_active(0, s(y)) → 0
mark(if(x, y, z)) → if_active(mark(x), y, z)
div_active(s(x), s(y)) → if_active(ge_active(x, y), s(div(minus(x, y), s(y))), 0)
if_active(true, x, y) → mark(x)
minus_active(x, y) → minus(x, y)
if_active(false, x, y) → mark(y)
ge_active(x, y) → ge(x, y)
if_active(x, y, z) → if(x, y, z)
div_active(x, y) → div(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.

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ EdgeDeletionProof

        ↳ QDP

          ↳ DependencyGraphProof

            ↳ AND

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ QDPOrderProof

              ↳ QDP

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

MINUS_ACTIVE(s(x), s(y)) → MINUS_ACTIVE(x, y)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

minus_active(0, y) → 0
mark(0) → 0
minus_active(s(x), s(y)) → minus_active(x, y)
mark(s(x)) → s(mark(x))
ge_active(x, 0) → true
mark(minus(x, y)) → minus_active(x, y)
ge_active(0, s(y)) → false
mark(ge(x, y)) → ge_active(x, y)
ge_active(s(x), s(y)) → ge_active(x, y)
mark(div(x, y)) → div_active(mark(x), y)
div_active(0, s(y)) → 0
mark(if(x, y, z)) → if_active(mark(x), y, z)
div_active(s(x), s(y)) → if_active(ge_active(x, y), s(div(minus(x, y), s(y))), 0)
if_active(true, x, y) → mark(x)
minus_active(x, y) → minus(x, y)
if_active(false, x, y) → mark(y)
ge_active(x, y) → ge(x, y)
if_active(x, y, z) → if(x, y, z)
div_active(x, y) → div(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.

MINUS_ACTIVE(s(x), s(y)) → MINUS_ACTIVE(x, y)

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

Lexicographic path order with status [19].
Quasi-Precedence:

s₁ > MINUS_ACTIVE₁

Status:

s₁: [1]
MINUS_ACTIVE₁: [1]

The following usable rules [14] were oriented: none

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ EdgeDeletionProof

        ↳ QDP

          ↳ DependencyGraphProof

            ↳ AND

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ QDPOrderProof

                  ↳ QDP

                    ↳ PisEmptyProof

              ↳ QDP

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

minus_active(0, y) → 0
mark(0) → 0
minus_active(s(x), s(y)) → minus_active(x, y)
mark(s(x)) → s(mark(x))
ge_active(x, 0) → true
mark(minus(x, y)) → minus_active(x, y)
ge_active(0, s(y)) → false
mark(ge(x, y)) → ge_active(x, y)
ge_active(s(x), s(y)) → ge_active(x, y)
mark(div(x, y)) → div_active(mark(x), y)
div_active(0, s(y)) → 0
mark(if(x, y, z)) → if_active(mark(x), y, z)
div_active(s(x), s(y)) → if_active(ge_active(x, y), s(div(minus(x, y), s(y))), 0)
if_active(true, x, y) → mark(x)
minus_active(x, y) → minus(x, y)
if_active(false, x, y) → mark(y)
ge_active(x, y) → ge(x, y)
if_active(x, y, z) → if(x, y, z)
div_active(x, y) → div(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.

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ EdgeDeletionProof

        ↳ QDP

          ↳ DependencyGraphProof

            ↳ AND

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ QDPOrderProof

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

MARK(if(x, y, z)) → MARK(x)
MARK(s(x)) → MARK(x)
IF_ACTIVE(true, x, y) → MARK(x)
MARK(div(x, y)) → DIV_ACTIVE(mark(x), y)
MARK(div(x, y)) → MARK(x)
IF_ACTIVE(false, x, y) → MARK(y)
MARK(if(x, y, z)) → IF_ACTIVE(mark(x), y, z)
DIV_ACTIVE(s(x), s(y)) → IF_ACTIVE(ge_active(x, y), s(div(minus(x, y), s(y))), 0)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

minus_active(0, y) → 0
mark(0) → 0
minus_active(s(x), s(y)) → minus_active(x, y)
mark(s(x)) → s(mark(x))
ge_active(x, 0) → true
mark(minus(x, y)) → minus_active(x, y)
ge_active(0, s(y)) → false
mark(ge(x, y)) → ge_active(x, y)
ge_active(s(x), s(y)) → ge_active(x, y)
mark(div(x, y)) → div_active(mark(x), y)
div_active(0, s(y)) → 0
mark(if(x, y, z)) → if_active(mark(x), y, z)
div_active(s(x), s(y)) → if_active(ge_active(x, y), s(div(minus(x, y), s(y))), 0)
if_active(true, x, y) → mark(x)
minus_active(x, y) → minus(x, y)
if_active(false, x, y) → mark(y)
ge_active(x, y) → ge(x, y)
if_active(x, y, z) → if(x, y, z)
div_active(x, y) → div(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.

MARK(if(x, y, z)) → MARK(x)
MARK(s(x)) → MARK(x)
IF_ACTIVE(true, x, y) → MARK(x)
MARK(div(x, y)) → DIV_ACTIVE(mark(x), y)
MARK(div(x, y)) → MARK(x)
IF_ACTIVE(false, x, y) → MARK(y)
MARK(if(x, y, z)) → IF_ACTIVE(mark(x), y, z)
DIV_ACTIVE(s(x), s(y)) → IF_ACTIVE(ge_active(x, y), s(div(minus(x, y), s(y))), 0)

The remaining pairs can at least be oriented weakly.
none
Used ordering: Combined order from the following AFS and order.
MARK(x1) = MARK(x1)
if(x1, x2, x3) = if(x1, x2, x3)
s(x1) = s(x1)
IF_ACTIVE(x1, x2, x3) = IF_ACTIVE(x2, x3)
true = true
div(x1, x2) = div(x1, x2)
DIV_ACTIVE(x1, x2) = DIV_ACTIVE(x1, x2)
mark(x1) = x1
false = false
ge_active(x1, x2) = ge_active(x1, x2)
minus(x1, x2) = x1
0 = 0
if_active(x1, x2, x3) = if_active(x1, x2, x3)
div_active(x1, x2) = div_active(x1, x2)
minus_active(x1, x2) = x1
ge(x1, x2) = ge(x1, x2)

Lexicographic path order with status [19].
Quasi-Precedence:

[true, div₂, DIV_ACTIVE₂, ge_active₂, div_active₂, ge_2] > [s₁, false, 0] > [if₃, IF_ACTIVE₂, if_{active_3]} > MARK₁

Status:

if₃: [3,2,1]
MARK₁: [1]
0: multiset
DIV_ACTIVE₂: [1,2]
div₂: [1,2]
ge₂: [1,2]
ge_active₂: [1,2]
true: multiset
IF_ACTIVE₂: [2,1]
false: multiset
s₁: [1]
div_active₂: [1,2]
if_active₃: [3,2,1]

The following usable rules [14] were oriented:

if_active(true, x, y) → mark(x)
mark(if(x, y, z)) → if_active(mark(x), y, z)
if_active(false, x, y) → mark(y)
div_active(s(x), s(y)) → if_active(ge_active(x, y), s(div(minus(x, y), s(y))), 0)
mark(div(x, y)) → div_active(mark(x), y)
mark(minus(x, y)) → minus_active(x, y)
ge_active(x, y) → ge(x, y)
if_active(x, y, z) → if(x, y, z)
minus_active(s(x), s(y)) → minus_active(x, y)
ge_active(0, s(y)) → false
div_active(0, s(y)) → 0
mark(0) → 0
minus_active(x, y) → minus(x, y)
minus_active(0, y) → 0
mark(ge(x, y)) → ge_active(x, y)
ge_active(s(x), s(y)) → ge_active(x, y)
ge_active(x, 0) → true
mark(s(x)) → s(mark(x))
div_active(x, y) → div(x, y)

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ EdgeDeletionProof

        ↳ QDP

          ↳ DependencyGraphProof

            ↳ AND

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ QDPOrderProof

                  ↳ QDP

                    ↳ PisEmptyProof

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

minus_active(0, y) → 0
mark(0) → 0
minus_active(s(x), s(y)) → minus_active(x, y)
mark(s(x)) → s(mark(x))
ge_active(x, 0) → true
mark(minus(x, y)) → minus_active(x, y)
ge_active(0, s(y)) → false
mark(ge(x, y)) → ge_active(x, y)
ge_active(s(x), s(y)) → ge_active(x, y)
mark(div(x, y)) → div_active(mark(x), y)
div_active(0, s(y)) → 0
mark(if(x, y, z)) → if_active(mark(x), y, z)
div_active(s(x), s(y)) → if_active(ge_active(x, y), s(div(minus(x, y), s(y))), 0)
if_active(true, x, y) → mark(x)
minus_active(x, y) → minus(x, y)
if_active(false, x, y) → mark(y)
ge_active(x, y) → ge(x, y)
if_active(x, y, z) → if(x, y, z)
div_active(x, y) → div(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.