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:

.(1, x) → x
.(x, 1) → x
.(i(x), x) → 1
.(x, i(x)) → 1
i(1) → 1
i(i(x)) → x
.(i(y), .(y, z)) → z
.(y, .(i(y), z)) → z
.(.(x, y), z) → .(x, .(y, z))
i(.(x, y)) → .(i(y), i(x))

Q is empty.


↳ QTRS
  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

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

.(1, x) → x
.(x, 1) → x
.(i(x), x) → 1
.(x, i(x)) → 1
i(1) → 1
i(i(x)) → x
.(i(y), .(y, z)) → z
.(y, .(i(y), z)) → z
.(.(x, y), z) → .(x, .(y, z))
i(.(x, y)) → .(i(y), i(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:

.1(.(x, y), z) → .1(y, z)
I(.(x, y)) → I(x)
I(.(x, y)) → I(y)
I(.(x, y)) → .1(i(y), i(x))
.1(.(x, y), z) → .1(x, .(y, z))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

.(1, x) → x
.(x, 1) → x
.(i(x), x) → 1
.(x, i(x)) → 1
i(1) → 1
i(i(x)) → x
.(i(y), .(y, z)) → z
.(y, .(i(y), z)) → z
.(.(x, y), z) → .(x, .(y, z))
i(.(x, y)) → .(i(y), i(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:

.1(.(x, y), z) → .1(y, z)
I(.(x, y)) → I(x)
I(.(x, y)) → I(y)
I(.(x, y)) → .1(i(y), i(x))
.1(.(x, y), z) → .1(x, .(y, z))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

.(1, x) → x
.(x, 1) → x
.(i(x), x) → 1
.(x, i(x)) → 1
i(1) → 1
i(i(x)) → x
.(i(y), .(y, z)) → z
.(y, .(i(y), z)) → z
.(.(x, y), z) → .(x, .(y, z))
i(.(x, y)) → .(i(y), i(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:

.1(.(x, y), z) → .1(y, z)
I(.(x, y)) → I(y)
I(.(x, y)) → I(x)
I(.(x, y)) → .1(i(y), i(x))
.1(.(x, y), z) → .1(x, .(y, z))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

.(1, x) → x
.(x, 1) → x
.(i(x), x) → 1
.(x, i(x)) → 1
i(1) → 1
i(i(x)) → x
.(i(y), .(y, z)) → z
.(y, .(i(y), z)) → z
.(.(x, y), z) → .(x, .(y, z))
i(.(x, y)) → .(i(y), i(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:

.1(.(x, y), z) → .1(y, z)
.1(.(x, y), z) → .1(x, .(y, z))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

.(1, x) → x
.(x, 1) → x
.(i(x), x) → 1
.(x, i(x)) → 1
i(1) → 1
i(i(x)) → x
.(i(y), .(y, z)) → z
.(y, .(i(y), z)) → z
.(.(x, y), z) → .(x, .(y, z))
i(.(x, y)) → .(i(y), i(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.


.1(.(x, y), z) → .1(y, z)
.1(.(x, y), z) → .1(x, .(y, z))
The remaining pairs can at least be oriented weakly.
none
Used ordering: Combined order from the following AFS and order.
.1(x1, x2)  =  x1
.(x1, x2)  =  .(x1, x2)
1  =  1
i(x1)  =  x1

Recursive Path Order [2].
Precedence:
trivial

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:

.(1, x) → x
.(x, 1) → x
.(i(x), x) → 1
.(x, i(x)) → 1
i(1) → 1
i(i(x)) → x
.(i(y), .(y, z)) → z
.(y, .(i(y), z)) → z
.(.(x, y), z) → .(x, .(y, z))
i(.(x, y)) → .(i(y), i(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:

I(.(x, y)) → I(y)
I(.(x, y)) → I(x)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

.(1, x) → x
.(x, 1) → x
.(i(x), x) → 1
.(x, i(x)) → 1
i(1) → 1
i(i(x)) → x
.(i(y), .(y, z)) → z
.(y, .(i(y), z)) → z
.(.(x, y), z) → .(x, .(y, z))
i(.(x, y)) → .(i(y), i(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.


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

Recursive Path Order [2].
Precedence:
.2 > I1

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:

.(1, x) → x
.(x, 1) → x
.(i(x), x) → 1
.(x, i(x)) → 1
i(1) → 1
i(i(x)) → x
.(i(y), .(y, z)) → z
.(y, .(i(y), z)) → z
.(.(x, y), z) → .(x, .(y, z))
i(.(x, y)) → .(i(y), i(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.