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) → 1
f(s(x)) → g(f(x))
g(x) → +(x, s(x))
f(s(x)) → +(f(x), s(f(x)))
Q is empty.
↳ QTRS
↳ Overlay + Local Confluence
Q restricted rewrite system:
The TRS R consists of the following rules:
f(0) → 1
f(s(x)) → g(f(x))
g(x) → +(x, s(x))
f(s(x)) → +(f(x), s(f(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:
f(0) → 1
f(s(x)) → g(f(x))
g(x) → +(x, s(x))
f(s(x)) → +(f(x), s(f(x)))
The set Q consists of the following terms:
f(0)
f(s(x0))
g(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:
F(s(x)) → G(f(x))
F(s(x)) → F(x)
The TRS R consists of the following rules:
f(0) → 1
f(s(x)) → g(f(x))
g(x) → +(x, s(x))
f(s(x)) → +(f(x), s(f(x)))
The set Q consists of the following terms:
f(0)
f(s(x0))
g(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:
F(s(x)) → G(f(x))
F(s(x)) → F(x)
The TRS R consists of the following rules:
f(0) → 1
f(s(x)) → g(f(x))
g(x) → +(x, s(x))
f(s(x)) → +(f(x), s(f(x)))
The set Q consists of the following terms:
f(0)
f(s(x0))
g(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:
F(s(x)) → G(f(x))
F(s(x)) → F(x)
The TRS R consists of the following rules:
f(0) → 1
f(s(x)) → g(f(x))
g(x) → +(x, s(x))
f(s(x)) → +(f(x), s(f(x)))
The set Q consists of the following terms:
f(0)
f(s(x0))
g(x0)
We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
The approximation of the Dependency Graph [13,14,18] contains 1 SCC with 1 less node.
↳ QTRS
↳ Overlay + Local Confluence
↳ QTRS
↳ DependencyPairsProof
↳ QDP
↳ EdgeDeletionProof
↳ QDP
↳ DependencyGraphProof
↳ QDP
↳ QDPOrderProof
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) → 1
f(s(x)) → g(f(x))
g(x) → +(x, s(x))
f(s(x)) → +(f(x), s(f(x)))
The set Q consists of the following terms:
f(0)
f(s(x0))
g(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.
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) = x1
s(x1) = s(x1)
Recursive Path Order [2].
Precedence: trivial
The following usable rules [14] were oriented:
none
↳ QTRS
↳ Overlay + Local Confluence
↳ QTRS
↳ DependencyPairsProof
↳ QDP
↳ EdgeDeletionProof
↳ QDP
↳ DependencyGraphProof
↳ QDP
↳ QDPOrderProof
↳ QDP
↳ PisEmptyProof
Q DP problem:
P is empty.
The TRS R consists of the following rules:
f(0) → 1
f(s(x)) → g(f(x))
g(x) → +(x, s(x))
f(s(x)) → +(f(x), s(f(x)))
The set Q consists of the following terms:
f(0)
f(s(x0))
g(x0)
We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
The TRS P is empty. Hence, there is no (P,Q,R) chain.