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:

and(x, false) → false
and(x, not(false)) → x
not(not(x)) → x
implies(false, y) → not(false)
implies(x, false) → not(x)
implies(not(x), not(y)) → implies(y, and(x, y))

Q is empty.


↳ QTRS
  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

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

and(x, false) → false
and(x, not(false)) → x
not(not(x)) → x
implies(false, y) → not(false)
implies(x, false) → not(x)
implies(not(x), not(y)) → implies(y, and(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:

IMPLIES(not(x), not(y)) → IMPLIES(y, and(x, y))
IMPLIES(false, y) → NOT(false)
IMPLIES(not(x), not(y)) → AND(x, y)
IMPLIES(x, false) → NOT(x)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

and(x, false) → false
and(x, not(false)) → x
not(not(x)) → x
implies(false, y) → not(false)
implies(x, false) → not(x)
implies(not(x), not(y)) → implies(y, and(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:

IMPLIES(not(x), not(y)) → IMPLIES(y, and(x, y))
IMPLIES(false, y) → NOT(false)
IMPLIES(not(x), not(y)) → AND(x, y)
IMPLIES(x, false) → NOT(x)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

and(x, false) → false
and(x, not(false)) → x
not(not(x)) → x
implies(false, y) → not(false)
implies(x, false) → not(x)
implies(not(x), not(y)) → implies(y, and(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:

IMPLIES(not(x), not(y)) → IMPLIES(y, and(x, y))
IMPLIES(false, y) → NOT(false)
IMPLIES(not(x), not(y)) → AND(x, y)
IMPLIES(x, false) → NOT(x)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

and(x, false) → false
and(x, not(false)) → x
not(not(x)) → x
implies(false, y) → not(false)
implies(x, false) → not(x)
implies(not(x), not(y)) → implies(y, and(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 1 SCC with 3 less nodes.

↳ QTRS
  ↳ DependencyPairsProof
    ↳ QDP
      ↳ EdgeDeletionProof
        ↳ QDP
          ↳ DependencyGraphProof
            ↳ QDP
              ↳ QDPOrderProof

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

IMPLIES(not(x), not(y)) → IMPLIES(y, and(x, y))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

and(x, false) → false
and(x, not(false)) → x
not(not(x)) → x
implies(false, y) → not(false)
implies(x, false) → not(x)
implies(not(x), not(y)) → implies(y, and(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.


IMPLIES(not(x), not(y)) → IMPLIES(y, and(x, y))
The remaining pairs can at least be oriented weakly.
none
Used ordering: Combined order from the following AFS and order.
IMPLIES(x1, x2)  =  IMPLIES(x1, x2)
not(x1)  =  not(x1)
and(x1, x2)  =  x1
false  =  false

Recursive Path Order [2].
Precedence:
not1 > IMPLIES2 > false

The following usable rules [14] were oriented:

and(x, not(false)) → x
and(x, false) → false



↳ QTRS
  ↳ DependencyPairsProof
    ↳ QDP
      ↳ EdgeDeletionProof
        ↳ QDP
          ↳ DependencyGraphProof
            ↳ QDP
              ↳ QDPOrderProof
                ↳ QDP
                  ↳ PisEmptyProof

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

and(x, false) → false
and(x, not(false)) → x
not(not(x)) → x
implies(false, y) → not(false)
implies(x, false) → not(x)
implies(not(x), not(y)) → implies(y, and(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.