Termination w.r.t. Q proof of TRS/SK902.61.trs

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(j(x, y), y) → g(f(x, k(y)))
f(x, h1(y, z)) → h2(0, x, h1(y, z))
g(h2(x, y, h1(z, u))) → h2(s(x), y, h1(z, u))
h2(x, j(y, h1(z, u)), h1(z, u)) → h2(s(x), y, h1(s(z), u))
i(f(x, h(y))) → y
i(h2(s(x), y, h1(x, z))) → z
k(h(x)) → h1(0, x)
k(h1(x, y)) → h1(s(x), y)

Q is empty.

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

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

f(j(x, y), y) → g(f(x, k(y)))
f(x, h1(y, z)) → h2(0, x, h1(y, z))
g(h2(x, y, h1(z, u))) → h2(s(x), y, h1(z, u))
h2(x, j(y, h1(z, u)), h1(z, u)) → h2(s(x), y, h1(s(z), u))
i(f(x, h(y))) → y
i(h2(s(x), y, h1(x, z))) → z
k(h(x)) → h1(0, x)
k(h1(x, y)) → h1(s(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:

F(j(x, y), y) → G(f(x, k(y)))
F(j(x, y), y) → K(y)
H2(x, j(y, h1(z, u)), h1(z, u)) → H2(s(x), y, h1(s(z), u))
F(x, h1(y, z)) → H2(0, x, h1(y, z))
G(h2(x, y, h1(z, u))) → H2(s(x), y, h1(z, u))
F(j(x, y), y) → F(x, k(y))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

f(j(x, y), y) → g(f(x, k(y)))
f(x, h1(y, z)) → h2(0, x, h1(y, z))
g(h2(x, y, h1(z, u))) → h2(s(x), y, h1(z, u))
h2(x, j(y, h1(z, u)), h1(z, u)) → h2(s(x), y, h1(s(z), u))
i(f(x, h(y))) → y
i(h2(s(x), y, h1(x, z))) → z
k(h(x)) → h1(0, x)
k(h1(x, y)) → h1(s(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:

F(j(x, y), y) → G(f(x, k(y)))
F(j(x, y), y) → K(y)
H2(x, j(y, h1(z, u)), h1(z, u)) → H2(s(x), y, h1(s(z), u))
F(x, h1(y, z)) → H2(0, x, h1(y, z))
G(h2(x, y, h1(z, u))) → H2(s(x), y, h1(z, u))
F(j(x, y), y) → F(x, k(y))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

f(j(x, y), y) → g(f(x, k(y)))
f(x, h1(y, z)) → h2(0, x, h1(y, z))
g(h2(x, y, h1(z, u))) → h2(s(x), y, h1(z, u))
h2(x, j(y, h1(z, u)), h1(z, u)) → h2(s(x), y, h1(s(z), u))
i(f(x, h(y))) → y
i(h2(s(x), y, h1(x, z))) → z
k(h(x)) → h1(0, x)
k(h1(x, y)) → h1(s(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:

F(j(x, y), y) → G(f(x, k(y)))
F(j(x, y), y) → K(y)
H2(x, j(y, h1(z, u)), h1(z, u)) → H2(s(x), y, h1(s(z), u))
F(x, h1(y, z)) → H2(0, x, h1(y, z))
G(h2(x, y, h1(z, u))) → H2(s(x), y, h1(z, u))
F(j(x, y), y) → F(x, k(y))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

f(j(x, y), y) → g(f(x, k(y)))
f(x, h1(y, z)) → h2(0, x, h1(y, z))
g(h2(x, y, h1(z, u))) → h2(s(x), y, h1(z, u))
h2(x, j(y, h1(z, u)), h1(z, u)) → h2(s(x), y, h1(s(z), u))
i(f(x, h(y))) → y
i(h2(s(x), y, h1(x, z))) → z
k(h(x)) → h1(0, x)
k(h1(x, y)) → h1(s(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 2 SCCs with 4 less nodes.

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ EdgeDeletionProof

        ↳ QDP

          ↳ DependencyGraphProof

            ↳ AND

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ QDPOrderProof

              ↳ QDP

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

H2(x, j(y, h1(z, u)), h1(z, u)) → H2(s(x), y, h1(s(z), u))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

f(j(x, y), y) → g(f(x, k(y)))
f(x, h1(y, z)) → h2(0, x, h1(y, z))
g(h2(x, y, h1(z, u))) → h2(s(x), y, h1(z, u))
h2(x, j(y, h1(z, u)), h1(z, u)) → h2(s(x), y, h1(s(z), u))
i(f(x, h(y))) → y
i(h2(s(x), y, h1(x, z))) → z
k(h(x)) → h1(0, x)
k(h1(x, y)) → h1(s(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.

H2(x, j(y, h1(z, u)), h1(z, u)) → H2(s(x), y, h1(s(z), u))

The remaining pairs can at least be oriented weakly.
none
Used ordering: Combined order from the following AFS and order.
H2(x1, x2, x3) = x2
j(x1, x2) = j(x1, x2)
h1(x1, x2) = h1(x1, x2)
s(x1) = s

Recursive Path Order [2].
Precedence:

j₂ > h1₂
s > h1₂

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:

f(j(x, y), y) → g(f(x, k(y)))
f(x, h1(y, z)) → h2(0, x, h1(y, z))
g(h2(x, y, h1(z, u))) → h2(s(x), y, h1(z, u))
h2(x, j(y, h1(z, u)), h1(z, u)) → h2(s(x), y, h1(s(z), u))
i(f(x, h(y))) → y
i(h2(s(x), y, h1(x, z))) → z
k(h(x)) → h1(0, x)
k(h1(x, y)) → h1(s(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

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

F(j(x, y), y) → F(x, k(y))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

f(j(x, y), y) → g(f(x, k(y)))
f(x, h1(y, z)) → h2(0, x, h1(y, z))
g(h2(x, y, h1(z, u))) → h2(s(x), y, h1(z, u))
h2(x, j(y, h1(z, u)), h1(z, u)) → h2(s(x), y, h1(s(z), u))
i(f(x, h(y))) → y
i(h2(s(x), y, h1(x, z))) → z
k(h(x)) → h1(0, x)
k(h1(x, y)) → h1(s(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.

F(j(x, y), y) → F(x, k(y))

The remaining pairs can at least be oriented weakly.
none
Used ordering: Combined order from the following AFS and order.
F(x1, x2) = x1
j(x1, x2) = j(x1)
k(x1) = x1
h1(x1, x2) = h1(x1, x2)
s(x1) = s(x1)
h(x1) = x1
0 = 0

Recursive Path Order [2].
Precedence:

j₁ > h1₂
s₁ > h1₂
0 > h1₂

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:

f(j(x, y), y) → g(f(x, k(y)))
f(x, h1(y, z)) → h2(0, x, h1(y, z))
g(h2(x, y, h1(z, u))) → h2(s(x), y, h1(z, u))
h2(x, j(y, h1(z, u)), h1(z, u)) → h2(s(x), y, h1(s(z), u))
i(f(x, h(y))) → y
i(h2(s(x), y, h1(x, z))) → z
k(h(x)) → h1(0, x)
k(h1(x, y)) → h1(s(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.