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:

+(x, 0) → x
+(x, i(x)) → 0
+(+(x, y), z) → +(x, +(y, z))
*(x, +(y, z)) → +(*(x, y), *(x, z))
*(+(x, y), z) → +(*(x, z), *(y, z))

Q is empty.


↳ QTRS
  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

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

+(x, 0) → x
+(x, i(x)) → 0
+(+(x, y), z) → +(x, +(y, z))
*(x, +(y, z)) → +(*(x, y), *(x, z))
*(+(x, y), z) → +(*(x, z), *(y, z))

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(x, z)
*1(+(x, y), z) → +1(*(x, z), *(y, z))
*1(x, +(y, z)) → +1(*(x, y), *(x, z))
+1(+(x, y), z) → +1(y, z)
*1(x, +(y, z)) → *1(x, z)
*1(x, +(y, z)) → *1(x, y)
*1(+(x, y), z) → *1(y, z)
+1(+(x, y), z) → +1(x, +(y, z))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

+(x, 0) → x
+(x, i(x)) → 0
+(+(x, y), z) → +(x, +(y, z))
*(x, +(y, z)) → +(*(x, y), *(x, z))
*(+(x, y), z) → +(*(x, z), *(y, z))

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(x, z)
*1(+(x, y), z) → +1(*(x, z), *(y, z))
*1(x, +(y, z)) → +1(*(x, y), *(x, z))
+1(+(x, y), z) → +1(y, z)
*1(x, +(y, z)) → *1(x, z)
*1(x, +(y, z)) → *1(x, y)
*1(+(x, y), z) → *1(y, z)
+1(+(x, y), z) → +1(x, +(y, z))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

+(x, 0) → x
+(x, i(x)) → 0
+(+(x, y), z) → +(x, +(y, z))
*(x, +(y, z)) → +(*(x, y), *(x, z))
*(+(x, y), z) → +(*(x, z), *(y, z))

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(x, z)
*1(+(x, y), z) → +1(*(x, z), *(y, z))
*1(x, +(y, z)) → +1(*(x, y), *(x, z))
+1(+(x, y), z) → +1(y, z)
*1(x, +(y, z)) → *1(x, z)
*1(x, +(y, z)) → *1(x, y)
*1(+(x, y), z) → *1(y, z)
+1(+(x, y), z) → +1(x, +(y, z))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

+(x, 0) → x
+(x, i(x)) → 0
+(+(x, y), z) → +(x, +(y, z))
*(x, +(y, z)) → +(*(x, y), *(x, z))
*(+(x, y), z) → +(*(x, z), *(y, z))

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 2 less nodes.

↳ 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:

+(x, 0) → x
+(x, i(x)) → 0
+(+(x, y), z) → +(x, +(y, z))
*(x, +(y, z)) → +(*(x, y), *(x, z))
*(+(x, y), z) → +(*(x, z), *(y, z))

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)
i(x1)  =  i
0  =  0

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:

+(x, 0) → x
+(x, i(x)) → 0
+(+(x, y), z) → +(x, +(y, z))
*(x, +(y, z)) → +(*(x, y), *(x, z))
*(+(x, y), z) → +(*(x, z), *(y, z))

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:

*1(+(x, y), z) → *1(x, z)
*1(x, +(y, z)) → *1(x, z)
*1(x, +(y, z)) → *1(x, y)
*1(+(x, y), z) → *1(y, z)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

+(x, 0) → x
+(x, i(x)) → 0
+(+(x, y), z) → +(x, +(y, z))
*(x, +(y, z)) → +(*(x, y), *(x, z))
*(+(x, y), z) → +(*(x, z), *(y, z))

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(x, z)
*1(x, +(y, z)) → *1(x, z)
*1(x, +(y, z)) → *1(x, y)
*1(+(x, y), z) → *1(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)  =  *1(x1, x2)
+(x1, x2)  =  +(x1, x2)

Recursive Path Order [2].
Precedence:
+2 > *^12

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:

+(x, 0) → x
+(x, i(x)) → 0
+(+(x, y), z) → +(x, +(y, z))
*(x, +(y, z)) → +(*(x, y), *(x, z))
*(+(x, y), z) → +(*(x, z), *(y, z))

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.