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:

rev(nil) → nil
rev(++(x, y)) → ++(rev1(x, y), rev2(x, y))
rev1(x, nil) → x
rev1(x, ++(y, z)) → rev1(y, z)
rev2(x, nil) → nil
rev2(x, ++(y, z)) → rev(++(x, rev(rev2(y, z))))

Q is empty.


↳ QTRS
  ↳ Overlay + Local Confluence

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

rev(nil) → nil
rev(++(x, y)) → ++(rev1(x, y), rev2(x, y))
rev1(x, nil) → x
rev1(x, ++(y, z)) → rev1(y, z)
rev2(x, nil) → nil
rev2(x, ++(y, z)) → rev(++(x, rev(rev2(y, z))))

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:

rev(nil) → nil
rev(++(x, y)) → ++(rev1(x, y), rev2(x, y))
rev1(x, nil) → x
rev1(x, ++(y, z)) → rev1(y, z)
rev2(x, nil) → nil
rev2(x, ++(y, z)) → rev(++(x, rev(rev2(y, z))))

The set Q consists of the following terms:

rev(nil)
rev(++(x0, x1))
rev1(x0, nil)
rev1(x0, ++(x1, x2))
rev2(x0, nil)
rev2(x0, ++(x1, x2))


Using Dependency Pairs [1,13] we result in the following initial DP problem:
Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:

REV1(x, ++(y, z)) → REV1(y, z)
REV(++(x, y)) → REV1(x, y)
REV2(x, ++(y, z)) → REV2(y, z)
REV2(x, ++(y, z)) → REV(rev2(y, z))
REV2(x, ++(y, z)) → REV(++(x, rev(rev2(y, z))))
REV(++(x, y)) → REV2(x, y)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

rev(nil) → nil
rev(++(x, y)) → ++(rev1(x, y), rev2(x, y))
rev1(x, nil) → x
rev1(x, ++(y, z)) → rev1(y, z)
rev2(x, nil) → nil
rev2(x, ++(y, z)) → rev(++(x, rev(rev2(y, z))))

The set Q consists of the following terms:

rev(nil)
rev(++(x0, x1))
rev1(x0, nil)
rev1(x0, ++(x1, x2))
rev2(x0, nil)
rev2(x0, ++(x1, x2))

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:

REV1(x, ++(y, z)) → REV1(y, z)
REV(++(x, y)) → REV1(x, y)
REV2(x, ++(y, z)) → REV2(y, z)
REV2(x, ++(y, z)) → REV(rev2(y, z))
REV2(x, ++(y, z)) → REV(++(x, rev(rev2(y, z))))
REV(++(x, y)) → REV2(x, y)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

rev(nil) → nil
rev(++(x, y)) → ++(rev1(x, y), rev2(x, y))
rev1(x, nil) → x
rev1(x, ++(y, z)) → rev1(y, z)
rev2(x, nil) → nil
rev2(x, ++(y, z)) → rev(++(x, rev(rev2(y, z))))

The set Q consists of the following terms:

rev(nil)
rev(++(x0, x1))
rev1(x0, nil)
rev1(x0, ++(x1, x2))
rev2(x0, nil)
rev2(x0, ++(x1, x2))

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:

REV1(x, ++(y, z)) → REV1(y, z)
REV(++(x, y)) → REV1(x, y)
REV2(x, ++(y, z)) → REV2(y, z)
REV2(x, ++(y, z)) → REV(++(x, rev(rev2(y, z))))
REV2(x, ++(y, z)) → REV(rev2(y, z))
REV(++(x, y)) → REV2(x, y)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

rev(nil) → nil
rev(++(x, y)) → ++(rev1(x, y), rev2(x, y))
rev1(x, nil) → x
rev1(x, ++(y, z)) → rev1(y, z)
rev2(x, nil) → nil
rev2(x, ++(y, z)) → rev(++(x, rev(rev2(y, z))))

The set Q consists of the following terms:

rev(nil)
rev(++(x0, x1))
rev1(x0, nil)
rev1(x0, ++(x1, x2))
rev2(x0, nil)
rev2(x0, ++(x1, x2))

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
  ↳ Overlay + Local Confluence
    ↳ QTRS
      ↳ DependencyPairsProof
        ↳ QDP
          ↳ EdgeDeletionProof
            ↳ QDP
              ↳ DependencyGraphProof
                ↳ AND
                  ↳ QDP
                    ↳ QDPOrderProof
                  ↳ QDP

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

REV1(x, ++(y, z)) → REV1(y, z)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

rev(nil) → nil
rev(++(x, y)) → ++(rev1(x, y), rev2(x, y))
rev1(x, nil) → x
rev1(x, ++(y, z)) → rev1(y, z)
rev2(x, nil) → nil
rev2(x, ++(y, z)) → rev(++(x, rev(rev2(y, z))))

The set Q consists of the following terms:

rev(nil)
rev(++(x0, x1))
rev1(x0, nil)
rev1(x0, ++(x1, x2))
rev2(x0, nil)
rev2(x0, ++(x1, x2))

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.


REV1(x, ++(y, z)) → REV1(y, z)
The remaining pairs can at least be oriented weakly.
none
Used ordering: Combined order from the following AFS and order.
REV1(x1, x2)  =  x2
++(x1, x2)  =  ++(x2)

Recursive path order with status [2].
Precedence:
trivial

Status:
trivial

The following usable rules [14] were oriented: none



↳ QTRS
  ↳ Overlay + Local Confluence
    ↳ 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:

rev(nil) → nil
rev(++(x, y)) → ++(rev1(x, y), rev2(x, y))
rev1(x, nil) → x
rev1(x, ++(y, z)) → rev1(y, z)
rev2(x, nil) → nil
rev2(x, ++(y, z)) → rev(++(x, rev(rev2(y, z))))

The set Q consists of the following terms:

rev(nil)
rev(++(x0, x1))
rev1(x0, nil)
rev1(x0, ++(x1, x2))
rev2(x0, nil)
rev2(x0, ++(x1, x2))

We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
The TRS P is empty. Hence, there is no (P,Q,R) chain.

↳ QTRS
  ↳ Overlay + Local Confluence
    ↳ QTRS
      ↳ DependencyPairsProof
        ↳ QDP
          ↳ EdgeDeletionProof
            ↳ QDP
              ↳ DependencyGraphProof
                ↳ AND
                  ↳ QDP
                  ↳ QDP
                    ↳ QDPOrderProof

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

REV2(x, ++(y, z)) → REV2(y, z)
REV2(x, ++(y, z)) → REV(rev2(y, z))
REV2(x, ++(y, z)) → REV(++(x, rev(rev2(y, z))))
REV(++(x, y)) → REV2(x, y)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

rev(nil) → nil
rev(++(x, y)) → ++(rev1(x, y), rev2(x, y))
rev1(x, nil) → x
rev1(x, ++(y, z)) → rev1(y, z)
rev2(x, nil) → nil
rev2(x, ++(y, z)) → rev(++(x, rev(rev2(y, z))))

The set Q consists of the following terms:

rev(nil)
rev(++(x0, x1))
rev1(x0, nil)
rev1(x0, ++(x1, x2))
rev2(x0, nil)
rev2(x0, ++(x1, x2))

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.


REV2(x, ++(y, z)) → REV2(y, z)
REV2(x, ++(y, z)) → REV(rev2(y, z))
REV(++(x, y)) → REV2(x, y)
The remaining pairs can at least be oriented weakly.

REV2(x, ++(y, z)) → REV(++(x, rev(rev2(y, z))))
Used ordering: Combined order from the following AFS and order.
REV2(x1, x2)  =  x2
++(x1, x2)  =  ++(x2)
REV(x1)  =  x1
rev2(x1, x2)  =  x2
rev(x1)  =  x1
nil  =  nil

Recursive path order with status [2].
Precedence:
trivial

Status:
trivial

The following usable rules [14] were oriented:

rev2(x, ++(y, z)) → rev(++(x, rev(rev2(y, z))))
rev(nil) → nil
rev2(x, nil) → nil
rev(++(x, y)) → ++(rev1(x, y), rev2(x, y))



↳ QTRS
  ↳ Overlay + Local Confluence
    ↳ QTRS
      ↳ DependencyPairsProof
        ↳ QDP
          ↳ EdgeDeletionProof
            ↳ QDP
              ↳ DependencyGraphProof
                ↳ AND
                  ↳ QDP
                  ↳ QDP
                    ↳ QDPOrderProof
                      ↳ QDP
                        ↳ DependencyGraphProof

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

REV2(x, ++(y, z)) → REV(++(x, rev(rev2(y, z))))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

rev(nil) → nil
rev(++(x, y)) → ++(rev1(x, y), rev2(x, y))
rev1(x, nil) → x
rev1(x, ++(y, z)) → rev1(y, z)
rev2(x, nil) → nil
rev2(x, ++(y, z)) → rev(++(x, rev(rev2(y, z))))

The set Q consists of the following terms:

rev(nil)
rev(++(x0, x1))
rev1(x0, nil)
rev1(x0, ++(x1, x2))
rev2(x0, nil)
rev2(x0, ++(x1, x2))

We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
The approximation of the Dependency Graph [13,14,18] contains 0 SCCs with 1 less node.