Termination w.r.t. Q proof of TRS/TRCSREx14_AEGL02

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:

a__from(X) → cons(mark(X), from(s(X)))
a__length(nil) → 0
a__length(cons(X, Y)) → s(a__length1(Y))
a__length1(X) → a__length(X)
mark(from(X)) → a__from(mark(X))
mark(length(X)) → a__length(X)
mark(length1(X)) → a__length1(X)
mark(cons(X1, X2)) → cons(mark(X1), X2)
mark(s(X)) → s(mark(X))
mark(nil) → nil
mark(0) → 0
a__from(X) → from(X)
a__length(X) → length(X)
a__length1(X) → length1(X)

Q is empty.

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

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

a__from(X) → cons(mark(X), from(s(X)))
a__length(nil) → 0
a__length(cons(X, Y)) → s(a__length1(Y))
a__length1(X) → a__length(X)
mark(from(X)) → a__from(mark(X))
mark(length(X)) → a__length(X)
mark(length1(X)) → a__length1(X)
mark(cons(X1, X2)) → cons(mark(X1), X2)
mark(s(X)) → s(mark(X))
mark(nil) → nil
mark(0) → 0
a__from(X) → from(X)
a__length(X) → length(X)
a__length1(X) → length1(X)

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:

MARK(s(X)) → MARK(X)
A__LENGTH(cons(X, Y)) → A__LENGTH1(Y)
MARK(length(X)) → A__LENGTH(X)
MARK(from(X)) → MARK(X)
MARK(from(X)) → A__FROM(mark(X))
A__LENGTH1(X) → A__LENGTH(X)
MARK(cons(X1, X2)) → MARK(X1)
MARK(length1(X)) → A__LENGTH1(X)
A__FROM(X) → MARK(X)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

a__from(X) → cons(mark(X), from(s(X)))
a__length(nil) → 0
a__length(cons(X, Y)) → s(a__length1(Y))
a__length1(X) → a__length(X)
mark(from(X)) → a__from(mark(X))
mark(length(X)) → a__length(X)
mark(length1(X)) → a__length1(X)
mark(cons(X1, X2)) → cons(mark(X1), X2)
mark(s(X)) → s(mark(X))
mark(nil) → nil
mark(0) → 0
a__from(X) → from(X)
a__length(X) → length(X)
a__length1(X) → length1(X)

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:

MARK(s(X)) → MARK(X)
A__LENGTH(cons(X, Y)) → A__LENGTH1(Y)
MARK(length(X)) → A__LENGTH(X)
MARK(from(X)) → MARK(X)
MARK(from(X)) → A__FROM(mark(X))
A__LENGTH1(X) → A__LENGTH(X)
MARK(cons(X1, X2)) → MARK(X1)
MARK(length1(X)) → A__LENGTH1(X)
A__FROM(X) → MARK(X)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

a__from(X) → cons(mark(X), from(s(X)))
a__length(nil) → 0
a__length(cons(X, Y)) → s(a__length1(Y))
a__length1(X) → a__length(X)
mark(from(X)) → a__from(mark(X))
mark(length(X)) → a__length(X)
mark(length1(X)) → a__length1(X)
mark(cons(X1, X2)) → cons(mark(X1), X2)
mark(s(X)) → s(mark(X))
mark(nil) → nil
mark(0) → 0
a__from(X) → from(X)
a__length(X) → length(X)
a__length1(X) → length1(X)

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:

MARK(s(X)) → MARK(X)
A__LENGTH(cons(X, Y)) → A__LENGTH1(Y)
MARK(from(X)) → MARK(X)
MARK(length(X)) → A__LENGTH(X)
MARK(from(X)) → A__FROM(mark(X))
A__LENGTH1(X) → A__LENGTH(X)
A__FROM(X) → MARK(X)
MARK(length1(X)) → A__LENGTH1(X)
MARK(cons(X1, X2)) → MARK(X1)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

a__from(X) → cons(mark(X), from(s(X)))
a__length(nil) → 0
a__length(cons(X, Y)) → s(a__length1(Y))
a__length1(X) → a__length(X)
mark(from(X)) → a__from(mark(X))
mark(length(X)) → a__length(X)
mark(length1(X)) → a__length1(X)
mark(cons(X1, X2)) → cons(mark(X1), X2)
mark(s(X)) → s(mark(X))
mark(nil) → nil
mark(0) → 0
a__from(X) → from(X)
a__length(X) → length(X)
a__length1(X) → length1(X)

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:

A__LENGTH(cons(X, Y)) → A__LENGTH1(Y)
A__LENGTH1(X) → A__LENGTH(X)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

a__from(X) → cons(mark(X), from(s(X)))
a__length(nil) → 0
a__length(cons(X, Y)) → s(a__length1(Y))
a__length1(X) → a__length(X)
mark(from(X)) → a__from(mark(X))
mark(length(X)) → a__length(X)
mark(length1(X)) → a__length1(X)
mark(cons(X1, X2)) → cons(mark(X1), X2)
mark(s(X)) → s(mark(X))
mark(nil) → nil
mark(0) → 0
a__from(X) → from(X)
a__length(X) → length(X)
a__length1(X) → length1(X)

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.

A__LENGTH(cons(X, Y)) → A__LENGTH1(Y)

The remaining pairs can at least be oriented weakly.

A__LENGTH1(X) → A__LENGTH(X)

Used ordering: Combined order from the following AFS and order.
A__LENGTH(x1) = x1
cons(x1, x2) = cons(x2)
A__LENGTH1(x1) = x1

Recursive path order with status [2].
Quasi-Precedence:

trivial

Status:

trivial

The following usable rules [14] were oriented: none

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ EdgeDeletionProof

        ↳ QDP

          ↳ DependencyGraphProof

            ↳ AND

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ QDPOrderProof

                  ↳ QDP

                    ↳ DependencyGraphProof

              ↳ QDP

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

A__LENGTH1(X) → A__LENGTH(X)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

a__from(X) → cons(mark(X), from(s(X)))
a__length(nil) → 0
a__length(cons(X, Y)) → s(a__length1(Y))
a__length1(X) → a__length(X)
mark(from(X)) → a__from(mark(X))
mark(length(X)) → a__length(X)
mark(length1(X)) → a__length1(X)
mark(cons(X1, X2)) → cons(mark(X1), X2)
mark(s(X)) → s(mark(X))
mark(nil) → nil
mark(0) → 0
a__from(X) → from(X)
a__length(X) → length(X)
a__length1(X) → length1(X)

Q is empty.
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.

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ EdgeDeletionProof

        ↳ QDP

          ↳ DependencyGraphProof

            ↳ AND

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ QDPOrderProof

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

MARK(s(X)) → MARK(X)
MARK(from(X)) → MARK(X)
MARK(from(X)) → A__FROM(mark(X))
MARK(cons(X1, X2)) → MARK(X1)
A__FROM(X) → MARK(X)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

a__from(X) → cons(mark(X), from(s(X)))
a__length(nil) → 0
a__length(cons(X, Y)) → s(a__length1(Y))
a__length1(X) → a__length(X)
mark(from(X)) → a__from(mark(X))
mark(length(X)) → a__length(X)
mark(length1(X)) → a__length1(X)
mark(cons(X1, X2)) → cons(mark(X1), X2)
mark(s(X)) → s(mark(X))
mark(nil) → nil
mark(0) → 0
a__from(X) → from(X)
a__length(X) → length(X)
a__length1(X) → length1(X)

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.

MARK(from(X)) → MARK(X)
MARK(from(X)) → A__FROM(mark(X))

The remaining pairs can at least be oriented weakly.

MARK(s(X)) → MARK(X)
MARK(cons(X1, X2)) → MARK(X1)
A__FROM(X) → MARK(X)

Used ordering: Combined order from the following AFS and order.
MARK(x1) = x1
s(x1) = x1
from(x1) = from(x1)
A__FROM(x1) = x1
mark(x1) = x1
cons(x1, x2) = x1
a__from(x1) = a__from(x1)
a__length(x1) = a__length
length(x1) = length
0 = 0
length1(x1) = length1
a__length1(x1) = a__length1
nil = nil

Recursive path order with status [2].
Quasi-Precedence:

[from₁, a_{_{from_1]}}
[a_{_length}, length, length1, a_{_length1]} > 0

Status:

trivial

The following usable rules [14] were oriented:

a__from(X) → from(X)
a__from(X) → cons(mark(X), from(s(X)))
mark(from(X)) → a__from(mark(X))
mark(cons(X1, X2)) → cons(mark(X1), X2)
a__length(X) → length(X)
mark(0) → 0
mark(length1(X)) → a__length1(X)
a__length(nil) → 0
a__length1(X) → length1(X)
mark(nil) → nil
mark(length(X)) → a__length(X)
a__length(cons(X, Y)) → s(a__length1(Y))
a__length1(X) → a__length(X)
mark(s(X)) → s(mark(X))

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ EdgeDeletionProof

        ↳ QDP

          ↳ DependencyGraphProof

            ↳ AND

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ QDPOrderProof

                  ↳ QDP

                    ↳ DependencyGraphProof

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

MARK(s(X)) → MARK(X)
A__FROM(X) → MARK(X)
MARK(cons(X1, X2)) → MARK(X1)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

a__from(X) → cons(mark(X), from(s(X)))
a__length(nil) → 0
a__length(cons(X, Y)) → s(a__length1(Y))
a__length1(X) → a__length(X)
mark(from(X)) → a__from(mark(X))
mark(length(X)) → a__length(X)
mark(length1(X)) → a__length1(X)
mark(cons(X1, X2)) → cons(mark(X1), X2)
mark(s(X)) → s(mark(X))
mark(nil) → nil
mark(0) → 0
a__from(X) → from(X)
a__length(X) → length(X)
a__length1(X) → length1(X)

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 1 less node.

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ EdgeDeletionProof

        ↳ QDP

          ↳ DependencyGraphProof

            ↳ AND

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ QDPOrderProof

                  ↳ QDP

                    ↳ DependencyGraphProof

                      ↳ QDP

                        ↳ QDPOrderProof

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

MARK(s(X)) → MARK(X)
MARK(cons(X1, X2)) → MARK(X1)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

a__from(X) → cons(mark(X), from(s(X)))
a__length(nil) → 0
a__length(cons(X, Y)) → s(a__length1(Y))
a__length1(X) → a__length(X)
mark(from(X)) → a__from(mark(X))
mark(length(X)) → a__length(X)
mark(length1(X)) → a__length1(X)
mark(cons(X1, X2)) → cons(mark(X1), X2)
mark(s(X)) → s(mark(X))
mark(nil) → nil
mark(0) → 0
a__from(X) → from(X)
a__length(X) → length(X)
a__length1(X) → length1(X)

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.

MARK(cons(X1, X2)) → MARK(X1)

The remaining pairs can at least be oriented weakly.

MARK(s(X)) → MARK(X)

Used ordering: Combined order from the following AFS and order.
MARK(x1) = x1
s(x1) = x1
cons(x1, x2) = cons(x1)

Recursive path order with status [2].
Quasi-Precedence:

trivial

Status:

trivial

The following usable rules [14] were oriented: none

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ EdgeDeletionProof

        ↳ QDP

          ↳ DependencyGraphProof

            ↳ AND

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ QDPOrderProof

                  ↳ QDP

                    ↳ DependencyGraphProof

                      ↳ QDP

                        ↳ QDPOrderProof

                          ↳ QDP

                            ↳ QDPOrderProof

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

MARK(s(X)) → MARK(X)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

a__from(X) → cons(mark(X), from(s(X)))
a__length(nil) → 0
a__length(cons(X, Y)) → s(a__length1(Y))
a__length1(X) → a__length(X)
mark(from(X)) → a__from(mark(X))
mark(length(X)) → a__length(X)
mark(length1(X)) → a__length1(X)
mark(cons(X1, X2)) → cons(mark(X1), X2)
mark(s(X)) → s(mark(X))
mark(nil) → nil
mark(0) → 0
a__from(X) → from(X)
a__length(X) → length(X)
a__length1(X) → length1(X)

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.

MARK(s(X)) → MARK(X)

The remaining pairs can at least be oriented weakly.
none
Used ordering: Combined order from the following AFS and order.
MARK(x1) = x1
s(x1) = s(x1)

Recursive path order with status [2].
Quasi-Precedence:

trivial

Status:

trivial

The following usable rules [14] were oriented: none

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ EdgeDeletionProof

        ↳ QDP

          ↳ DependencyGraphProof

            ↳ AND

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ QDPOrderProof

                  ↳ QDP

                    ↳ DependencyGraphProof

                      ↳ QDP

                        ↳ QDPOrderProof

                          ↳ QDP

                            ↳ QDPOrderProof

                              ↳ QDP

                                ↳ PisEmptyProof

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

a__from(X) → cons(mark(X), from(s(X)))
a__length(nil) → 0
a__length(cons(X, Y)) → s(a__length1(Y))
a__length1(X) → a__length(X)
mark(from(X)) → a__from(mark(X))
mark(length(X)) → a__length(X)
mark(length1(X)) → a__length1(X)
mark(cons(X1, X2)) → cons(mark(X1), X2)
mark(s(X)) → s(mark(X))
mark(nil) → nil
mark(0) → 0
a__from(X) → from(X)
a__length(X) → length(X)
a__length1(X) → length1(X)

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.