Termination w.r.t. Q proof of TRS/TRCSREx1_GM03_Z.trs

Termination w.r.t. Q of the following Term Rewriting System could not be shown:

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

p(0) → 0
p(s(X)) → X
leq(0, Y) → true
leq(s(X), 0) → false
leq(s(X), s(Y)) → leq(X, Y)
if(true, X, Y) → activate(X)
if(false, X, Y) → activate(Y)
diff(X, Y) → if(leq(X, Y), n__0, n__s(diff(p(X), Y)))
0 → n__0
s(X) → n__s(X)
activate(n__0) → 0
activate(n__s(X)) → s(X)
activate(X) → X

Q is empty.

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

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

p(0) → 0
p(s(X)) → X
leq(0, Y) → true
leq(s(X), 0) → false
leq(s(X), s(Y)) → leq(X, Y)
if(true, X, Y) → activate(X)
if(false, X, Y) → activate(Y)
diff(X, Y) → if(leq(X, Y), n__0, n__s(diff(p(X), Y)))
0 → n__0
s(X) → n__s(X)
activate(n__0) → 0
activate(n__s(X)) → s(X)
activate(X) → 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:

DIFF(X, Y) → LEQ(X, Y)
DIFF(X, Y) → IF(leq(X, Y), n__0, n__s(diff(p(X), Y)))
ACTIVATE(n__0) → 0¹
ACTIVATE(n__s(X)) → S(X)
LEQ(s(X), s(Y)) → LEQ(X, Y)
IF(false, X, Y) → ACTIVATE(Y)
DIFF(X, Y) → P(X)
IF(true, X, Y) → ACTIVATE(X)
DIFF(X, Y) → DIFF(p(X), Y)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

p(0) → 0
p(s(X)) → X
leq(0, Y) → true
leq(s(X), 0) → false
leq(s(X), s(Y)) → leq(X, Y)
if(true, X, Y) → activate(X)
if(false, X, Y) → activate(Y)
diff(X, Y) → if(leq(X, Y), n__0, n__s(diff(p(X), Y)))
0 → n__0
s(X) → n__s(X)
activate(n__0) → 0
activate(n__s(X)) → s(X)
activate(X) → 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:

DIFF(X, Y) → LEQ(X, Y)
DIFF(X, Y) → IF(leq(X, Y), n__0, n__s(diff(p(X), Y)))
ACTIVATE(n__0) → 0¹
ACTIVATE(n__s(X)) → S(X)
LEQ(s(X), s(Y)) → LEQ(X, Y)
IF(false, X, Y) → ACTIVATE(Y)
DIFF(X, Y) → P(X)
IF(true, X, Y) → ACTIVATE(X)
DIFF(X, Y) → DIFF(p(X), Y)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

p(0) → 0
p(s(X)) → X
leq(0, Y) → true
leq(s(X), 0) → false
leq(s(X), s(Y)) → leq(X, Y)
if(true, X, Y) → activate(X)
if(false, X, Y) → activate(Y)
diff(X, Y) → if(leq(X, Y), n__0, n__s(diff(p(X), Y)))
0 → n__0
s(X) → n__s(X)
activate(n__0) → 0
activate(n__s(X)) → s(X)
activate(X) → 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:

DIFF(X, Y) → LEQ(X, Y)
DIFF(X, Y) → IF(leq(X, Y), n__0, n__s(diff(p(X), Y)))
ACTIVATE(n__0) → 0¹
LEQ(s(X), s(Y)) → LEQ(X, Y)
ACTIVATE(n__s(X)) → S(X)
IF(false, X, Y) → ACTIVATE(Y)
DIFF(X, Y) → P(X)
IF(true, X, Y) → ACTIVATE(X)
DIFF(X, Y) → DIFF(p(X), Y)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

p(0) → 0
p(s(X)) → X
leq(0, Y) → true
leq(s(X), 0) → false
leq(s(X), s(Y)) → leq(X, Y)
if(true, X, Y) → activate(X)
if(false, X, Y) → activate(Y)
diff(X, Y) → if(leq(X, Y), n__0, n__s(diff(p(X), Y)))
0 → n__0
s(X) → n__s(X)
activate(n__0) → 0
activate(n__s(X)) → s(X)
activate(X) → 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 7 less nodes.

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ EdgeDeletionProof

        ↳ QDP

          ↳ DependencyGraphProof

            ↳ AND

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ QDPOrderProof

              ↳ QDP

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

LEQ(s(X), s(Y)) → LEQ(X, Y)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

p(0) → 0
p(s(X)) → X
leq(0, Y) → true
leq(s(X), 0) → false
leq(s(X), s(Y)) → leq(X, Y)
if(true, X, Y) → activate(X)
if(false, X, Y) → activate(Y)
diff(X, Y) → if(leq(X, Y), n__0, n__s(diff(p(X), Y)))
0 → n__0
s(X) → n__s(X)
activate(n__0) → 0
activate(n__s(X)) → s(X)
activate(X) → 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.

LEQ(s(X), s(Y)) → LEQ(X, Y)

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

Recursive Path Order [2].
Precedence:

s₁ > LEQ₁

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:

p(0) → 0
p(s(X)) → X
leq(0, Y) → true
leq(s(X), 0) → false
leq(s(X), s(Y)) → leq(X, Y)
if(true, X, Y) → activate(X)
if(false, X, Y) → activate(Y)
diff(X, Y) → if(leq(X, Y), n__0, n__s(diff(p(X), Y)))
0 → n__0
s(X) → n__s(X)
activate(n__0) → 0
activate(n__s(X)) → s(X)
activate(X) → 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.

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ EdgeDeletionProof

        ↳ QDP

          ↳ DependencyGraphProof

            ↳ AND

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

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

DIFF(X, Y) → DIFF(p(X), Y)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

p(0) → 0
p(s(X)) → X
leq(0, Y) → true
leq(s(X), 0) → false
leq(s(X), s(Y)) → leq(X, Y)
if(true, X, Y) → activate(X)
if(false, X, Y) → activate(Y)
diff(X, Y) → if(leq(X, Y), n__0, n__s(diff(p(X), Y)))
0 → n__0
s(X) → n__s(X)
activate(n__0) → 0
activate(n__s(X)) → s(X)
activate(X) → X

Q is empty.
We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.