Termination w.r.t. Q proof of TRS/TRCSREx1_Luc02b

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:

from(X) → cons(X, n__from(n__s(X)))
first(0, Z) → nil
first(s(X), cons(Y, Z)) → cons(Y, n__first(X, activate(Z)))
sel(0, cons(X, Z)) → X
sel(s(X), cons(Y, Z)) → sel(X, activate(Z))
from(X) → n__from(X)
s(X) → n__s(X)
first(X1, X2) → n__first(X1, X2)
activate(n__from(X)) → from(activate(X))
activate(n__s(X)) → s(activate(X))
activate(n__first(X1, X2)) → first(activate(X1), activate(X2))
activate(X) → X

Q is empty.

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

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

from(X) → cons(X, n__from(n__s(X)))
first(0, Z) → nil
first(s(X), cons(Y, Z)) → cons(Y, n__first(X, activate(Z)))
sel(0, cons(X, Z)) → X
sel(s(X), cons(Y, Z)) → sel(X, activate(Z))
from(X) → n__from(X)
s(X) → n__s(X)
first(X1, X2) → n__first(X1, X2)
activate(n__from(X)) → from(activate(X))
activate(n__s(X)) → s(activate(X))
activate(n__first(X1, X2)) → first(activate(X1), activate(X2))
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:

ACTIVATE(n__first(X1, X2)) → ACTIVATE(X2)
ACTIVATE(n__from(X)) → FROM(activate(X))
ACTIVATE(n__first(X1, X2)) → ACTIVATE(X1)
ACTIVATE(n__s(X)) → S(activate(X))
SEL(s(X), cons(Y, Z)) → ACTIVATE(Z)
SEL(s(X), cons(Y, Z)) → SEL(X, activate(Z))
ACTIVATE(n__first(X1, X2)) → FIRST(activate(X1), activate(X2))
ACTIVATE(n__from(X)) → ACTIVATE(X)
FIRST(s(X), cons(Y, Z)) → ACTIVATE(Z)
ACTIVATE(n__s(X)) → ACTIVATE(X)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

from(X) → cons(X, n__from(n__s(X)))
first(0, Z) → nil
first(s(X), cons(Y, Z)) → cons(Y, n__first(X, activate(Z)))
sel(0, cons(X, Z)) → X
sel(s(X), cons(Y, Z)) → sel(X, activate(Z))
from(X) → n__from(X)
s(X) → n__s(X)
first(X1, X2) → n__first(X1, X2)
activate(n__from(X)) → from(activate(X))
activate(n__s(X)) → s(activate(X))
activate(n__first(X1, X2)) → first(activate(X1), activate(X2))
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:

ACTIVATE(n__first(X1, X2)) → ACTIVATE(X2)
ACTIVATE(n__from(X)) → FROM(activate(X))
ACTIVATE(n__first(X1, X2)) → ACTIVATE(X1)
ACTIVATE(n__s(X)) → S(activate(X))
SEL(s(X), cons(Y, Z)) → ACTIVATE(Z)
SEL(s(X), cons(Y, Z)) → SEL(X, activate(Z))
ACTIVATE(n__first(X1, X2)) → FIRST(activate(X1), activate(X2))
ACTIVATE(n__from(X)) → ACTIVATE(X)
FIRST(s(X), cons(Y, Z)) → ACTIVATE(Z)
ACTIVATE(n__s(X)) → ACTIVATE(X)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

from(X) → cons(X, n__from(n__s(X)))
first(0, Z) → nil
first(s(X), cons(Y, Z)) → cons(Y, n__first(X, activate(Z)))
sel(0, cons(X, Z)) → X
sel(s(X), cons(Y, Z)) → sel(X, activate(Z))
from(X) → n__from(X)
s(X) → n__s(X)
first(X1, X2) → n__first(X1, X2)
activate(n__from(X)) → from(activate(X))
activate(n__s(X)) → s(activate(X))
activate(n__first(X1, X2)) → first(activate(X1), activate(X2))
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:

ACTIVATE(n__first(X1, X2)) → ACTIVATE(X2)
ACTIVATE(n__from(X)) → FROM(activate(X))
ACTIVATE(n__first(X1, X2)) → ACTIVATE(X1)
SEL(s(X), cons(Y, Z)) → ACTIVATE(Z)
ACTIVATE(n__s(X)) → S(activate(X))
SEL(s(X), cons(Y, Z)) → SEL(X, activate(Z))
ACTIVATE(n__first(X1, X2)) → FIRST(activate(X1), activate(X2))
FIRST(s(X), cons(Y, Z)) → ACTIVATE(Z)
ACTIVATE(n__from(X)) → ACTIVATE(X)
ACTIVATE(n__s(X)) → ACTIVATE(X)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

from(X) → cons(X, n__from(n__s(X)))
first(0, Z) → nil
first(s(X), cons(Y, Z)) → cons(Y, n__first(X, activate(Z)))
sel(0, cons(X, Z)) → X
sel(s(X), cons(Y, Z)) → sel(X, activate(Z))
from(X) → n__from(X)
s(X) → n__s(X)
first(X1, X2) → n__first(X1, X2)
activate(n__from(X)) → from(activate(X))
activate(n__s(X)) → s(activate(X))
activate(n__first(X1, X2)) → first(activate(X1), activate(X2))
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 3 less nodes.

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ EdgeDeletionProof

        ↳ QDP

          ↳ DependencyGraphProof

            ↳ AND

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ QDPOrderProof

              ↳ QDP

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

ACTIVATE(n__first(X1, X2)) → ACTIVATE(X2)
ACTIVATE(n__first(X1, X2)) → ACTIVATE(X1)
ACTIVATE(n__first(X1, X2)) → FIRST(activate(X1), activate(X2))
FIRST(s(X), cons(Y, Z)) → ACTIVATE(Z)
ACTIVATE(n__from(X)) → ACTIVATE(X)
ACTIVATE(n__s(X)) → ACTIVATE(X)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

from(X) → cons(X, n__from(n__s(X)))
first(0, Z) → nil
first(s(X), cons(Y, Z)) → cons(Y, n__first(X, activate(Z)))
sel(0, cons(X, Z)) → X
sel(s(X), cons(Y, Z)) → sel(X, activate(Z))
from(X) → n__from(X)
s(X) → n__s(X)
first(X1, X2) → n__first(X1, X2)
activate(n__from(X)) → from(activate(X))
activate(n__s(X)) → s(activate(X))
activate(n__first(X1, X2)) → first(activate(X1), activate(X2))
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.

ACTIVATE(n__first(X1, X2)) → ACTIVATE(X2)
ACTIVATE(n__first(X1, X2)) → ACTIVATE(X1)
ACTIVATE(n__first(X1, X2)) → FIRST(activate(X1), activate(X2))

The remaining pairs can at least be oriented weakly.

FIRST(s(X), cons(Y, Z)) → ACTIVATE(Z)
ACTIVATE(n__from(X)) → ACTIVATE(X)
ACTIVATE(n__s(X)) → ACTIVATE(X)

Used ordering: Combined order from the following AFS and order.
ACTIVATE(x1) = x1
n__first(x1, x2) = n__first(x1, x2)
FIRST(x1, x2) = x2
activate(x1) = x1
s(x1) = x1
cons(x1, x2) = x2
n__from(x1) = x1
n__s(x1) = x1
first(x1, x2) = first(x1, x2)
0 = 0
nil = nil
from(x1) = x1

Recursive Path Order [2].
Precedence:

[n_{_first₂}, first_2] > nil

The following usable rules [14] were oriented:

first(0, Z) → nil
activate(X) → X
activate(n__s(X)) → s(activate(X))
from(X) → n__from(X)
first(X1, X2) → n__first(X1, X2)
first(s(X), cons(Y, Z)) → cons(Y, n__first(X, activate(Z)))
from(X) → cons(X, n__from(n__s(X)))
activate(n__first(X1, X2)) → first(activate(X1), activate(X2))
activate(n__from(X)) → from(activate(X))
s(X) → n__s(X)

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ EdgeDeletionProof

        ↳ QDP

          ↳ DependencyGraphProof

            ↳ AND

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ QDPOrderProof

                  ↳ QDP

                    ↳ DependencyGraphProof

              ↳ QDP

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

ACTIVATE(n__from(X)) → ACTIVATE(X)
FIRST(s(X), cons(Y, Z)) → ACTIVATE(Z)
ACTIVATE(n__s(X)) → ACTIVATE(X)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

from(X) → cons(X, n__from(n__s(X)))
first(0, Z) → nil
first(s(X), cons(Y, Z)) → cons(Y, n__first(X, activate(Z)))
sel(0, cons(X, Z)) → X
sel(s(X), cons(Y, Z)) → sel(X, activate(Z))
from(X) → n__from(X)
s(X) → n__s(X)
first(X1, X2) → n__first(X1, X2)
activate(n__from(X)) → from(activate(X))
activate(n__s(X)) → s(activate(X))
activate(n__first(X1, X2)) → first(activate(X1), activate(X2))
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 1 SCC with 1 less node.

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ EdgeDeletionProof

        ↳ QDP

          ↳ DependencyGraphProof

            ↳ AND

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ QDPOrderProof

                  ↳ QDP

                    ↳ DependencyGraphProof

                      ↳ QDP

                        ↳ QDPOrderProof

              ↳ QDP

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

ACTIVATE(n__from(X)) → ACTIVATE(X)
ACTIVATE(n__s(X)) → ACTIVATE(X)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

from(X) → cons(X, n__from(n__s(X)))
first(0, Z) → nil
first(s(X), cons(Y, Z)) → cons(Y, n__first(X, activate(Z)))
sel(0, cons(X, Z)) → X
sel(s(X), cons(Y, Z)) → sel(X, activate(Z))
from(X) → n__from(X)
s(X) → n__s(X)
first(X1, X2) → n__first(X1, X2)
activate(n__from(X)) → from(activate(X))
activate(n__s(X)) → s(activate(X))
activate(n__first(X1, X2)) → first(activate(X1), activate(X2))
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.

ACTIVATE(n__from(X)) → ACTIVATE(X)

The remaining pairs can at least be oriented weakly.

ACTIVATE(n__s(X)) → ACTIVATE(X)

Used ordering: Combined order from the following AFS and order.
ACTIVATE(x1) = ACTIVATE(x1)
n__from(x1) = n__from(x1)
n__s(x1) = x1

Recursive Path Order [2].
Precedence:

[ACTIVATE₁, n_{_{from_1]}}

The following usable rules [14] were oriented: none

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ EdgeDeletionProof

        ↳ QDP

          ↳ DependencyGraphProof

            ↳ AND

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ QDPOrderProof

                  ↳ QDP

                    ↳ DependencyGraphProof

                      ↳ QDP

                        ↳ QDPOrderProof

                          ↳ QDP

                            ↳ QDPOrderProof

              ↳ QDP

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

ACTIVATE(n__s(X)) → ACTIVATE(X)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

from(X) → cons(X, n__from(n__s(X)))
first(0, Z) → nil
first(s(X), cons(Y, Z)) → cons(Y, n__first(X, activate(Z)))
sel(0, cons(X, Z)) → X
sel(s(X), cons(Y, Z)) → sel(X, activate(Z))
from(X) → n__from(X)
s(X) → n__s(X)
first(X1, X2) → n__first(X1, X2)
activate(n__from(X)) → from(activate(X))
activate(n__s(X)) → s(activate(X))
activate(n__first(X1, X2)) → first(activate(X1), activate(X2))
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.

ACTIVATE(n__s(X)) → ACTIVATE(X)

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

Recursive Path Order [2].
Precedence:

trivial

The following usable rules [14] were oriented: none

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ EdgeDeletionProof

        ↳ QDP

          ↳ DependencyGraphProof

            ↳ AND

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ QDPOrderProof

                  ↳ QDP

                    ↳ DependencyGraphProof

                      ↳ QDP

                        ↳ QDPOrderProof

                          ↳ QDP

                            ↳ QDPOrderProof

                              ↳ QDP

                                ↳ PisEmptyProof

              ↳ QDP

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

from(X) → cons(X, n__from(n__s(X)))
first(0, Z) → nil
first(s(X), cons(Y, Z)) → cons(Y, n__first(X, activate(Z)))
sel(0, cons(X, Z)) → X
sel(s(X), cons(Y, Z)) → sel(X, activate(Z))
from(X) → n__from(X)
s(X) → n__s(X)
first(X1, X2) → n__first(X1, X2)
activate(n__from(X)) → from(activate(X))
activate(n__s(X)) → s(activate(X))
activate(n__first(X1, X2)) → first(activate(X1), activate(X2))
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

                ↳ QDPOrderProof

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

SEL(s(X), cons(Y, Z)) → SEL(X, activate(Z))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

from(X) → cons(X, n__from(n__s(X)))
first(0, Z) → nil
first(s(X), cons(Y, Z)) → cons(Y, n__first(X, activate(Z)))
sel(0, cons(X, Z)) → X
sel(s(X), cons(Y, Z)) → sel(X, activate(Z))
from(X) → n__from(X)
s(X) → n__s(X)
first(X1, X2) → n__first(X1, X2)
activate(n__from(X)) → from(activate(X))
activate(n__s(X)) → s(activate(X))
activate(n__first(X1, X2)) → first(activate(X1), activate(X2))
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.

SEL(s(X), cons(Y, Z)) → SEL(X, activate(Z))

The remaining pairs can at least be oriented weakly.
none
Used ordering: Combined order from the following AFS and order.
SEL(x1, x2) = x1
s(x1) = s(x1)
cons(x1, x2) = cons
activate(x1) = activate
first(x1, x2) = first(x1)
0 = 0
nil = nil
n__s(x1) = n__s
from(x1) = x1
n__from(x1) = x1
n__first(x1, x2) = x1

Recursive Path Order [2].
Precedence:

[s₁, cons] > [activate, first₁, n_{_s]}
0 > [activate, first₁, n_{_s]}
nil > [activate, first₁, n_{_s]}

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:

from(X) → cons(X, n__from(n__s(X)))
first(0, Z) → nil
first(s(X), cons(Y, Z)) → cons(Y, n__first(X, activate(Z)))
sel(0, cons(X, Z)) → X
sel(s(X), cons(Y, Z)) → sel(X, activate(Z))
from(X) → n__from(X)
s(X) → n__s(X)
first(X1, X2) → n__first(X1, X2)
activate(n__from(X)) → from(activate(X))
activate(n__s(X)) → s(activate(X))
activate(n__first(X1, X2)) → first(activate(X1), activate(X2))
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.