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(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)
first(X1, X2) → n__first(X1, X2)
activate(n__from(X)) → from(X)
activate(n__first(X1, X2)) → first(X1, 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(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)
first(X1, X2) → n__first(X1, X2)
activate(n__from(X)) → from(X)
activate(n__first(X1, X2)) → first(X1, 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:

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

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

from(X) → cons(X, n__from(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)
first(X1, X2) → n__first(X1, X2)
activate(n__from(X)) → from(X)
activate(n__first(X1, X2)) → first(X1, 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:

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

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

from(X) → cons(X, n__from(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)
first(X1, X2) → n__first(X1, X2)
activate(n__from(X)) → from(X)
activate(n__first(X1, X2)) → first(X1, 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:

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

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

from(X) → cons(X, n__from(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)
first(X1, X2) → n__first(X1, X2)
activate(n__from(X)) → from(X)
activate(n__first(X1, X2)) → first(X1, 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 2 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)) → FIRST(X1, X2)
FIRST(s(X), cons(Y, Z)) → ACTIVATE(Z)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

from(X) → cons(X, n__from(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)
first(X1, X2) → n__first(X1, X2)
activate(n__from(X)) → from(X)
activate(n__first(X1, X2)) → first(X1, 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.


FIRST(s(X), cons(Y, Z)) → ACTIVATE(Z)
The remaining pairs can at least be oriented weakly.

ACTIVATE(n__first(X1, X2)) → FIRST(X1, X2)
Used ordering: Combined order from the following AFS and order.
ACTIVATE(x1)  =  x1
n__first(x1, x2)  =  x2
FIRST(x1, x2)  =  x2
cons(x1, x2)  =  cons(x2)

Recursive path order with status [2].
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:

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

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

from(X) → cons(X, n__from(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)
first(X1, X2) → n__first(X1, X2)
activate(n__from(X)) → from(X)
activate(n__first(X1, X2)) → first(X1, 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 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:

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

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

from(X) → cons(X, n__from(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)
first(X1, X2) → n__first(X1, X2)
activate(n__from(X)) → from(X)
activate(n__first(X1, X2)) → first(X1, 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)

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

Status:
trivial

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(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)
first(X1, X2) → n__first(X1, X2)
activate(n__from(X)) → from(X)
activate(n__first(X1, X2)) → first(X1, 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.