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(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

  ↳ DirectTerminationProof

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.

We use [23] with the following order to prove termination.

Lexicographic path order with status [19].
Quasi-Precedence:

sel₂ > [first₂, activate_1] > from₁ > cons₂
sel₂ > [first₂, activate_1] > from₁ > n_{_from₁}
sel₂ > [first₂, activate_1] > from₁ > s₁
sel₂ > [first₂, activate_1] > nil
sel₂ > [first₂, activate_1] > n_{_first₂}

Status:

sel₂: [1,2]
first₂: [2,1]
activate₁: [1]