Termination w.r.t. Q proof of TRS/TRCSREx4_7_15_Bor03

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:

f(0) → cons(0, n__f(n__s(n__0)))
f(s(0)) → f(p(s(0)))
p(s(0)) → 0
f(X) → n__f(X)
s(X) → n__s(X)
0 → n__0
activate(n__f(X)) → f(activate(X))
activate(n__s(X)) → s(activate(X))
activate(n__0) → 0
activate(X) → X

Q is empty.

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

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

f(0) → cons(0, n__f(n__s(n__0)))
f(s(0)) → f(p(s(0)))
p(s(0)) → 0
f(X) → n__f(X)
s(X) → n__s(X)
0 → n__0
activate(n__f(X)) → f(activate(X))
activate(n__s(X)) → s(activate(X))
activate(n__0) → 0
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__s(X)) → S(activate(X))
ACTIVATE(n__0) → 0¹
ACTIVATE(n__f(X)) → F(activate(X))
F(s(0)) → P(s(0))
F(s(0)) → F(p(s(0)))
ACTIVATE(n__f(X)) → ACTIVATE(X)
ACTIVATE(n__s(X)) → ACTIVATE(X)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

f(0) → cons(0, n__f(n__s(n__0)))
f(s(0)) → f(p(s(0)))
p(s(0)) → 0
f(X) → n__f(X)
s(X) → n__s(X)
0 → n__0
activate(n__f(X)) → f(activate(X))
activate(n__s(X)) → s(activate(X))
activate(n__0) → 0
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__s(X)) → S(activate(X))
ACTIVATE(n__0) → 0¹
ACTIVATE(n__f(X)) → F(activate(X))
F(s(0)) → P(s(0))
F(s(0)) → F(p(s(0)))
ACTIVATE(n__f(X)) → ACTIVATE(X)
ACTIVATE(n__s(X)) → ACTIVATE(X)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

f(0) → cons(0, n__f(n__s(n__0)))
f(s(0)) → f(p(s(0)))
p(s(0)) → 0
f(X) → n__f(X)
s(X) → n__s(X)
0 → n__0
activate(n__f(X)) → f(activate(X))
activate(n__s(X)) → s(activate(X))
activate(n__0) → 0
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__s(X)) → S(activate(X))
ACTIVATE(n__0) → 0¹
ACTIVATE(n__f(X)) → F(activate(X))
F(s(0)) → F(p(s(0)))
F(s(0)) → P(s(0))
ACTIVATE(n__f(X)) → ACTIVATE(X)
ACTIVATE(n__s(X)) → ACTIVATE(X)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

f(0) → cons(0, n__f(n__s(n__0)))
f(s(0)) → f(p(s(0)))
p(s(0)) → 0
f(X) → n__f(X)
s(X) → n__s(X)
0 → n__0
activate(n__f(X)) → f(activate(X))
activate(n__s(X)) → s(activate(X))
activate(n__0) → 0
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 4 less nodes.

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ EdgeDeletionProof

        ↳ QDP

          ↳ DependencyGraphProof

            ↳ AND

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ QDPOrderProof

              ↳ QDP

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

F(s(0)) → F(p(s(0)))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

f(0) → cons(0, n__f(n__s(n__0)))
f(s(0)) → f(p(s(0)))
p(s(0)) → 0
f(X) → n__f(X)
s(X) → n__s(X)
0 → n__0
activate(n__f(X)) → f(activate(X))
activate(n__s(X)) → s(activate(X))
activate(n__0) → 0
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.

F(s(0)) → F(p(s(0)))

The remaining pairs can at least be oriented weakly.
none
Used ordering: Combined order from the following AFS and order.
F(x1) = F(x1)
s(x1) = s
0 = 0
p(x1) = p
n__s(x1) = n__s(x1)
n__0 = n__0

Recursive Path Order [2].
Precedence:

F₁ > p > 0 > n_₀
s > p > 0 > n_₀
s > n_{_s₁}

The following usable rules [14] were oriented:

p(s(0)) → 0
0 → n__0

↳ 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:

f(0) → cons(0, n__f(n__s(n__0)))
f(s(0)) → f(p(s(0)))
p(s(0)) → 0
f(X) → n__f(X)
s(X) → n__s(X)
0 → n__0
activate(n__f(X)) → f(activate(X))
activate(n__s(X)) → s(activate(X))
activate(n__0) → 0
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:

ACTIVATE(n__f(X)) → ACTIVATE(X)
ACTIVATE(n__s(X)) → ACTIVATE(X)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

f(0) → cons(0, n__f(n__s(n__0)))
f(s(0)) → f(p(s(0)))
p(s(0)) → 0
f(X) → n__f(X)
s(X) → n__s(X)
0 → n__0
activate(n__f(X)) → f(activate(X))
activate(n__s(X)) → s(activate(X))
activate(n__0) → 0
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__f(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__f(x1) = n__f(x1)
n__s(x1) = x1

Recursive Path Order [2].
Precedence:

n_{_f₁} > ACTIVATE₁

The following usable rules [14] were oriented: none

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ EdgeDeletionProof

        ↳ QDP

          ↳ DependencyGraphProof

            ↳ AND

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ QDPOrderProof

                  ↳ QDP

                    ↳ QDPOrderProof

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:

f(0) → cons(0, n__f(n__s(n__0)))
f(s(0)) → f(p(s(0)))
p(s(0)) → 0
f(X) → n__f(X)
s(X) → n__s(X)
0 → n__0
activate(n__f(X)) → f(activate(X))
activate(n__s(X)) → s(activate(X))
activate(n__0) → 0
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

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ QDPOrderProof

                  ↳ QDP

                    ↳ QDPOrderProof

                      ↳ QDP

                        ↳ PisEmptyProof

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

f(0) → cons(0, n__f(n__s(n__0)))
f(s(0)) → f(p(s(0)))
p(s(0)) → 0
f(X) → n__f(X)
s(X) → n__s(X)
0 → n__0
activate(n__f(X)) → f(activate(X))
activate(n__s(X)) → s(activate(X))
activate(n__0) → 0
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.