Termination w.r.t. Q proof of TRS/TRCSREx4_Zan97

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(X) → cons(X, n__f(n__g(X)))
g(0) → s(0)
g(s(X)) → s(s(g(X)))
sel(0, cons(X, Y)) → X
sel(s(X), cons(Y, Z)) → sel(X, activate(Z))
f(X) → n__f(X)
g(X) → n__g(X)
activate(n__f(X)) → f(activate(X))
activate(n__g(X)) → g(activate(X))
activate(X) → X

Q is empty.

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DirectTerminationProof

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

f(X) → cons(X, n__f(n__g(X)))
g(0) → s(0)
g(s(X)) → s(s(g(X)))
sel(0, cons(X, Y)) → X
sel(s(X), cons(Y, Z)) → sel(X, activate(Z))
f(X) → n__f(X)
g(X) → n__g(X)
activate(n__f(X)) → f(activate(X))
activate(n__g(X)) → g(activate(X))
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 > activate₁ > f₁ > [cons₂, n_{_f₁}, n_{_g₁}, 0, s_1]
sel₂ > activate₁ > g₁ > [cons₂, n_{_f₁}, n_{_g₁}, 0, s_1]

Status:

sel₂: [1,2]
f₁: [1]
0: multiset
s₁: [1]
n_{_g₁}: [1]
n_{_f₁}: [1]
cons₂: [2,1]
g₁: [1]
activate₁: [1]