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(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)
activate(n__f(X)) → f(X)
activate(X) → X

Q is empty.

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

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

f(X) → cons(X, n__f(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)
activate(n__f(X)) → f(X)
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))
F(X) → G(X)
ACTIVATE(n__f(X)) → F(X)
G(s(X)) → G(X)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

f(X) → cons(X, n__f(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)
activate(n__f(X)) → f(X)
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))
F(X) → G(X)
ACTIVATE(n__f(X)) → F(X)
G(s(X)) → G(X)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

f(X) → cons(X, n__f(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)
activate(n__f(X)) → f(X)
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))
F(X) → G(X)
G(s(X)) → G(X)
ACTIVATE(n__f(X)) → F(X)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

f(X) → cons(X, n__f(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)
activate(n__f(X)) → f(X)
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:

G(s(X)) → G(X)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

f(X) → cons(X, n__f(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)
activate(n__f(X)) → f(X)
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.

G(s(X)) → G(X)

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

Recursive path order with status [2].
Quasi-Precedence:

[G₁, s_1]

Status:

G₁: multiset
s₁: multiset

The following usable rules [14] were oriented: none

↳ 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(X) → cons(X, n__f(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)
activate(n__f(X)) → f(X)
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:

f(X) → cons(X, n__f(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)
activate(n__f(X)) → f(X)
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) = SEL(x1)
s(x1) = s(x1)
cons(x1, x2) = x1
activate(x1) = activate
g(x1) = x1
f(x1) = x1
n__f(x1) = x1
0 = 0

Recursive path order with status [2].
Quasi-Precedence:

SEL₁ > activate
s₁ > activate
0 > activate

Status:

SEL₁: [1]
0: multiset
activate: multiset
s₁: multiset

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:

f(X) → cons(X, n__f(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)
activate(n__f(X)) → f(X)
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.