Termination w.r.t. Q proof of TRS/TRCSREx6_GM04

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:

active(c) → mark(f(g(c)))
active(f(g(X))) → mark(g(X))
proper(c) → ok(c)
proper(f(X)) → f(proper(X))
proper(g(X)) → g(proper(X))
f(ok(X)) → ok(f(X))
g(ok(X)) → ok(g(X))
top(mark(X)) → top(proper(X))
top(ok(X)) → top(active(X))

Q is empty.

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

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

active(c) → mark(f(g(c)))
active(f(g(X))) → mark(g(X))
proper(c) → ok(c)
proper(f(X)) → f(proper(X))
proper(g(X)) → g(proper(X))
f(ok(X)) → ok(f(X))
g(ok(X)) → ok(g(X))
top(mark(X)) → top(proper(X))
top(ok(X)) → top(active(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:

TOP(mark(X)) → PROPER(X)
PROPER(g(X)) → G(proper(X))
PROPER(g(X)) → PROPER(X)
PROPER(f(X)) → PROPER(X)
TOP(ok(X)) → TOP(active(X))
ACTIVE(c) → F(g(c))
F(ok(X)) → F(X)
TOP(mark(X)) → TOP(proper(X))
G(ok(X)) → G(X)
ACTIVE(c) → G(c)
TOP(ok(X)) → ACTIVE(X)
PROPER(f(X)) → F(proper(X))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

active(c) → mark(f(g(c)))
active(f(g(X))) → mark(g(X))
proper(c) → ok(c)
proper(f(X)) → f(proper(X))
proper(g(X)) → g(proper(X))
f(ok(X)) → ok(f(X))
g(ok(X)) → ok(g(X))
top(mark(X)) → top(proper(X))
top(ok(X)) → top(active(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:

TOP(mark(X)) → PROPER(X)
PROPER(g(X)) → G(proper(X))
PROPER(g(X)) → PROPER(X)
PROPER(f(X)) → PROPER(X)
TOP(ok(X)) → TOP(active(X))
ACTIVE(c) → F(g(c))
F(ok(X)) → F(X)
TOP(mark(X)) → TOP(proper(X))
G(ok(X)) → G(X)
ACTIVE(c) → G(c)
TOP(ok(X)) → ACTIVE(X)
PROPER(f(X)) → F(proper(X))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

active(c) → mark(f(g(c)))
active(f(g(X))) → mark(g(X))
proper(c) → ok(c)
proper(f(X)) → f(proper(X))
proper(g(X)) → g(proper(X))
f(ok(X)) → ok(f(X))
g(ok(X)) → ok(g(X))
top(mark(X)) → top(proper(X))
top(ok(X)) → top(active(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:

TOP(mark(X)) → PROPER(X)
PROPER(g(X)) → G(proper(X))
PROPER(g(X)) → PROPER(X)
ACTIVE(c) → F(g(c))
TOP(ok(X)) → ACTIVE(X)
PROPER(f(X)) → PROPER(X)
TOP(ok(X)) → TOP(active(X))
F(ok(X)) → F(X)
TOP(mark(X)) → TOP(proper(X))
G(ok(X)) → G(X)
ACTIVE(c) → G(c)
PROPER(f(X)) → F(proper(X))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

active(c) → mark(f(g(c)))
active(f(g(X))) → mark(g(X))
proper(c) → ok(c)
proper(f(X)) → f(proper(X))
proper(g(X)) → g(proper(X))
f(ok(X)) → ok(f(X))
g(ok(X)) → ok(g(X))
top(mark(X)) → top(proper(X))
top(ok(X)) → top(active(X))

Q is empty.
We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
The approximation of the Dependency Graph [13,14,18] contains 4 SCCs with 6 less nodes.

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ EdgeDeletionProof

        ↳ QDP

          ↳ DependencyGraphProof

            ↳ AND

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ QDPOrderProof

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

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

G(ok(X)) → G(X)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

active(c) → mark(f(g(c)))
active(f(g(X))) → mark(g(X))
proper(c) → ok(c)
proper(f(X)) → f(proper(X))
proper(g(X)) → g(proper(X))
f(ok(X)) → ok(f(X))
g(ok(X)) → ok(g(X))
top(mark(X)) → top(proper(X))
top(ok(X)) → top(active(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(ok(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)
ok(x1) = ok(x1)

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

[G₁, ok_1]

Status:

G₁: [1]
ok₁: [1]

The following usable rules [14] were oriented: none

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ EdgeDeletionProof

        ↳ QDP

          ↳ DependencyGraphProof

            ↳ AND

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ QDPOrderProof

                  ↳ QDP

                    ↳ PisEmptyProof

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

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

active(c) → mark(f(g(c)))
active(f(g(X))) → mark(g(X))
proper(c) → ok(c)
proper(f(X)) → f(proper(X))
proper(g(X)) → g(proper(X))
f(ok(X)) → ok(f(X))
g(ok(X)) → ok(g(X))
top(mark(X)) → top(proper(X))
top(ok(X)) → top(active(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

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

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

F(ok(X)) → F(X)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

active(c) → mark(f(g(c)))
active(f(g(X))) → mark(g(X))
proper(c) → ok(c)
proper(f(X)) → f(proper(X))
proper(g(X)) → g(proper(X))
f(ok(X)) → ok(f(X))
g(ok(X)) → ok(g(X))
top(mark(X)) → top(proper(X))
top(ok(X)) → top(active(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(ok(X)) → F(X)

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

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

[F₁, ok_1]

Status:

ok₁: [1]
F₁: [1]

The following usable rules [14] were oriented: none

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ EdgeDeletionProof

        ↳ QDP

          ↳ DependencyGraphProof

            ↳ AND

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ QDPOrderProof

                  ↳ QDP

                    ↳ PisEmptyProof

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

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

active(c) → mark(f(g(c)))
active(f(g(X))) → mark(g(X))
proper(c) → ok(c)
proper(f(X)) → f(proper(X))
proper(g(X)) → g(proper(X))
f(ok(X)) → ok(f(X))
g(ok(X)) → ok(g(X))
top(mark(X)) → top(proper(X))
top(ok(X)) → top(active(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

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ QDPOrderProof

              ↳ QDP

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

PROPER(g(X)) → PROPER(X)
PROPER(f(X)) → PROPER(X)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

active(c) → mark(f(g(c)))
active(f(g(X))) → mark(g(X))
proper(c) → ok(c)
proper(f(X)) → f(proper(X))
proper(g(X)) → g(proper(X))
f(ok(X)) → ok(f(X))
g(ok(X)) → ok(g(X))
top(mark(X)) → top(proper(X))
top(ok(X)) → top(active(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.

PROPER(g(X)) → PROPER(X)

The remaining pairs can at least be oriented weakly.

PROPER(f(X)) → PROPER(X)

Used ordering: Combined order from the following AFS and order.
PROPER(x1) = PROPER(x1)
g(x1) = g(x1)
f(x1) = x1

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

[PROPER₁, g_1]

Status:

PROPER₁: [1]
g₁: [1]

The following usable rules [14] were oriented: none

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ EdgeDeletionProof

        ↳ QDP

          ↳ DependencyGraphProof

            ↳ AND

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ QDPOrderProof

                  ↳ QDP

                    ↳ QDPOrderProof

              ↳ QDP

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

PROPER(f(X)) → PROPER(X)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

active(c) → mark(f(g(c)))
active(f(g(X))) → mark(g(X))
proper(c) → ok(c)
proper(f(X)) → f(proper(X))
proper(g(X)) → g(proper(X))
f(ok(X)) → ok(f(X))
g(ok(X)) → ok(g(X))
top(mark(X)) → top(proper(X))
top(ok(X)) → top(active(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.

PROPER(f(X)) → PROPER(X)

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

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

[PROPER₁, f_1]

Status:

PROPER₁: [1]
f₁: [1]

The following usable rules [14] were oriented: none

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ EdgeDeletionProof

        ↳ QDP

          ↳ DependencyGraphProof

            ↳ AND

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ QDPOrderProof

                  ↳ QDP

                    ↳ QDPOrderProof

                      ↳ QDP

                        ↳ PisEmptyProof

              ↳ QDP

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

active(c) → mark(f(g(c)))
active(f(g(X))) → mark(g(X))
proper(c) → ok(c)
proper(f(X)) → f(proper(X))
proper(g(X)) → g(proper(X))
f(ok(X)) → ok(f(X))
g(ok(X)) → ok(g(X))
top(mark(X)) → top(proper(X))
top(ok(X)) → top(active(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

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ QDPOrderProof

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

TOP(ok(X)) → TOP(active(X))
TOP(mark(X)) → TOP(proper(X))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

active(c) → mark(f(g(c)))
active(f(g(X))) → mark(g(X))
proper(c) → ok(c)
proper(f(X)) → f(proper(X))
proper(g(X)) → g(proper(X))
f(ok(X)) → ok(f(X))
g(ok(X)) → ok(g(X))
top(mark(X)) → top(proper(X))
top(ok(X)) → top(active(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.

TOP(mark(X)) → TOP(proper(X))

The remaining pairs can at least be oriented weakly.

TOP(ok(X)) → TOP(active(X))

Used ordering: Combined order from the following AFS and order.
TOP(x1) = x1
ok(x1) = x1
active(x1) = x1
mark(x1) = mark(x1)
proper(x1) = proper(x1)
c = c
f(x1) = f
g(x1) = g

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

c > f > mark₁ > proper₁ > g

Status:

mark₁: [1]
c: multiset
f: []
g: []
proper₁: [1]

The following usable rules [14] were oriented:

active(c) → mark(f(g(c)))
proper(f(X)) → f(proper(X))
f(ok(X)) → ok(f(X))
proper(c) → ok(c)
proper(g(X)) → g(proper(X))
g(ok(X)) → ok(g(X))
active(f(g(X))) → mark(g(X))

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ EdgeDeletionProof

        ↳ QDP

          ↳ DependencyGraphProof

            ↳ AND

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ QDPOrderProof

                  ↳ QDP

                    ↳ QDPOrderProof

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

TOP(ok(X)) → TOP(active(X))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

active(c) → mark(f(g(c)))
active(f(g(X))) → mark(g(X))
proper(c) → ok(c)
proper(f(X)) → f(proper(X))
proper(g(X)) → g(proper(X))
f(ok(X)) → ok(f(X))
g(ok(X)) → ok(g(X))
top(mark(X)) → top(proper(X))
top(ok(X)) → top(active(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.

TOP(ok(X)) → TOP(active(X))

The remaining pairs can at least be oriented weakly.
none
Used ordering: Combined order from the following AFS and order.
TOP(x1) = x1
ok(x1) = ok(x1)
active(x1) = active
c = c
mark(x1) = mark
f(x1) = f
g(x1) = g

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

[ok₁, active, c] > [mark, f, g]

Status:

active: []
c: multiset
f: []
ok₁: [1]
g: []
mark: []

The following usable rules [14] were oriented:

active(c) → mark(f(g(c)))
active(f(g(X))) → mark(g(X))

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ EdgeDeletionProof

        ↳ QDP

          ↳ DependencyGraphProof

            ↳ AND

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ QDPOrderProof

                  ↳ QDP

                    ↳ QDPOrderProof

                      ↳ QDP

                        ↳ PisEmptyProof

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

active(c) → mark(f(g(c)))
active(f(g(X))) → mark(g(X))
proper(c) → ok(c)
proper(f(X)) → f(proper(X))
proper(g(X)) → g(proper(X))
f(ok(X)) → ok(f(X))
g(ok(X)) → ok(g(X))
top(mark(X)) → top(proper(X))
top(ok(X)) → top(active(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.