Termination w.r.t. Q proof of TRS/TRCSREx7_BLR02

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)))
head(cons(X, XS)) → X
2nd(cons(X, XS)) → head(activate(XS))
take(0, XS) → nil
take(s(N), cons(X, XS)) → cons(X, n__take(N, activate(XS)))
sel(0, cons(X, XS)) → X
sel(s(N), cons(X, XS)) → sel(N, activate(XS))
from(X) → n__from(X)
take(X1, X2) → n__take(X1, X2)
activate(n__from(X)) → from(X)
activate(n__take(X1, X2)) → take(X1, X2)
activate(X) → X

Q is empty.

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

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

from(X) → cons(X, n__from(s(X)))
head(cons(X, XS)) → X
2nd(cons(X, XS)) → head(activate(XS))
take(0, XS) → nil
take(s(N), cons(X, XS)) → cons(X, n__take(N, activate(XS)))
sel(0, cons(X, XS)) → X
sel(s(N), cons(X, XS)) → sel(N, activate(XS))
from(X) → n__from(X)
take(X1, X2) → n__take(X1, X2)
activate(n__from(X)) → from(X)
activate(n__take(X1, X2)) → take(X1, X2)
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__take(X1, X2)) → TAKE(X1, X2)
TAKE(s(N), cons(X, XS)) → ACTIVATE(XS)
SEL(s(N), cons(X, XS)) → ACTIVATE(XS)
SEL(s(N), cons(X, XS)) → SEL(N, activate(XS))
2ND(cons(X, XS)) → HEAD(activate(XS))
ACTIVATE(n__from(X)) → FROM(X)
2ND(cons(X, XS)) → ACTIVATE(XS)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

from(X) → cons(X, n__from(s(X)))
head(cons(X, XS)) → X
2nd(cons(X, XS)) → head(activate(XS))
take(0, XS) → nil
take(s(N), cons(X, XS)) → cons(X, n__take(N, activate(XS)))
sel(0, cons(X, XS)) → X
sel(s(N), cons(X, XS)) → sel(N, activate(XS))
from(X) → n__from(X)
take(X1, X2) → n__take(X1, X2)
activate(n__from(X)) → from(X)
activate(n__take(X1, X2)) → take(X1, X2)
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__take(X1, X2)) → TAKE(X1, X2)
TAKE(s(N), cons(X, XS)) → ACTIVATE(XS)
SEL(s(N), cons(X, XS)) → ACTIVATE(XS)
SEL(s(N), cons(X, XS)) → SEL(N, activate(XS))
2ND(cons(X, XS)) → HEAD(activate(XS))
ACTIVATE(n__from(X)) → FROM(X)
2ND(cons(X, XS)) → ACTIVATE(XS)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

from(X) → cons(X, n__from(s(X)))
head(cons(X, XS)) → X
2nd(cons(X, XS)) → head(activate(XS))
take(0, XS) → nil
take(s(N), cons(X, XS)) → cons(X, n__take(N, activate(XS)))
sel(0, cons(X, XS)) → X
sel(s(N), cons(X, XS)) → sel(N, activate(XS))
from(X) → n__from(X)
take(X1, X2) → n__take(X1, X2)
activate(n__from(X)) → from(X)
activate(n__take(X1, X2)) → take(X1, X2)
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__take(X1, X2)) → TAKE(X1, X2)
TAKE(s(N), cons(X, XS)) → ACTIVATE(XS)
SEL(s(N), cons(X, XS)) → ACTIVATE(XS)
SEL(s(N), cons(X, XS)) → SEL(N, activate(XS))
2ND(cons(X, XS)) → HEAD(activate(XS))
ACTIVATE(n__from(X)) → FROM(X)
2ND(cons(X, XS)) → ACTIVATE(XS)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

from(X) → cons(X, n__from(s(X)))
head(cons(X, XS)) → X
2nd(cons(X, XS)) → head(activate(XS))
take(0, XS) → nil
take(s(N), cons(X, XS)) → cons(X, n__take(N, activate(XS)))
sel(0, cons(X, XS)) → X
sel(s(N), cons(X, XS)) → sel(N, activate(XS))
from(X) → n__from(X)
take(X1, X2) → n__take(X1, X2)
activate(n__from(X)) → from(X)
activate(n__take(X1, X2)) → take(X1, X2)
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:

ACTIVATE(n__take(X1, X2)) → TAKE(X1, X2)
TAKE(s(N), cons(X, XS)) → ACTIVATE(XS)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

from(X) → cons(X, n__from(s(X)))
head(cons(X, XS)) → X
2nd(cons(X, XS)) → head(activate(XS))
take(0, XS) → nil
take(s(N), cons(X, XS)) → cons(X, n__take(N, activate(XS)))
sel(0, cons(X, XS)) → X
sel(s(N), cons(X, XS)) → sel(N, activate(XS))
from(X) → n__from(X)
take(X1, X2) → n__take(X1, X2)
activate(n__from(X)) → from(X)
activate(n__take(X1, X2)) → take(X1, X2)
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__take(X1, X2)) → TAKE(X1, X2)

The remaining pairs can at least be oriented weakly.

TAKE(s(N), cons(X, XS)) → ACTIVATE(XS)

Used ordering: Combined order from the following AFS and order.
ACTIVATE(x1) = ACTIVATE(x1)
n__take(x1, x2) = n__take(x1, x2)
TAKE(x1, x2) = TAKE(x2)
s(x1) = s
cons(x1, x2) = x2

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

n_{_take₂} > [ACTIVATE₁, TAKE_1]
s > [ACTIVATE₁, TAKE_1]

Status:

ACTIVATE₁: [1]
TAKE₁: [1]
s: []
n_{_take₂}: [2,1]

The following usable rules [14] were oriented: none

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ EdgeDeletionProof

        ↳ QDP

          ↳ DependencyGraphProof

            ↳ AND

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ QDPOrderProof

                  ↳ QDP

                    ↳ DependencyGraphProof

              ↳ QDP

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

TAKE(s(N), cons(X, XS)) → ACTIVATE(XS)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

from(X) → cons(X, n__from(s(X)))
head(cons(X, XS)) → X
2nd(cons(X, XS)) → head(activate(XS))
take(0, XS) → nil
take(s(N), cons(X, XS)) → cons(X, n__take(N, activate(XS)))
sel(0, cons(X, XS)) → X
sel(s(N), cons(X, XS)) → sel(N, activate(XS))
from(X) → n__from(X)
take(X1, X2) → n__take(X1, X2)
activate(n__from(X)) → from(X)
activate(n__take(X1, X2)) → take(X1, X2)
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 0 SCCs with 1 less node.

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ EdgeDeletionProof

        ↳ QDP

          ↳ DependencyGraphProof

            ↳ AND

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ QDPOrderProof

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

SEL(s(N), cons(X, XS)) → SEL(N, activate(XS))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

from(X) → cons(X, n__from(s(X)))
head(cons(X, XS)) → X
2nd(cons(X, XS)) → head(activate(XS))
take(0, XS) → nil
take(s(N), cons(X, XS)) → cons(X, n__take(N, activate(XS)))
sel(0, cons(X, XS)) → X
sel(s(N), cons(X, XS)) → sel(N, activate(XS))
from(X) → n__from(X)
take(X1, X2) → n__take(X1, X2)
activate(n__from(X)) → from(X)
activate(n__take(X1, X2)) → take(X1, X2)
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(N), cons(X, XS)) → SEL(N, activate(XS))

The remaining pairs can at least be oriented weakly.
none
Used ordering: Combined order from the following AFS and order.
SEL(x1, x2) = x1
s(x1) = s(x1)
cons(x1, x2) = cons(x1)
activate(x1) = x1
n__from(x1) = n__from
from(x1) = from
take(x1, x2) = take(x1, x2)
n__take(x1, x2) = x2
0 = 0
nil = nil

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

s₁ > [cons₁, from]
n_{_from} > [cons₁, from]
0 > nil

Status:

from: []
n_{_from}: []
0: multiset
s₁: [1]
nil: multiset
cons₁: [1]
take₂: [1,2]

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:

from(X) → cons(X, n__from(s(X)))
head(cons(X, XS)) → X
2nd(cons(X, XS)) → head(activate(XS))
take(0, XS) → nil
take(s(N), cons(X, XS)) → cons(X, n__take(N, activate(XS)))
sel(0, cons(X, XS)) → X
sel(s(N), cons(X, XS)) → sel(N, activate(XS))
from(X) → n__from(X)
take(X1, X2) → n__take(X1, X2)
activate(n__from(X)) → from(X)
activate(n__take(X1, X2)) → take(X1, X2)
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.