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(a, x) → f(b, f(c, x))
f(a, f(b, x)) → f(b, f(a, x))
f(d, f(c, x)) → f(d, f(a, x))
f(a, f(c, x)) → f(c, f(a, x))

Q is empty.


↳ QTRS
  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

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

f(a, x) → f(b, f(c, x))
f(a, f(b, x)) → f(b, f(a, x))
f(d, f(c, x)) → f(d, f(a, x))
f(a, f(c, x)) → f(c, f(a, 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:

F(a, f(c, x)) → F(c, f(a, x))
F(a, x) → F(b, f(c, x))
F(d, f(c, x)) → F(d, f(a, x))
F(a, x) → F(c, x)
F(a, f(b, x)) → F(a, x)
F(a, f(b, x)) → F(b, f(a, x))
F(a, f(c, x)) → F(a, x)
F(d, f(c, x)) → F(a, x)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

f(a, x) → f(b, f(c, x))
f(a, f(b, x)) → f(b, f(a, x))
f(d, f(c, x)) → f(d, f(a, x))
f(a, f(c, x)) → f(c, f(a, 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:

F(a, f(c, x)) → F(c, f(a, x))
F(a, x) → F(b, f(c, x))
F(d, f(c, x)) → F(d, f(a, x))
F(a, x) → F(c, x)
F(a, f(b, x)) → F(a, x)
F(a, f(b, x)) → F(b, f(a, x))
F(a, f(c, x)) → F(a, x)
F(d, f(c, x)) → F(a, x)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

f(a, x) → f(b, f(c, x))
f(a, f(b, x)) → f(b, f(a, x))
f(d, f(c, x)) → f(d, f(a, x))
f(a, f(c, x)) → f(c, f(a, 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:

F(a, x) → F(b, f(c, x))
F(a, f(c, x)) → F(c, f(a, x))
F(d, f(c, x)) → F(d, f(a, x))
F(a, x) → F(c, x)
F(a, f(b, x)) → F(a, x)
F(a, f(b, x)) → F(b, f(a, x))
F(a, f(c, x)) → F(a, x)
F(d, f(c, x)) → F(a, x)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

f(a, x) → f(b, f(c, x))
f(a, f(b, x)) → f(b, f(a, x))
f(d, f(c, x)) → f(d, f(a, x))
f(a, f(c, x)) → f(c, f(a, 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 5 less nodes.

↳ QTRS
  ↳ DependencyPairsProof
    ↳ QDP
      ↳ EdgeDeletionProof
        ↳ QDP
          ↳ DependencyGraphProof
            ↳ AND
              ↳ QDP
                ↳ QDPOrderProof
              ↳ QDP

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

F(a, f(b, x)) → F(a, x)
F(a, f(c, x)) → F(a, x)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

f(a, x) → f(b, f(c, x))
f(a, f(b, x)) → f(b, f(a, x))
f(d, f(c, x)) → f(d, f(a, x))
f(a, f(c, x)) → f(c, f(a, x))

Q is empty.
We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
We use the reduction pair processor [13]. Here, we combined the reduction pair processor with the A-transformation [14] which results in the following intermediate Q-DP Problem.
Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:

A(B(x)) → A(x)
A(C(x)) → A(x)

R is empty.
Q is empty.
We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.


The following pairs can be oriented strictly and are deleted.


F(a, f(c, x)) → F(a, x)
The remaining pairs can at least be oriented weakly.

F(a, f(b, x)) → F(a, x)
Used ordering: Combined order from the following AFS and order.
A(x1)  =  x1
B(x1)  =  x1
C(x1)  =  C(x1)

Recursive Path Order [2].
Precedence:
trivial

The following usable rules [14] were oriented: none



↳ QTRS
  ↳ DependencyPairsProof
    ↳ QDP
      ↳ EdgeDeletionProof
        ↳ QDP
          ↳ DependencyGraphProof
            ↳ AND
              ↳ QDP
                ↳ QDPOrderProof
                  ↳ QDP
                    ↳ QDPOrderProof
              ↳ QDP

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

F(a, f(b, x)) → F(a, x)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

f(a, x) → f(b, f(c, x))
f(a, f(b, x)) → f(b, f(a, x))
f(d, f(c, x)) → f(d, f(a, x))
f(a, f(c, x)) → f(c, f(a, x))

Q is empty.
We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
We use the reduction pair processor [13]. Here, we combined the reduction pair processor with the A-transformation [14] which results in the following intermediate Q-DP Problem.
Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:

A(B(x)) → A(x)

R is empty.
Q is empty.
We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.


The following pairs can be oriented strictly and are deleted.


F(a, f(b, x)) → F(a, x)
The remaining pairs can at least be oriented weakly.
none
Used ordering: Combined order from the following AFS and order.
A(x1)  =  x1
B(x1)  =  B(x1)

Recursive Path Order [2].
Precedence:
trivial

The following usable rules [14] were oriented: none



↳ QTRS
  ↳ DependencyPairsProof
    ↳ QDP
      ↳ EdgeDeletionProof
        ↳ QDP
          ↳ DependencyGraphProof
            ↳ AND
              ↳ QDP
                ↳ QDPOrderProof
                  ↳ QDP
                    ↳ QDPOrderProof
                      ↳ QDP
                        ↳ PisEmptyProof
              ↳ QDP

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

f(a, x) → f(b, f(c, x))
f(a, f(b, x)) → f(b, f(a, x))
f(d, f(c, x)) → f(d, f(a, x))
f(a, f(c, x)) → f(c, f(a, 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:

F(d, f(c, x)) → F(d, f(a, x))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

f(a, x) → f(b, f(c, x))
f(a, f(b, x)) → f(b, f(a, x))
f(d, f(c, x)) → f(d, f(a, x))
f(a, f(c, x)) → f(c, f(a, x))

Q is empty.
We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
We use the reduction pair processor [13]. Here, we combined the reduction pair processor with the A-transformation [14] which results in the following intermediate Q-DP Problem.
Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:

D(C(x)) → D(A(x))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

A(x) → B(C(x))
A(B(x)) → B(A(x))
A(C(x)) → C(A(x))

Q is empty.
We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.


The following pairs can be oriented strictly and are deleted.


F(d, f(c, x)) → F(d, f(a, x))
The remaining pairs can at least be oriented weakly.
none
Used ordering: Combined order from the following AFS and order.
D(x1)  =  x1
C(x1)  =  C(x1)
A(x1)  =  x1
B(x1)  =  B

Recursive Path Order [2].
Precedence:
C1 > B

The following usable rules [14] were oriented:

f(a, x) → f(b, f(c, x))
f(a, f(b, x)) → f(b, f(a, x))
f(a, f(c, x)) → f(c, f(a, x))



↳ 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(a, x) → f(b, f(c, x))
f(a, f(b, x)) → f(b, f(a, x))
f(d, f(c, x)) → f(d, f(a, x))
f(a, f(c, x)) → f(c, f(a, 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.