Termination w.r.t. Q of the given QTRS could be proven:

0 QTRS
↳1 DependencyPairsProof (⇔)
↳2 QDP
↳3 QDPOrderProof (⇔)
↳4 QDP
↳5 DependencyGraphProof (⇔)
↳6 AND
    ↳7 QDP
        ↳8 QDPOrderProof (⇔)
        ↳9 QDP
        ↳10 PisEmptyProof (⇔)
        ↳11 TRUE
    ↳12 QDP
        ↳13 QDPOrderProof (⇔)
        ↳14 QDP
        ↳15 PisEmptyProof (⇔)
        ↳16 TRUE

(0) Obligation:

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

f(c(s(x), y)) → f(c(x, s(y)))
f(c(s(x), s(y))) → g(c(x, y))
g(c(x, s(y))) → g(c(s(x), y))
g(c(s(x), s(y))) → f(c(x, y))

Q is empty.

(1) DependencyPairsProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

Using Dependency Pairs [AG00,LPAR04] we result in the following initial DP problem.

(2) Obligation:

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

F(c(s(x), y)) → F(c(x, s(y)))
F(c(s(x), s(y))) → G(c(x, y))
G(c(x, s(y))) → G(c(s(x), y))
G(c(s(x), s(y))) → F(c(x, y))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

f(c(s(x), y)) → f(c(x, s(y)))
f(c(s(x), s(y))) → g(c(x, y))
g(c(x, s(y))) → g(c(s(x), y))
g(c(s(x), s(y))) → f(c(x, y))

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

(3) QDPOrderProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

We use the reduction pair processor [LPAR04].


The following pairs can be oriented strictly and are deleted.


F(c(s(x), s(y))) → G(c(x, y))
G(c(s(x), s(y))) → F(c(x, y))
The remaining pairs can at least be oriented weakly.
Used ordering: SCNP Order with the following components:
Level mapping:
Top level AFS:
F(x0, x1)  =  F(x1)
G(x0, x1)  =  G(x0, x1)

Tags:
F has argument tags [2,2] and root tag 0
G has argument tags [3,1] and root tag 0

Comparison: MAX
Underlying order for the size change arcs and the rules of R:
Polynomial interpretation [POLO]:

POL(F(x1)) = 0   
POL(G(x1)) = 0   
POL(c(x1, x2)) = x1 + x2   
POL(s(x1)) = 1 + x1   

The following usable rules [FROCOS05] were oriented: none

(4) Obligation:

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

F(c(s(x), y)) → F(c(x, s(y)))
G(c(x, s(y))) → G(c(s(x), y))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

f(c(s(x), y)) → f(c(x, s(y)))
f(c(s(x), s(y))) → g(c(x, y))
g(c(x, s(y))) → g(c(s(x), y))
g(c(s(x), s(y))) → f(c(x, y))

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

(5) DependencyGraphProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

The approximation of the Dependency Graph [LPAR04,FROCOS05,EDGSTAR] contains 2 SCCs.

(6) Complex Obligation (AND)

(7) Obligation:

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

G(c(x, s(y))) → G(c(s(x), y))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

f(c(s(x), y)) → f(c(x, s(y)))
f(c(s(x), s(y))) → g(c(x, y))
g(c(x, s(y))) → g(c(s(x), y))
g(c(s(x), s(y))) → f(c(x, y))

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

(8) QDPOrderProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

We use the reduction pair processor [LPAR04].


The following pairs can be oriented strictly and are deleted.


G(c(x, s(y))) → G(c(s(x), y))
The remaining pairs can at least be oriented weakly.
Used ordering: SCNP Order with the following components:
Level mapping:
Top level AFS:
G(x0, x1)  =  G(x1)

Tags:
G has argument tags [1,0] and root tag 0

Comparison: MAX
Underlying order for the size change arcs and the rules of R:
Polynomial interpretation [POLO]:

POL(G(x1)) = 1   
POL(c(x1, x2)) = x2   
POL(s(x1)) = 1 + x1   

The following usable rules [FROCOS05] were oriented: none

(9) Obligation:

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

f(c(s(x), y)) → f(c(x, s(y)))
f(c(s(x), s(y))) → g(c(x, y))
g(c(x, s(y))) → g(c(s(x), y))
g(c(s(x), s(y))) → f(c(x, y))

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

(10) PisEmptyProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

The TRS P is empty. Hence, there is no (P,Q,R) chain.

(11) TRUE

(12) Obligation:

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

F(c(s(x), y)) → F(c(x, s(y)))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

f(c(s(x), y)) → f(c(x, s(y)))
f(c(s(x), s(y))) → g(c(x, y))
g(c(x, s(y))) → g(c(s(x), y))
g(c(s(x), s(y))) → f(c(x, y))

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

(13) QDPOrderProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

We use the reduction pair processor [LPAR04].


The following pairs can be oriented strictly and are deleted.


F(c(s(x), y)) → F(c(x, s(y)))
The remaining pairs can at least be oriented weakly.
Used ordering: SCNP Order with the following components:
Level mapping:
Top level AFS:
F(x0, x1)  =  F(x1)

Tags:
F has argument tags [1,0] and root tag 0

Comparison: MAX
Underlying order for the size change arcs and the rules of R:
Polynomial interpretation [POLO]:

POL(F(x1)) = 1   
POL(c(x1, x2)) = x1   
POL(s(x1)) = 1 + x1   

The following usable rules [FROCOS05] were oriented: none

(14) Obligation:

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

f(c(s(x), y)) → f(c(x, s(y)))
f(c(s(x), s(y))) → g(c(x, y))
g(c(x, s(y))) → g(c(s(x), y))
g(c(s(x), s(y))) → f(c(x, y))

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

(15) PisEmptyProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

The TRS P is empty. Hence, there is no (P,Q,R) chain.

(16) TRUE