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

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

(0) Obligation:

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

pred(s(x)) → x
minus(x, 0) → x
minus(x, s(y)) → pred(minus(x, y))
quot(0, s(y)) → 0
quot(s(x), s(y)) → s(quot(minus(x, y), s(y)))
log(s(0)) → 0
log(s(s(x))) → s(log(s(quot(x, s(s(0))))))

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:

MINUS(x, s(y)) → PRED(minus(x, y))
MINUS(x, s(y)) → MINUS(x, y)
QUOT(s(x), s(y)) → QUOT(minus(x, y), s(y))
QUOT(s(x), s(y)) → MINUS(x, y)
LOG(s(s(x))) → LOG(s(quot(x, s(s(0)))))
LOG(s(s(x))) → QUOT(x, s(s(0)))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

pred(s(x)) → x
minus(x, 0) → x
minus(x, s(y)) → pred(minus(x, y))
quot(0, s(y)) → 0
quot(s(x), s(y)) → s(quot(minus(x, y), s(y)))
log(s(0)) → 0
log(s(s(x))) → s(log(s(quot(x, s(s(0))))))

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

(3) DependencyGraphProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

The approximation of the Dependency Graph [LPAR04,FROCOS05,EDGSTAR] contains 3 SCCs with 3 less nodes.

(4) Complex Obligation (AND)

(5) Obligation:

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

MINUS(x, s(y)) → MINUS(x, y)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

pred(s(x)) → x
minus(x, 0) → x
minus(x, s(y)) → pred(minus(x, y))
quot(0, s(y)) → 0
quot(s(x), s(y)) → s(quot(minus(x, y), s(y)))
log(s(0)) → 0
log(s(s(x))) → s(log(s(quot(x, s(s(0))))))

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

(6) QDPSizeChangeProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

We used the following order and afs together with the size-change analysis [AAECC05] to show that there are no infinite chains for this DP problem.

Order:Homeomorphic Embedding Order

AFS:
s(x1)  =  s(x1)

From the DPs we obtained the following set of size-change graphs:

  • MINUS(x, s(y)) → MINUS(x, y) (allowed arguments on rhs = {1, 2})
    The graph contains the following edges 1 >= 1, 2 > 2

We oriented the following set of usable rules [AAECC05,FROCOS05]. none

(7) TRUE

(8) Obligation:

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

QUOT(s(x), s(y)) → QUOT(minus(x, y), s(y))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

pred(s(x)) → x
minus(x, 0) → x
minus(x, s(y)) → pred(minus(x, y))
quot(0, s(y)) → 0
quot(s(x), s(y)) → s(quot(minus(x, y), s(y)))
log(s(0)) → 0
log(s(s(x))) → s(log(s(quot(x, s(s(0))))))

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

(9) QDPSizeChangeProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

We used the following order and afs together with the size-change analysis [AAECC05] to show that there are no infinite chains for this DP problem.

Order:Combined order from the following AFS and order.
minus(x1, x2)  =  x1
0  =  0
s(x1)  =  s(x1)
pred(x1)  =  x1

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

trivial

Status:
0: multiset
s1: multiset

AFS:
minus(x1, x2)  =  x1
0  =  0
s(x1)  =  s(x1)
pred(x1)  =  x1

From the DPs we obtained the following set of size-change graphs:

  • QUOT(s(x), s(y)) → QUOT(minus(x, y), s(y)) (allowed arguments on rhs = {1, 2})
    The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1, 2 >= 2

We oriented the following set of usable rules [AAECC05,FROCOS05].


minus(x, 0) → x
minus(x, s(y)) → pred(minus(x, y))
pred(s(x)) → x

(10) TRUE

(11) Obligation:

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

LOG(s(s(x))) → LOG(s(quot(x, s(s(0)))))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

pred(s(x)) → x
minus(x, 0) → x
minus(x, s(y)) → pred(minus(x, y))
quot(0, s(y)) → 0
quot(s(x), s(y)) → s(quot(minus(x, y), s(y)))
log(s(0)) → 0
log(s(s(x))) → s(log(s(quot(x, s(s(0))))))

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

(12) QDPSizeChangeProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

We used the following order and afs together with the size-change analysis [AAECC05] to show that there are no infinite chains for this DP problem.

Order:Combined order from the following AFS and order.
quot(x1, x2)  =  x1
s(x1)  =  s(x1)
minus(x1, x2)  =  x1
0  =  0
pred(x1)  =  x1

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

[s1, 0]

Status:
s1: multiset
0: multiset

AFS:
quot(x1, x2)  =  x1
s(x1)  =  s(x1)
minus(x1, x2)  =  x1
0  =  0
pred(x1)  =  x1

From the DPs we obtained the following set of size-change graphs:

  • LOG(s(s(x))) → LOG(s(quot(x, s(s(0))))) (allowed arguments on rhs = {1})
    The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1

We oriented the following set of usable rules [AAECC05,FROCOS05].


quot(s(x), s(y)) → s(quot(minus(x, y), s(y)))
quot(0, s(y)) → 0
pred(s(x)) → x
minus(x, s(y)) → pred(minus(x, y))
minus(x, 0) → x

(13) TRUE