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

(0) Obligation:

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

minus(0, y) → 0
minus(s(x), 0) → s(x)
minus(s(x), s(y)) → minus(x, y)
le(0, y) → true
le(s(x), 0) → false
le(s(x), s(y)) → le(x, y)
if(true, x, y) → x
if(false, x, y) → y
perfectp(0) → false
perfectp(s(x)) → f(x, s(0), s(x), s(x))
f(0, y, 0, u) → true
f(0, y, s(z), u) → false
f(s(x), 0, z, u) → f(x, u, minus(z, s(x)), u)
f(s(x), s(y), z, u) → if(le(x, y), f(s(x), minus(y, x), z, u), f(x, u, z, u))

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(s(x), s(y)) → MINUS(x, y)
LE(s(x), s(y)) → LE(x, y)
PERFECTP(s(x)) → F(x, s(0), s(x), s(x))
F(s(x), 0, z, u) → F(x, u, minus(z, s(x)), u)
F(s(x), 0, z, u) → MINUS(z, s(x))
F(s(x), s(y), z, u) → IF(le(x, y), f(s(x), minus(y, x), z, u), f(x, u, z, u))
F(s(x), s(y), z, u) → LE(x, y)
F(s(x), s(y), z, u) → F(s(x), minus(y, x), z, u)
F(s(x), s(y), z, u) → MINUS(y, x)
F(s(x), s(y), z, u) → F(x, u, z, u)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

minus(0, y) → 0
minus(s(x), 0) → s(x)
minus(s(x), s(y)) → minus(x, y)
le(0, y) → true
le(s(x), 0) → false
le(s(x), s(y)) → le(x, y)
if(true, x, y) → x
if(false, x, y) → y
perfectp(0) → false
perfectp(s(x)) → f(x, s(0), s(x), s(x))
f(0, y, 0, u) → true
f(0, y, s(z), u) → false
f(s(x), 0, z, u) → f(x, u, minus(z, s(x)), u)
f(s(x), s(y), z, u) → if(le(x, y), f(s(x), minus(y, x), z, u), f(x, u, z, u))

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 5 less nodes.

(4) Complex Obligation (AND)

(5) Obligation:

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

LE(s(x), s(y)) → LE(x, y)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

minus(0, y) → 0
minus(s(x), 0) → s(x)
minus(s(x), s(y)) → minus(x, y)
le(0, y) → true
le(s(x), 0) → false
le(s(x), s(y)) → le(x, y)
if(true, x, y) → x
if(false, x, y) → y
perfectp(0) → false
perfectp(s(x)) → f(x, s(0), s(x), s(x))
f(0, y, 0, u) → true
f(0, y, s(z), u) → false
f(s(x), 0, z, u) → f(x, u, minus(z, s(x)), u)
f(s(x), s(y), z, u) → if(le(x, y), f(s(x), minus(y, x), z, u), f(x, u, z, u))

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:

• LE(s(x), s(y)) → LE(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:

MINUS(s(x), s(y)) → MINUS(x, y)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

minus(0, y) → 0
minus(s(x), 0) → s(x)
minus(s(x), s(y)) → minus(x, y)
le(0, y) → true
le(s(x), 0) → false
le(s(x), s(y)) → le(x, y)
if(true, x, y) → x
if(false, x, y) → y
perfectp(0) → false
perfectp(s(x)) → f(x, s(0), s(x), s(x))
f(0, y, 0, u) → true
f(0, y, s(z), u) → false
f(s(x), 0, z, u) → f(x, u, minus(z, s(x)), u)
f(s(x), s(y), z, u) → if(le(x, y), f(s(x), minus(y, x), z, u), f(x, u, z, u))

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:Homeomorphic Embedding Order

AFS:
s(x1)  =  s(x1)

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

• MINUS(s(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

(10) TRUE

(11) Obligation:

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

F(s(x), s(y), z, u) → F(s(x), minus(y, x), z, u)
F(s(x), 0, z, u) → F(x, u, minus(z, s(x)), u)
F(s(x), s(y), z, u) → F(x, u, z, u)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

minus(0, y) → 0
minus(s(x), 0) → s(x)
minus(s(x), s(y)) → minus(x, y)
le(0, y) → true
le(s(x), 0) → false
le(s(x), s(y)) → le(x, y)
if(true, x, y) → x
if(false, x, y) → y
perfectp(0) → false
perfectp(s(x)) → f(x, s(0), s(x), s(x))
f(0, y, 0, u) → true
f(0, y, s(z), u) → false
f(s(x), 0, z, u) → f(x, u, minus(z, s(x)), u)
f(s(x), s(y), z, u) → if(le(x, y), f(s(x), minus(y, x), z, u), f(x, u, z, u))

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.
minus(x1, x2)  =  x1
0  =  0
s(x1)  =  s(x1)

Homeomorphic Embedding Order

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

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

• F(s(x), s(y), z, u) → F(s(x), minus(y, x), z, u) (allowed arguments on rhs = {1, 2, 3, 4})
  The graph contains the following edges 1 >= 1, 2 > 2, 3 >= 3, 4 >= 4

• F(s(x), 0, z, u) → F(x, u, minus(z, s(x)), u) (allowed arguments on rhs = {1, 2, 4})
  The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1, 4 >= 2, 4 >= 4

• F(s(x), s(y), z, u) → F(x, u, z, u) (allowed arguments on rhs = {1, 2, 3, 4})
  The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1, 4 >= 2, 3 >= 3, 4 >= 4

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

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

(13) TRUE