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

(0) Obligation:

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

and(false, false) → false
and(true, false) → false
and(false, true) → false
and(true, true) → true
eq(nil, nil) → true
eq(cons(T, L), nil) → false
eq(nil, cons(T, L)) → false
eq(cons(T, L), cons(Tp, Lp)) → and(eq(T, Tp), eq(L, Lp))
eq(var(L), var(Lp)) → eq(L, Lp)
eq(var(L), apply(T, S)) → false
eq(var(L), lambda(X, T)) → false
eq(apply(T, S), var(L)) → false
eq(apply(T, S), apply(Tp, Sp)) → and(eq(T, Tp), eq(S, Sp))
eq(apply(T, S), lambda(X, Tp)) → false
eq(lambda(X, T), var(L)) → false
eq(lambda(X, T), apply(Tp, Sp)) → false
eq(lambda(X, T), lambda(Xp, Tp)) → and(eq(T, Tp), eq(X, Xp))
if(true, var(K), var(L)) → var(K)
if(false, var(K), var(L)) → var(L)
ren(var(L), var(K), var(Lp)) → if(eq(L, Lp), var(K), var(Lp))
ren(X, Y, apply(T, S)) → apply(ren(X, Y, T), ren(X, Y, S))
ren(X, Y, lambda(Z, T)) → lambda(var(cons(X, cons(Y, cons(lambda(Z, T), nil)))), ren(X, Y, ren(Z, var(cons(X, cons(Y, cons(lambda(Z, T), nil)))), T)))

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:

EQ(cons(T, L), cons(Tp, Lp)) → AND(eq(T, Tp), eq(L, Lp))
EQ(cons(T, L), cons(Tp, Lp)) → EQ(T, Tp)
EQ(cons(T, L), cons(Tp, Lp)) → EQ(L, Lp)
EQ(var(L), var(Lp)) → EQ(L, Lp)
EQ(apply(T, S), apply(Tp, Sp)) → AND(eq(T, Tp), eq(S, Sp))
EQ(apply(T, S), apply(Tp, Sp)) → EQ(T, Tp)
EQ(apply(T, S), apply(Tp, Sp)) → EQ(S, Sp)
EQ(lambda(X, T), lambda(Xp, Tp)) → AND(eq(T, Tp), eq(X, Xp))
EQ(lambda(X, T), lambda(Xp, Tp)) → EQ(T, Tp)
EQ(lambda(X, T), lambda(Xp, Tp)) → EQ(X, Xp)
REN(var(L), var(K), var(Lp)) → IF(eq(L, Lp), var(K), var(Lp))
REN(var(L), var(K), var(Lp)) → EQ(L, Lp)
REN(X, Y, apply(T, S)) → REN(X, Y, T)
REN(X, Y, apply(T, S)) → REN(X, Y, S)
REN(X, Y, lambda(Z, T)) → REN(X, Y, ren(Z, var(cons(X, cons(Y, cons(lambda(Z, T), nil)))), T))
REN(X, Y, lambda(Z, T)) → REN(Z, var(cons(X, cons(Y, cons(lambda(Z, T), nil)))), T)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

and(false, false) → false
and(true, false) → false
and(false, true) → false
and(true, true) → true
eq(nil, nil) → true
eq(cons(T, L), nil) → false
eq(nil, cons(T, L)) → false
eq(cons(T, L), cons(Tp, Lp)) → and(eq(T, Tp), eq(L, Lp))
eq(var(L), var(Lp)) → eq(L, Lp)
eq(var(L), apply(T, S)) → false
eq(var(L), lambda(X, T)) → false
eq(apply(T, S), var(L)) → false
eq(apply(T, S), apply(Tp, Sp)) → and(eq(T, Tp), eq(S, Sp))
eq(apply(T, S), lambda(X, Tp)) → false
eq(lambda(X, T), var(L)) → false
eq(lambda(X, T), apply(Tp, Sp)) → false
eq(lambda(X, T), lambda(Xp, Tp)) → and(eq(T, Tp), eq(X, Xp))
if(true, var(K), var(L)) → var(K)
if(false, var(K), var(L)) → var(L)
ren(var(L), var(K), var(Lp)) → if(eq(L, Lp), var(K), var(Lp))
ren(X, Y, apply(T, S)) → apply(ren(X, Y, T), ren(X, Y, S))
ren(X, Y, lambda(Z, T)) → lambda(var(cons(X, cons(Y, cons(lambda(Z, T), nil)))), ren(X, Y, ren(Z, var(cons(X, cons(Y, cons(lambda(Z, T), nil)))), T)))

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 2 SCCs with 5 less nodes.

(4) Complex Obligation (AND)

(5) Obligation:

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

EQ(cons(T, L), cons(Tp, Lp)) → EQ(L, Lp)
EQ(cons(T, L), cons(Tp, Lp)) → EQ(T, Tp)
EQ(var(L), var(Lp)) → EQ(L, Lp)
EQ(apply(T, S), apply(Tp, Sp)) → EQ(T, Tp)
EQ(apply(T, S), apply(Tp, Sp)) → EQ(S, Sp)
EQ(lambda(X, T), lambda(Xp, Tp)) → EQ(T, Tp)
EQ(lambda(X, T), lambda(Xp, Tp)) → EQ(X, Xp)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

and(false, false) → false
and(true, false) → false
and(false, true) → false
and(true, true) → true
eq(nil, nil) → true
eq(cons(T, L), nil) → false
eq(nil, cons(T, L)) → false
eq(cons(T, L), cons(Tp, Lp)) → and(eq(T, Tp), eq(L, Lp))
eq(var(L), var(Lp)) → eq(L, Lp)
eq(var(L), apply(T, S)) → false
eq(var(L), lambda(X, T)) → false
eq(apply(T, S), var(L)) → false
eq(apply(T, S), apply(Tp, Sp)) → and(eq(T, Tp), eq(S, Sp))
eq(apply(T, S), lambda(X, Tp)) → false
eq(lambda(X, T), var(L)) → false
eq(lambda(X, T), apply(Tp, Sp)) → false
eq(lambda(X, T), lambda(Xp, Tp)) → and(eq(T, Tp), eq(X, Xp))
if(true, var(K), var(L)) → var(K)
if(false, var(K), var(L)) → var(L)
ren(var(L), var(K), var(Lp)) → if(eq(L, Lp), var(K), var(Lp))
ren(X, Y, apply(T, S)) → apply(ren(X, Y, T), ren(X, Y, S))
ren(X, Y, lambda(Z, T)) → lambda(var(cons(X, cons(Y, cons(lambda(Z, T), nil)))), ren(X, Y, ren(Z, var(cons(X, cons(Y, cons(lambda(Z, T), nil)))), T)))

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:
var(x1)  =  var(x1)
apply(x1, x2)  =  apply(x1, x2)
cons(x1, x2)  =  cons(x1, x2)
lambda(x1, x2)  =  lambda(x1, x2)

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

  • EQ(cons(T, L), cons(Tp, Lp)) → EQ(L, Lp) (allowed arguments on rhs = {1, 2})
    The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1, 2 > 2

  • EQ(cons(T, L), cons(Tp, Lp)) → EQ(T, Tp) (allowed arguments on rhs = {1, 2})
    The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1, 2 > 2

  • EQ(var(L), var(Lp)) → EQ(L, Lp) (allowed arguments on rhs = {1, 2})
    The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1, 2 > 2

  • EQ(apply(T, S), apply(Tp, Sp)) → EQ(T, Tp) (allowed arguments on rhs = {1, 2})
    The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1, 2 > 2

  • EQ(apply(T, S), apply(Tp, Sp)) → EQ(S, Sp) (allowed arguments on rhs = {1, 2})
    The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1, 2 > 2

  • EQ(lambda(X, T), lambda(Xp, Tp)) → EQ(T, Tp) (allowed arguments on rhs = {1, 2})
    The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1, 2 > 2

  • EQ(lambda(X, T), lambda(Xp, Tp)) → EQ(X, Xp) (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:

REN(X, Y, apply(T, S)) → REN(X, Y, S)
REN(X, Y, apply(T, S)) → REN(X, Y, T)
REN(X, Y, lambda(Z, T)) → REN(X, Y, ren(Z, var(cons(X, cons(Y, cons(lambda(Z, T), nil)))), T))
REN(X, Y, lambda(Z, T)) → REN(Z, var(cons(X, cons(Y, cons(lambda(Z, T), nil)))), T)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

and(false, false) → false
and(true, false) → false
and(false, true) → false
and(true, true) → true
eq(nil, nil) → true
eq(cons(T, L), nil) → false
eq(nil, cons(T, L)) → false
eq(cons(T, L), cons(Tp, Lp)) → and(eq(T, Tp), eq(L, Lp))
eq(var(L), var(Lp)) → eq(L, Lp)
eq(var(L), apply(T, S)) → false
eq(var(L), lambda(X, T)) → false
eq(apply(T, S), var(L)) → false
eq(apply(T, S), apply(Tp, Sp)) → and(eq(T, Tp), eq(S, Sp))
eq(apply(T, S), lambda(X, Tp)) → false
eq(lambda(X, T), var(L)) → false
eq(lambda(X, T), apply(Tp, Sp)) → false
eq(lambda(X, T), lambda(Xp, Tp)) → and(eq(T, Tp), eq(X, Xp))
if(true, var(K), var(L)) → var(K)
if(false, var(K), var(L)) → var(L)
ren(var(L), var(K), var(Lp)) → if(eq(L, Lp), var(K), var(Lp))
ren(X, Y, apply(T, S)) → apply(ren(X, Y, T), ren(X, Y, S))
ren(X, Y, lambda(Z, T)) → lambda(var(cons(X, cons(Y, cons(lambda(Z, T), nil)))), ren(X, Y, ren(Z, var(cons(X, cons(Y, cons(lambda(Z, T), nil)))), T)))

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.
ren(x1, x2, x3)  =  x3
var(x1)  =  var
if(x1, x2, x3)  =  if
eq(x1, x2)  =  eq(x1, x2)
apply(x1, x2)  =  apply(x1, x2)
lambda(x1, x2)  =  lambda(x2)
cons(x1, x2)  =  cons
nil  =  nil
true  =  true
false  =  false
and(x1, x2)  =  and

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

[var, if] > eq2 > [apply2, false] > [lambda1, true, and]
cons > [apply2, false] > [lambda1, true, and]
nil > [apply2, false] > [lambda1, true, and]

Status:
var: multiset
if: multiset
eq2: multiset
apply2: [2,1]
lambda1: [1]
cons: []
nil: multiset
true: multiset
false: multiset
and: multiset

AFS:
ren(x1, x2, x3)  =  x3
var(x1)  =  var
if(x1, x2, x3)  =  if
eq(x1, x2)  =  eq(x1, x2)
apply(x1, x2)  =  apply(x1, x2)
lambda(x1, x2)  =  lambda(x2)
cons(x1, x2)  =  cons
nil  =  nil
true  =  true
false  =  false
and(x1, x2)  =  and

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

  • REN(X, Y, apply(T, S)) → REN(X, Y, S) (allowed arguments on rhs = {1, 2, 3})
    The graph contains the following edges 1 >= 1, 2 >= 2, 3 > 3

  • REN(X, Y, apply(T, S)) → REN(X, Y, T) (allowed arguments on rhs = {1, 2, 3})
    The graph contains the following edges 1 >= 1, 2 >= 2, 3 > 3

  • REN(X, Y, lambda(Z, T)) → REN(X, Y, ren(Z, var(cons(X, cons(Y, cons(lambda(Z, T), nil)))), T)) (allowed arguments on rhs = {1, 2, 3})
    The graph contains the following edges 1 >= 1, 2 >= 2, 3 > 3

  • REN(X, Y, lambda(Z, T)) → REN(Z, var(cons(X, cons(Y, cons(lambda(Z, T), nil)))), T) (allowed arguments on rhs = {1, 2, 3})
    The graph contains the following edges 3 > 3

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


ren(var(L), var(K), var(Lp)) → if(eq(L, Lp), var(K), var(Lp))
ren(X, Y, apply(T, S)) → apply(ren(X, Y, T), ren(X, Y, S))
ren(X, Y, lambda(Z, T)) → lambda(var(cons(X, cons(Y, cons(lambda(Z, T), nil)))), ren(X, Y, ren(Z, var(cons(X, cons(Y, cons(lambda(Z, T), nil)))), T)))
if(true, var(K), var(L)) → var(K)
if(false, var(K), var(L)) → var(L)

(10) TRUE