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:

+(0, y) → y
+(s(x), y) → s(+(x, y))
+(p(x), y) → p(+(x, y))
minus(0) → 0
minus(s(x)) → p(minus(x))
minus(p(x)) → s(minus(x))
*(0, y) → 0
*(s(x), y) → +(*(x, y), y)
*(p(x), y) → +(*(x, y), minus(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:

+1(s(x), y) → +1(x, y)
+1(p(x), y) → +1(x, y)
MINUS(s(x)) → MINUS(x)
MINUS(p(x)) → MINUS(x)
*1(s(x), y) → +1(*(x, y), y)
*1(s(x), y) → *1(x, y)
*1(p(x), y) → +1(*(x, y), minus(y))
*1(p(x), y) → *1(x, y)
*1(p(x), y) → MINUS(y)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

+(0, y) → y
+(s(x), y) → s(+(x, y))
+(p(x), y) → p(+(x, y))
minus(0) → 0
minus(s(x)) → p(minus(x))
minus(p(x)) → s(minus(x))
*(0, y) → 0
*(s(x), y) → +(*(x, y), y)
*(p(x), y) → +(*(x, y), minus(y))

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(p(x)) → MINUS(x)
MINUS(s(x)) → MINUS(x)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

+(0, y) → y
+(s(x), y) → s(+(x, y))
+(p(x), y) → p(+(x, y))
minus(0) → 0
minus(s(x)) → p(minus(x))
minus(p(x)) → s(minus(x))
*(0, y) → 0
*(s(x), y) → +(*(x, y), y)
*(p(x), y) → +(*(x, y), minus(y))

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:
p(x1)  =  p(x1)
s(x1)  =  s(x1)

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

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

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

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:

+1(p(x), y) → +1(x, y)
+1(s(x), y) → +1(x, y)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

+(0, y) → y
+(s(x), y) → s(+(x, y))
+(p(x), y) → p(+(x, y))
minus(0) → 0
minus(s(x)) → p(minus(x))
minus(p(x)) → s(minus(x))
*(0, y) → 0
*(s(x), y) → +(*(x, y), y)
*(p(x), y) → +(*(x, y), minus(y))

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:
p(x1)  =  p(x1)
s(x1)  =  s(x1)

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

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

  • +1(s(x), y) → +1(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:

*1(p(x), y) → *1(x, y)
*1(s(x), y) → *1(x, y)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

+(0, y) → y
+(s(x), y) → s(+(x, y))
+(p(x), y) → p(+(x, y))
minus(0) → 0
minus(s(x)) → p(minus(x))
minus(p(x)) → s(minus(x))
*(0, y) → 0
*(s(x), y) → +(*(x, y), y)
*(p(x), y) → +(*(x, y), minus(y))

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:Homeomorphic Embedding Order

AFS:
p(x1)  =  p(x1)
s(x1)  =  s(x1)

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

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

  • *1(s(x), y) → *1(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

(13) TRUE