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 QDPOrderProof (⇔)
        ↳7 QDP
        ↳8 PisEmptyProof (⇔)
        ↳9 TRUE
    ↳10 QDP
        ↳11 QDPOrderProof (⇔)
        ↳12 QDP
        ↳13 PisEmptyProof (⇔)
        ↳14 TRUE
    ↳15 QDP
        ↳16 QDPOrderProof (⇔)
        ↳17 QDP
        ↳18 PisEmptyProof (⇔)
        ↳19 TRUE

(0) Obligation:

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

norm(nil) → 0
norm(g(x, y)) → s(norm(x))
f(x, nil) → g(nil, x)
f(x, g(y, z)) → g(f(x, y), z)
rem(nil, y) → nil
rem(g(x, y), 0) → g(x, y)
rem(g(x, y), s(z)) → rem(x, z)

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:

NORM(g(x, y)) → NORM(x)
F(x, g(y, z)) → F(x, y)
REM(g(x, y), s(z)) → REM(x, z)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

norm(nil) → 0
norm(g(x, y)) → s(norm(x))
f(x, nil) → g(nil, x)
f(x, g(y, z)) → g(f(x, y), z)
rem(nil, y) → nil
rem(g(x, y), 0) → g(x, y)
rem(g(x, y), s(z)) → rem(x, z)

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.

(4) Complex Obligation (AND)

(5) Obligation:

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

REM(g(x, y), s(z)) → REM(x, z)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

norm(nil) → 0
norm(g(x, y)) → s(norm(x))
f(x, nil) → g(nil, x)
f(x, g(y, z)) → g(f(x, y), z)
rem(nil, y) → nil
rem(g(x, y), 0) → g(x, y)
rem(g(x, y), s(z)) → rem(x, z)

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

(6) QDPOrderProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

We use the reduction pair processor [LPAR04].


The following pairs can be oriented strictly and are deleted.


REM(g(x, y), s(z)) → REM(x, z)
The remaining pairs can at least be oriented weakly.
Used ordering: SCNP Order with the following components:
Level mapping:
Top level AFS:
REM(x0, x1, x2)  =  REM(x1)

Tags:
REM has argument tags [3,3,3] and root tag 0

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

POL(REM(x1, x2)) = 0   
POL(g(x1, x2)) = 1 + x1   
POL(s(x1)) = 0   

The following usable rules [FROCOS05] were oriented: none

(7) Obligation:

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

norm(nil) → 0
norm(g(x, y)) → s(norm(x))
f(x, nil) → g(nil, x)
f(x, g(y, z)) → g(f(x, y), z)
rem(nil, y) → nil
rem(g(x, y), 0) → g(x, y)
rem(g(x, y), s(z)) → rem(x, z)

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

(8) PisEmptyProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

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

(9) TRUE

(10) Obligation:

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

F(x, g(y, z)) → F(x, y)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

norm(nil) → 0
norm(g(x, y)) → s(norm(x))
f(x, nil) → g(nil, x)
f(x, g(y, z)) → g(f(x, y), z)
rem(nil, y) → nil
rem(g(x, y), 0) → g(x, y)
rem(g(x, y), s(z)) → rem(x, z)

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

(11) QDPOrderProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

We use the reduction pair processor [LPAR04].


The following pairs can be oriented strictly and are deleted.


F(x, g(y, z)) → F(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, x2)  =  F(x0, x2)

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

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

POL(F(x1, x2)) = 0   
POL(g(x1, x2)) = 1 + x1   

The following usable rules [FROCOS05] were oriented: none

(12) Obligation:

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

norm(nil) → 0
norm(g(x, y)) → s(norm(x))
f(x, nil) → g(nil, x)
f(x, g(y, z)) → g(f(x, y), z)
rem(nil, y) → nil
rem(g(x, y), 0) → g(x, y)
rem(g(x, y), s(z)) → rem(x, z)

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

(13) PisEmptyProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

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

(14) TRUE

(15) Obligation:

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

NORM(g(x, y)) → NORM(x)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

norm(nil) → 0
norm(g(x, y)) → s(norm(x))
f(x, nil) → g(nil, x)
f(x, g(y, z)) → g(f(x, y), z)
rem(nil, y) → nil
rem(g(x, y), 0) → g(x, y)
rem(g(x, y), s(z)) → rem(x, z)

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

(16) QDPOrderProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

We use the reduction pair processor [LPAR04].


The following pairs can be oriented strictly and are deleted.


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

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

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

POL(NORM(x1)) = 0   
POL(g(x1, x2)) = 1 + x1   

The following usable rules [FROCOS05] were oriented: none

(17) Obligation:

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

norm(nil) → 0
norm(g(x, y)) → s(norm(x))
f(x, nil) → g(nil, x)
f(x, g(y, z)) → g(f(x, y), z)
rem(nil, y) → nil
rem(g(x, y), 0) → g(x, y)
rem(g(x, y), s(z)) → rem(x, z)

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

(18) PisEmptyProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

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

(19) TRUE