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 QDPOrderProof (⇔)
        ↳9 QDP
        ↳10 QDPOrderProof (⇔)
        ↳11 QDP
        ↳12 PisEmptyProof (⇔)
        ↳13 TRUE
    ↳14 QDP
        ↳15 QDPOrderProof (⇔)
        ↳16 QDP
        ↳17 PisEmptyProof (⇔)
        ↳18 TRUE
    ↳19 QDP
        ↳20 QDPOrderProof (⇔)
        ↳21 QDP
        ↳22 PisEmptyProof (⇔)
        ↳23 TRUE

(0) Obligation:

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

app(nil, k) → k
app(l, nil) → l
app(cons(x, l), k) → cons(x, app(l, k))
sum(cons(x, nil)) → cons(x, nil)
sum(cons(x, cons(y, l))) → sum(cons(a(x, y, h), l))
a(h, h, x) → s(x)
a(x, s(y), h) → a(x, y, s(h))
a(x, s(y), s(z)) → a(x, y, a(x, s(y), z))
a(s(x), h, z) → a(x, z, 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:

APP(cons(x, l), k) → APP(l, k)
SUM(cons(x, cons(y, l))) → SUM(cons(a(x, y, h), l))
SUM(cons(x, cons(y, l))) → A(x, y, h)
A(x, s(y), h) → A(x, y, s(h))
A(x, s(y), s(z)) → A(x, y, a(x, s(y), z))
A(x, s(y), s(z)) → A(x, s(y), z)
A(s(x), h, z) → A(x, z, z)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

app(nil, k) → k
app(l, nil) → l
app(cons(x, l), k) → cons(x, app(l, k))
sum(cons(x, nil)) → cons(x, nil)
sum(cons(x, cons(y, l))) → sum(cons(a(x, y, h), l))
a(h, h, x) → s(x)
a(x, s(y), h) → a(x, y, s(h))
a(x, s(y), s(z)) → a(x, y, a(x, s(y), z))
a(s(x), h, z) → a(x, z, 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 with 1 less node.

(4) Complex Obligation (AND)

(5) Obligation:

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

A(x, s(y), s(z)) → A(x, y, a(x, s(y), z))
A(x, s(y), h) → A(x, y, s(h))
A(x, s(y), s(z)) → A(x, s(y), z)
A(s(x), h, z) → A(x, z, z)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

app(nil, k) → k
app(l, nil) → l
app(cons(x, l), k) → cons(x, app(l, k))
sum(cons(x, nil)) → cons(x, nil)
sum(cons(x, cons(y, l))) → sum(cons(a(x, y, h), l))
a(h, h, x) → s(x)
a(x, s(y), h) → a(x, y, s(h))
a(x, s(y), s(z)) → a(x, y, a(x, s(y), z))
a(s(x), h, z) → a(x, z, 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.


A(s(x), h, z) → A(x, z, z)
The remaining pairs can at least be oriented weakly.
Used ordering: SCNP Order with the following components:
Level mapping:
Top level AFS:
A(x1, x2, x3)  =  A(x1)

Tags:
A has tags [1,2,0]

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

POL(a(x1, x2, x3)) = 1 + x1   
POL(h) = 1   
POL(s(x1)) = 1 + x1   

The following usable rules [FROCOS05] were oriented: none

(7) Obligation:

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

A(x, s(y), s(z)) → A(x, y, a(x, s(y), z))
A(x, s(y), h) → A(x, y, s(h))
A(x, s(y), s(z)) → A(x, s(y), z)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

app(nil, k) → k
app(l, nil) → l
app(cons(x, l), k) → cons(x, app(l, k))
sum(cons(x, nil)) → cons(x, nil)
sum(cons(x, cons(y, l))) → sum(cons(a(x, y, h), l))
a(h, h, x) → s(x)
a(x, s(y), h) → a(x, y, s(h))
a(x, s(y), s(z)) → a(x, y, a(x, s(y), z))
a(s(x), h, z) → a(x, z, z)

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

(8) QDPOrderProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

We use the reduction pair processor [LPAR04].


The following pairs can be oriented strictly and are deleted.


A(x, s(y), s(z)) → A(x, y, a(x, s(y), z))
A(x, s(y), h) → A(x, y, s(h))
The remaining pairs can at least be oriented weakly.
Used ordering: SCNP Order with the following components:
Level mapping:
Top level AFS:
A(x1, x2, x3)  =  A(x2)

Tags:
A has tags [2,1,3]

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

POL(a(x1, x2, x3)) = 1   
POL(h) = 0   
POL(s(x1)) = 1 + x1   

The following usable rules [FROCOS05] were oriented: none

(9) Obligation:

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

A(x, s(y), s(z)) → A(x, s(y), z)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

app(nil, k) → k
app(l, nil) → l
app(cons(x, l), k) → cons(x, app(l, k))
sum(cons(x, nil)) → cons(x, nil)
sum(cons(x, cons(y, l))) → sum(cons(a(x, y, h), l))
a(h, h, x) → s(x)
a(x, s(y), h) → a(x, y, s(h))
a(x, s(y), s(z)) → a(x, y, a(x, s(y), z))
a(s(x), h, z) → a(x, z, z)

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

(10) QDPOrderProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

We use the reduction pair processor [LPAR04].


The following pairs can be oriented strictly and are deleted.


A(x, s(y), s(z)) → A(x, s(y), z)
The remaining pairs can at least be oriented weakly.
Used ordering: SCNP Order with the following components:
Level mapping:
Top level AFS:
A(x1, x2, x3)  =  A(x3)

Tags:
A has tags [0,3,0]

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

POL(s(x1)) = 1 + x1   

The following usable rules [FROCOS05] were oriented: none

(11) Obligation:

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

app(nil, k) → k
app(l, nil) → l
app(cons(x, l), k) → cons(x, app(l, k))
sum(cons(x, nil)) → cons(x, nil)
sum(cons(x, cons(y, l))) → sum(cons(a(x, y, h), l))
a(h, h, x) → s(x)
a(x, s(y), h) → a(x, y, s(h))
a(x, s(y), s(z)) → a(x, y, a(x, s(y), z))
a(s(x), h, z) → a(x, z, z)

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

(12) PisEmptyProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

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

(13) TRUE

(14) Obligation:

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

SUM(cons(x, cons(y, l))) → SUM(cons(a(x, y, h), l))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

app(nil, k) → k
app(l, nil) → l
app(cons(x, l), k) → cons(x, app(l, k))
sum(cons(x, nil)) → cons(x, nil)
sum(cons(x, cons(y, l))) → sum(cons(a(x, y, h), l))
a(h, h, x) → s(x)
a(x, s(y), h) → a(x, y, s(h))
a(x, s(y), s(z)) → a(x, y, a(x, s(y), z))
a(s(x), h, z) → a(x, z, z)

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

(15) QDPOrderProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

We use the reduction pair processor [LPAR04].


The following pairs can be oriented strictly and are deleted.


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

Tags:
SUM has tags [0]

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

POL(a(x1, x2, x3)) = x1 + x3   
POL(cons(x1, x2)) = 1 + x2   
POL(h) = 0   
POL(s(x1)) = 1   

The following usable rules [FROCOS05] were oriented: none

(16) Obligation:

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

app(nil, k) → k
app(l, nil) → l
app(cons(x, l), k) → cons(x, app(l, k))
sum(cons(x, nil)) → cons(x, nil)
sum(cons(x, cons(y, l))) → sum(cons(a(x, y, h), l))
a(h, h, x) → s(x)
a(x, s(y), h) → a(x, y, s(h))
a(x, s(y), s(z)) → a(x, y, a(x, s(y), z))
a(s(x), h, z) → a(x, z, z)

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

(17) PisEmptyProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

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

(18) TRUE

(19) Obligation:

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

APP(cons(x, l), k) → APP(l, k)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

app(nil, k) → k
app(l, nil) → l
app(cons(x, l), k) → cons(x, app(l, k))
sum(cons(x, nil)) → cons(x, nil)
sum(cons(x, cons(y, l))) → sum(cons(a(x, y, h), l))
a(h, h, x) → s(x)
a(x, s(y), h) → a(x, y, s(h))
a(x, s(y), s(z)) → a(x, y, a(x, s(y), z))
a(s(x), h, z) → a(x, z, z)

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

(20) QDPOrderProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

We use the reduction pair processor [LPAR04].


The following pairs can be oriented strictly and are deleted.


APP(cons(x, l), k) → APP(l, k)
The remaining pairs can at least be oriented weakly.
Used ordering: SCNP Order with the following components:
Level mapping:
Top level AFS:
APP(x1, x2)  =  APP(x1)

Tags:
APP has tags [1,0]

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

POL(cons(x1, x2)) = 1 + x2   

The following usable rules [FROCOS05] were oriented: none

(21) Obligation:

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

app(nil, k) → k
app(l, nil) → l
app(cons(x, l), k) → cons(x, app(l, k))
sum(cons(x, nil)) → cons(x, nil)
sum(cons(x, cons(y, l))) → sum(cons(a(x, y, h), l))
a(h, h, x) → s(x)
a(x, s(y), h) → a(x, y, s(h))
a(x, s(y), s(z)) → a(x, y, a(x, s(y), z))
a(s(x), h, z) → a(x, z, z)

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

(22) PisEmptyProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

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

(23) TRUE