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:

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) 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:
h  =  h
s(x1)  =  s(x1)

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

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

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

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

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

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:

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.

(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.
a(x1, x2, x3)  =  a
s(x1)  =  s
h  =  h
cons(x1, x2)  =  cons(x2)

Lexicographic path order with status [LPO].
Quasi-Precedence:

a > [s, h]
cons₁ > [s, h]

Status:

a: []
s: []
h: []
cons₁: [1]

AFS:
a(x1, x2, x3)  =  a
s(x1)  =  s
h  =  h
cons(x1, x2)  =  cons(x2)

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

• SUM(cons(x, cons(y, l))) → SUM(cons(a(x, y, h), l)) (allowed arguments on rhs = {1})
  The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1

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:

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.

(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:
cons(x1, x2)  =  cons(x2)

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

• APP(cons(x, l), k) → APP(l, k) (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