Termination w.r.t. Q of the given QTRS could be proven:

0 QTRS
↳1 DependencyPairsProof (⇔)
↳2 QDP
↳3 DependencyGraphProof (⇔)
↳4 QDP
↳5 QDPSizeChangeProof (⇔)
↳6 TRUE

(0) Obligation:

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

a__and(true, X) → mark(X)
a__and(false, Y) → false
a__if(true, X, Y) → mark(X)
a__if(false, X, Y) → mark(Y)
a__add(0, X) → mark(X)
a__add(s(X), Y) → s(add(X, Y))
a__first(0, X) → nil
a__first(s(X), cons(Y, Z)) → cons(Y, first(X, Z))
a__from(X) → cons(X, from(s(X)))
mark(and(X1, X2)) → a__and(mark(X1), X2)
mark(if(X1, X2, X3)) → a__if(mark(X1), X2, X3)
mark(add(X1, X2)) → a__add(mark(X1), X2)
mark(first(X1, X2)) → a__first(mark(X1), mark(X2))
mark(from(X)) → a__from(X)
mark(true) → true
mark(false) → false
mark(0) → 0
mark(s(X)) → s(X)
mark(nil) → nil
mark(cons(X1, X2)) → cons(X1, X2)
a__and(X1, X2) → and(X1, X2)
a__if(X1, X2, X3) → if(X1, X2, X3)
a__add(X1, X2) → add(X1, X2)
a__first(X1, X2) → first(X1, X2)
a__from(X) → from(X)

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:

A__AND(true, X) → MARK(X)
A__IF(true, X, Y) → MARK(X)
A__IF(false, X, Y) → MARK(Y)
A__ADD(0, X) → MARK(X)
MARK(and(X1, X2)) → A__AND(mark(X1), X2)
MARK(and(X1, X2)) → MARK(X1)
MARK(if(X1, X2, X3)) → A__IF(mark(X1), X2, X3)
MARK(if(X1, X2, X3)) → MARK(X1)
MARK(add(X1, X2)) → A__ADD(mark(X1), X2)
MARK(add(X1, X2)) → MARK(X1)
MARK(first(X1, X2)) → A__FIRST(mark(X1), mark(X2))
MARK(first(X1, X2)) → MARK(X1)
MARK(first(X1, X2)) → MARK(X2)
MARK(from(X)) → A__FROM(X)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

a__and(true, X) → mark(X)
a__and(false, Y) → false
a__if(true, X, Y) → mark(X)
a__if(false, X, Y) → mark(Y)
a__add(0, X) → mark(X)
a__add(s(X), Y) → s(add(X, Y))
a__first(0, X) → nil
a__first(s(X), cons(Y, Z)) → cons(Y, first(X, Z))
a__from(X) → cons(X, from(s(X)))
mark(and(X1, X2)) → a__and(mark(X1), X2)
mark(if(X1, X2, X3)) → a__if(mark(X1), X2, X3)
mark(add(X1, X2)) → a__add(mark(X1), X2)
mark(first(X1, X2)) → a__first(mark(X1), mark(X2))
mark(from(X)) → a__from(X)
mark(true) → true
mark(false) → false
mark(0) → 0
mark(s(X)) → s(X)
mark(nil) → nil
mark(cons(X1, X2)) → cons(X1, X2)
a__and(X1, X2) → and(X1, X2)
a__if(X1, X2, X3) → if(X1, X2, X3)
a__add(X1, X2) → add(X1, X2)
a__first(X1, X2) → first(X1, X2)
a__from(X) → from(X)

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 1 SCC with 2 less nodes.

(4) Obligation:

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

MARK(and(X1, X2)) → A__AND(mark(X1), X2)
A__AND(true, X) → MARK(X)
MARK(and(X1, X2)) → MARK(X1)
MARK(if(X1, X2, X3)) → A__IF(mark(X1), X2, X3)
A__IF(true, X, Y) → MARK(X)
MARK(if(X1, X2, X3)) → MARK(X1)
MARK(add(X1, X2)) → A__ADD(mark(X1), X2)
A__ADD(0, X) → MARK(X)
MARK(add(X1, X2)) → MARK(X1)
MARK(first(X1, X2)) → MARK(X1)
MARK(first(X1, X2)) → MARK(X2)
A__IF(false, X, Y) → MARK(Y)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

a__and(true, X) → mark(X)
a__and(false, Y) → false
a__if(true, X, Y) → mark(X)
a__if(false, X, Y) → mark(Y)
a__add(0, X) → mark(X)
a__add(s(X), Y) → s(add(X, Y))
a__first(0, X) → nil
a__first(s(X), cons(Y, Z)) → cons(Y, first(X, Z))
a__from(X) → cons(X, from(s(X)))
mark(and(X1, X2)) → a__and(mark(X1), X2)
mark(if(X1, X2, X3)) → a__if(mark(X1), X2, X3)
mark(add(X1, X2)) → a__add(mark(X1), X2)
mark(first(X1, X2)) → a__first(mark(X1), mark(X2))
mark(from(X)) → a__from(X)
mark(true) → true
mark(false) → false
mark(0) → 0
mark(s(X)) → s(X)
mark(nil) → nil
mark(cons(X1, X2)) → cons(X1, X2)
a__and(X1, X2) → and(X1, X2)
a__if(X1, X2, X3) → if(X1, X2, X3)
a__add(X1, X2) → add(X1, X2)
a__first(X1, X2) → first(X1, X2)
a__from(X) → from(X)

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

(5) 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:
true  =  true
0  =  0
false  =  false
add(x1, x2)  =  add(x1, x2)
and(x1, x2)  =  and(x1, x2)
first(x1, x2)  =  first(x1, x2)
if(x1, x2, x3)  =  if(x1, x2, x3)

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

  • A__AND(true, X) → MARK(X) (allowed arguments on rhs = {1})
    The graph contains the following edges 2 >= 1

  • MARK(and(X1, X2)) → A__AND(mark(X1), X2) (allowed arguments on rhs = {2})
    The graph contains the following edges 1 > 2

  • A__ADD(0, X) → MARK(X) (allowed arguments on rhs = {1})
    The graph contains the following edges 2 >= 1

  • MARK(if(X1, X2, X3)) → A__IF(mark(X1), X2, X3) (allowed arguments on rhs = {2, 3})
    The graph contains the following edges 1 > 2, 1 > 3

  • MARK(add(X1, X2)) → A__ADD(mark(X1), X2) (allowed arguments on rhs = {2})
    The graph contains the following edges 1 > 2

  • MARK(and(X1, X2)) → MARK(X1) (allowed arguments on rhs = {1})
    The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1

  • MARK(if(X1, X2, X3)) → MARK(X1) (allowed arguments on rhs = {1})
    The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1

  • MARK(add(X1, X2)) → MARK(X1) (allowed arguments on rhs = {1})
    The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1

  • MARK(first(X1, X2)) → MARK(X1) (allowed arguments on rhs = {1})
    The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1

  • MARK(first(X1, X2)) → MARK(X2) (allowed arguments on rhs = {1})
    The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1

  • A__IF(true, X, Y) → MARK(X) (allowed arguments on rhs = {1})
    The graph contains the following edges 2 >= 1

  • A__IF(false, X, Y) → MARK(Y) (allowed arguments on rhs = {1})
    The graph contains the following edges 3 >= 1

We oriented the following set of usable rules [AAECC05,FROCOS05]. none

(6) TRUE