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:

from(X) → cons(X, n__from(s(X)))
2ndspos(0, Z) → rnil
2ndspos(s(N), cons(X, n__cons(Y, Z))) → rcons(posrecip(activate(Y)), 2ndsneg(N, activate(Z)))
2ndsneg(0, Z) → rnil
2ndsneg(s(N), cons(X, n__cons(Y, Z))) → rcons(negrecip(activate(Y)), 2ndspos(N, activate(Z)))
pi(X) → 2ndspos(X, from(0))
plus(0, Y) → Y
plus(s(X), Y) → s(plus(X, Y))
times(0, Y) → 0
times(s(X), Y) → plus(Y, times(X, Y))
square(X) → times(X, X)
from(X) → n__from(X)
cons(X1, X2) → n__cons(X1, X2)
activate(n__from(X)) → from(X)
activate(n__cons(X1, X2)) → cons(X1, X2)
activate(X) → 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:

FROM(X) → CONS(X, n__from(s(X)))
2NDSPOS(s(N), cons(X, n__cons(Y, Z))) → ACTIVATE(Y)
2NDSPOS(s(N), cons(X, n__cons(Y, Z))) → 2NDSNEG(N, activate(Z))
2NDSPOS(s(N), cons(X, n__cons(Y, Z))) → ACTIVATE(Z)
2NDSNEG(s(N), cons(X, n__cons(Y, Z))) → ACTIVATE(Y)
2NDSNEG(s(N), cons(X, n__cons(Y, Z))) → 2NDSPOS(N, activate(Z))
2NDSNEG(s(N), cons(X, n__cons(Y, Z))) → ACTIVATE(Z)
PI(X) → 2NDSPOS(X, from(0))
PI(X) → FROM(0)
PLUS(s(X), Y) → PLUS(X, Y)
TIMES(s(X), Y) → PLUS(Y, times(X, Y))
TIMES(s(X), Y) → TIMES(X, Y)
SQUARE(X) → TIMES(X, X)
ACTIVATE(n__from(X)) → FROM(X)
ACTIVATE(n__cons(X1, X2)) → CONS(X1, X2)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

from(X) → cons(X, n__from(s(X)))
2ndspos(0, Z) → rnil
2ndspos(s(N), cons(X, n__cons(Y, Z))) → rcons(posrecip(activate(Y)), 2ndsneg(N, activate(Z)))
2ndsneg(0, Z) → rnil
2ndsneg(s(N), cons(X, n__cons(Y, Z))) → rcons(negrecip(activate(Y)), 2ndspos(N, activate(Z)))
pi(X) → 2ndspos(X, from(0))
plus(0, Y) → Y
plus(s(X), Y) → s(plus(X, Y))
times(0, Y) → 0
times(s(X), Y) → plus(Y, times(X, Y))
square(X) → times(X, X)
from(X) → n__from(X)
cons(X1, X2) → n__cons(X1, X2)
activate(n__from(X)) → from(X)
activate(n__cons(X1, X2)) → cons(X1, X2)
activate(X) → 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 3 SCCs with 11 less nodes.

(4) Complex Obligation (AND)

(5) Obligation:

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

PLUS(s(X), Y) → PLUS(X, Y)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

from(X) → cons(X, n__from(s(X)))
2ndspos(0, Z) → rnil
2ndspos(s(N), cons(X, n__cons(Y, Z))) → rcons(posrecip(activate(Y)), 2ndsneg(N, activate(Z)))
2ndsneg(0, Z) → rnil
2ndsneg(s(N), cons(X, n__cons(Y, Z))) → rcons(negrecip(activate(Y)), 2ndspos(N, activate(Z)))
pi(X) → 2ndspos(X, from(0))
plus(0, Y) → Y
plus(s(X), Y) → s(plus(X, Y))
times(0, Y) → 0
times(s(X), Y) → plus(Y, times(X, Y))
square(X) → times(X, X)
from(X) → n__from(X)
cons(X1, X2) → n__cons(X1, X2)
activate(n__from(X)) → from(X)
activate(n__cons(X1, X2)) → cons(X1, X2)
activate(X) → X

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:
s(x1)  =  s(x1)

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

  • PLUS(s(X), Y) → PLUS(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

(7) TRUE

(8) Obligation:

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

TIMES(s(X), Y) → TIMES(X, Y)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

from(X) → cons(X, n__from(s(X)))
2ndspos(0, Z) → rnil
2ndspos(s(N), cons(X, n__cons(Y, Z))) → rcons(posrecip(activate(Y)), 2ndsneg(N, activate(Z)))
2ndsneg(0, Z) → rnil
2ndsneg(s(N), cons(X, n__cons(Y, Z))) → rcons(negrecip(activate(Y)), 2ndspos(N, activate(Z)))
pi(X) → 2ndspos(X, from(0))
plus(0, Y) → Y
plus(s(X), Y) → s(plus(X, Y))
times(0, Y) → 0
times(s(X), Y) → plus(Y, times(X, Y))
square(X) → times(X, X)
from(X) → n__from(X)
cons(X1, X2) → n__cons(X1, X2)
activate(n__from(X)) → from(X)
activate(n__cons(X1, X2)) → cons(X1, X2)
activate(X) → X

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:
s(x1)  =  s(x1)

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

  • TIMES(s(X), Y) → TIMES(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:

2NDSPOS(s(N), cons(X, n__cons(Y, Z))) → 2NDSNEG(N, activate(Z))
2NDSNEG(s(N), cons(X, n__cons(Y, Z))) → 2NDSPOS(N, activate(Z))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

from(X) → cons(X, n__from(s(X)))
2ndspos(0, Z) → rnil
2ndspos(s(N), cons(X, n__cons(Y, Z))) → rcons(posrecip(activate(Y)), 2ndsneg(N, activate(Z)))
2ndsneg(0, Z) → rnil
2ndsneg(s(N), cons(X, n__cons(Y, Z))) → rcons(negrecip(activate(Y)), 2ndspos(N, activate(Z)))
pi(X) → 2ndspos(X, from(0))
plus(0, Y) → Y
plus(s(X), Y) → s(plus(X, Y))
times(0, Y) → 0
times(s(X), Y) → plus(Y, times(X, Y))
square(X) → times(X, X)
from(X) → n__from(X)
cons(X1, X2) → n__cons(X1, X2)
activate(n__from(X)) → from(X)
activate(n__cons(X1, X2)) → cons(X1, X2)
activate(X) → X

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:
s(x1)  =  s(x1)
cons(x1, x2)  =  cons
n__cons(x1, x2)  =  n__cons

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

  • 2NDSNEG(s(N), cons(X, n__cons(Y, Z))) → 2NDSPOS(N, activate(Z)) (allowed arguments on rhs = {1})
    The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1

  • 2NDSPOS(s(N), cons(X, n__cons(Y, Z))) → 2NDSNEG(N, activate(Z)) (allowed arguments on rhs = {1})
    The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1

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

(13) TRUE