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:

a__eq(0, 0) → true
a__eq(s(X), s(Y)) → a__eq(X, Y)
a__eq(X, Y) → false
a__inf(X) → cons(X, inf(s(X)))
a__take(0, X) → nil
a__take(s(X), cons(Y, L)) → cons(Y, take(X, L))
a__length(nil) → 0
a__length(cons(X, L)) → s(length(L))
mark(eq(X1, X2)) → a__eq(X1, X2)
mark(inf(X)) → a__inf(mark(X))
mark(take(X1, X2)) → a__take(mark(X1), mark(X2))
mark(length(X)) → a__length(mark(X))
mark(0) → 0
mark(true) → true
mark(s(X)) → s(X)
mark(false) → false
mark(cons(X1, X2)) → cons(X1, X2)
mark(nil) → nil
a__eq(X1, X2) → eq(X1, X2)
a__inf(X) → inf(X)
a__take(X1, X2) → take(X1, X2)
a__length(X) → length(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__EQ(s(X), s(Y)) → A__EQ(X, Y)
MARK(eq(X1, X2)) → A__EQ(X1, X2)
MARK(inf(X)) → A__INF(mark(X))
MARK(inf(X)) → MARK(X)
MARK(take(X1, X2)) → A__TAKE(mark(X1), mark(X2))
MARK(take(X1, X2)) → MARK(X1)
MARK(take(X1, X2)) → MARK(X2)
MARK(length(X)) → A__LENGTH(mark(X))
MARK(length(X)) → MARK(X)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

a__eq(0, 0) → true
a__eq(s(X), s(Y)) → a__eq(X, Y)
a__eq(X, Y) → false
a__inf(X) → cons(X, inf(s(X)))
a__take(0, X) → nil
a__take(s(X), cons(Y, L)) → cons(Y, take(X, L))
a__length(nil) → 0
a__length(cons(X, L)) → s(length(L))
mark(eq(X1, X2)) → a__eq(X1, X2)
mark(inf(X)) → a__inf(mark(X))
mark(take(X1, X2)) → a__take(mark(X1), mark(X2))
mark(length(X)) → a__length(mark(X))
mark(0) → 0
mark(true) → true
mark(s(X)) → s(X)
mark(false) → false
mark(cons(X1, X2)) → cons(X1, X2)
mark(nil) → nil
a__eq(X1, X2) → eq(X1, X2)
a__inf(X) → inf(X)
a__take(X1, X2) → take(X1, X2)
a__length(X) → length(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 2 SCCs with 4 less nodes.

(4) Complex Obligation (AND)

(5) Obligation:

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

A__EQ(s(X), s(Y)) → A__EQ(X, Y)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

a__eq(0, 0) → true
a__eq(s(X), s(Y)) → a__eq(X, Y)
a__eq(X, Y) → false
a__inf(X) → cons(X, inf(s(X)))
a__take(0, X) → nil
a__take(s(X), cons(Y, L)) → cons(Y, take(X, L))
a__length(nil) → 0
a__length(cons(X, L)) → s(length(L))
mark(eq(X1, X2)) → a__eq(X1, X2)
mark(inf(X)) → a__inf(mark(X))
mark(take(X1, X2)) → a__take(mark(X1), mark(X2))
mark(length(X)) → a__length(mark(X))
mark(0) → 0
mark(true) → true
mark(s(X)) → s(X)
mark(false) → false
mark(cons(X1, X2)) → cons(X1, X2)
mark(nil) → nil
a__eq(X1, X2) → eq(X1, X2)
a__inf(X) → inf(X)
a__take(X1, X2) → take(X1, X2)
a__length(X) → length(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:

• A__EQ(s(X), s(Y)) → A__EQ(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:

MARK(take(X1, X2)) → MARK(X1)
MARK(inf(X)) → MARK(X)
MARK(take(X1, X2)) → MARK(X2)
MARK(length(X)) → MARK(X)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

a__eq(0, 0) → true
a__eq(s(X), s(Y)) → a__eq(X, Y)
a__eq(X, Y) → false
a__inf(X) → cons(X, inf(s(X)))
a__take(0, X) → nil
a__take(s(X), cons(Y, L)) → cons(Y, take(X, L))
a__length(nil) → 0
a__length(cons(X, L)) → s(length(L))
mark(eq(X1, X2)) → a__eq(X1, X2)
mark(inf(X)) → a__inf(mark(X))
mark(take(X1, X2)) → a__take(mark(X1), mark(X2))
mark(length(X)) → a__length(mark(X))
mark(0) → 0
mark(true) → true
mark(s(X)) → s(X)
mark(false) → false
mark(cons(X1, X2)) → cons(X1, X2)
mark(nil) → nil
a__eq(X1, X2) → eq(X1, X2)
a__inf(X) → inf(X)
a__take(X1, X2) → take(X1, X2)
a__length(X) → length(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:
inf(x1)  =  inf(x1)
length(x1)  =  length(x1)
take(x1, x2)  =  take(x1, x2)

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

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

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

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

• MARK(length(X)) → MARK(X) (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