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

0 QTRS
↳1 DependencyPairsProof (⇔)
↳2 QDP
↳3 DependencyGraphProof (⇔)
↳4 QDP
↳5 QDPOrderProof (⇔)
↳6 QDP
↳7 QDPOrderProof (⇔)
↳8 QDP
↳9 PisEmptyProof (⇔)
↳10 TRUE

(0) Obligation:

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

a__f(f(X)) → a__c(f(g(f(X))))
a__c(X) → d(X)
a__h(X) → a__c(d(X))
mark(f(X)) → a__f(mark(X))
mark(c(X)) → a__c(X)
mark(h(X)) → a__h(mark(X))
mark(g(X)) → g(X)
mark(d(X)) → d(X)
a__f(X) → f(X)
a__c(X) → c(X)
a__h(X) → h(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__F(f(X)) → A__C(f(g(f(X))))
A__H(X) → A__C(d(X))
MARK(f(X)) → A__F(mark(X))
MARK(f(X)) → MARK(X)
MARK(c(X)) → A__C(X)
MARK(h(X)) → A__H(mark(X))
MARK(h(X)) → MARK(X)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

a__f(f(X)) → a__c(f(g(f(X))))
a__c(X) → d(X)
a__h(X) → a__c(d(X))
mark(f(X)) → a__f(mark(X))
mark(c(X)) → a__c(X)
mark(h(X)) → a__h(mark(X))
mark(g(X)) → g(X)
mark(d(X)) → d(X)
a__f(X) → f(X)
a__c(X) → c(X)
a__h(X) → h(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 5 less nodes.

(4) Obligation:

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

MARK(h(X)) → MARK(X)
MARK(f(X)) → MARK(X)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

a__f(f(X)) → a__c(f(g(f(X))))
a__c(X) → d(X)
a__h(X) → a__c(d(X))
mark(f(X)) → a__f(mark(X))
mark(c(X)) → a__c(X)
mark(h(X)) → a__h(mark(X))
mark(g(X)) → g(X)
mark(d(X)) → d(X)
a__f(X) → f(X)
a__c(X) → c(X)
a__h(X) → h(X)

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

(5) QDPOrderProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

We use the reduction pair processor [LPAR04].


The following pairs can be oriented strictly and are deleted.


MARK(h(X)) → MARK(X)
The remaining pairs can at least be oriented weakly.
Used ordering: SCNP Order with the following components:
Level mapping:
Top level AFS:
MARK(x0, x1)  =  MARK(x1)

Tags:
MARK has argument tags [0,0] and root tag 0

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

POL(MARK(x1)) = 1   
POL(f(x1)) = x1   
POL(h(x1)) = 1 + x1   

The following usable rules [FROCOS05] were oriented: none

(6) Obligation:

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

MARK(f(X)) → MARK(X)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

a__f(f(X)) → a__c(f(g(f(X))))
a__c(X) → d(X)
a__h(X) → a__c(d(X))
mark(f(X)) → a__f(mark(X))
mark(c(X)) → a__c(X)
mark(h(X)) → a__h(mark(X))
mark(g(X)) → g(X)
mark(d(X)) → d(X)
a__f(X) → f(X)
a__c(X) → c(X)
a__h(X) → h(X)

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

(7) QDPOrderProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

We use the reduction pair processor [LPAR04].


The following pairs can be oriented strictly and are deleted.


MARK(f(X)) → MARK(X)
The remaining pairs can at least be oriented weakly.
Used ordering: SCNP Order with the following components:
Level mapping:
Top level AFS:
MARK(x0, x1)  =  MARK(x1)

Tags:
MARK has argument tags [1,1] and root tag 0

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

POL(MARK(x1)) = 0   
POL(f(x1)) = 1 + x1   

The following usable rules [FROCOS05] were oriented: none

(8) Obligation:

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

a__f(f(X)) → a__c(f(g(f(X))))
a__c(X) → d(X)
a__h(X) → a__c(d(X))
mark(f(X)) → a__f(mark(X))
mark(c(X)) → a__c(X)
mark(h(X)) → a__h(mark(X))
mark(g(X)) → g(X)
mark(d(X)) → d(X)
a__f(X) → f(X)
a__c(X) → c(X)
a__h(X) → h(X)

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

(9) PisEmptyProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

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

(10) TRUE