Termination w.r.t. Q proof of /tmp/tmpbXQ13D/Ex2_Luc03b

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 DependencyGraphProof (⇔)

↳10 QDP

↳11 QDPOrderProof (⇔)

↳12 QDP

↳13 DependencyGraphProof (⇔)

↳14 TRUE

(0) Obligation:

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

fst(0, Z) → nil
fst(s(X), cons(Y, Z)) → cons(Y, n__fst(activate(X), activate(Z)))
from(X) → cons(X, n__from(s(X)))
add(0, X) → X
add(s(X), Y) → s(n__add(activate(X), Y))
len(nil) → 0
len(cons(X, Z)) → s(n__len(activate(Z)))
fst(X1, X2) → n__fst(X1, X2)
from(X) → n__from(X)
add(X1, X2) → n__add(X1, X2)
len(X) → n__len(X)
activate(n__fst(X1, X2)) → fst(X1, X2)
activate(n__from(X)) → from(X)
activate(n__add(X1, X2)) → add(X1, X2)
activate(n__len(X)) → len(X)
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:

FST(s(X), cons(Y, Z)) → ACTIVATE(X)
FST(s(X), cons(Y, Z)) → ACTIVATE(Z)
ADD(s(X), Y) → ACTIVATE(X)
LEN(cons(X, Z)) → ACTIVATE(Z)
ACTIVATE(n__fst(X1, X2)) → FST(X1, X2)
ACTIVATE(n__from(X)) → FROM(X)
ACTIVATE(n__add(X1, X2)) → ADD(X1, X2)
ACTIVATE(n__len(X)) → LEN(X)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

fst(0, Z) → nil
fst(s(X), cons(Y, Z)) → cons(Y, n__fst(activate(X), activate(Z)))
from(X) → cons(X, n__from(s(X)))
add(0, X) → X
add(s(X), Y) → s(n__add(activate(X), Y))
len(nil) → 0
len(cons(X, Z)) → s(n__len(activate(Z)))
fst(X1, X2) → n__fst(X1, X2)
from(X) → n__from(X)
add(X1, X2) → n__add(X1, X2)
len(X) → n__len(X)
activate(n__fst(X1, X2)) → fst(X1, X2)
activate(n__from(X)) → from(X)
activate(n__add(X1, X2)) → add(X1, X2)
activate(n__len(X)) → len(X)
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 1 SCC with 1 less node.

(4) Obligation:

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

ACTIVATE(n__fst(X1, X2)) → FST(X1, X2)
FST(s(X), cons(Y, Z)) → ACTIVATE(X)
ACTIVATE(n__add(X1, X2)) → ADD(X1, X2)
ADD(s(X), Y) → ACTIVATE(X)
ACTIVATE(n__len(X)) → LEN(X)
LEN(cons(X, Z)) → ACTIVATE(Z)
FST(s(X), cons(Y, Z)) → ACTIVATE(Z)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

fst(0, Z) → nil
fst(s(X), cons(Y, Z)) → cons(Y, n__fst(activate(X), activate(Z)))
from(X) → cons(X, n__from(s(X)))
add(0, X) → X
add(s(X), Y) → s(n__add(activate(X), Y))
len(nil) → 0
len(cons(X, Z)) → s(n__len(activate(Z)))
fst(X1, X2) → n__fst(X1, X2)
from(X) → n__from(X)
add(X1, X2) → n__add(X1, X2)
len(X) → n__len(X)
activate(n__fst(X1, X2)) → fst(X1, X2)
activate(n__from(X)) → from(X)
activate(n__add(X1, X2)) → add(X1, X2)
activate(n__len(X)) → len(X)
activate(X) → 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.

ACTIVATE(n__fst(X1, X2)) → FST(X1, X2)
FST(s(X), cons(Y, Z)) → ACTIVATE(X)
FST(s(X), cons(Y, Z)) → ACTIVATE(Z)

The remaining pairs can at least be oriented weakly.
Used ordering: SCNP Order with the following components:
Level mapping:
Top level AFS:
ACTIVATE(x0, x1) = ACTIVATE(x0)
FST(x0, x1, x2) = FST(x0)
ADD(x0, x1, x2) = ADD(x0, x1)
LEN(x0, x1) = LEN(x1)

Tags:
ACTIVATE has argument tags [1,9] and root tag 2
FST has argument tags [6,1,8] and root tag 1
ADD has argument tags [1,5,1] and root tag 2
LEN has argument tags [0,1] and root tag 2

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

POL(ACTIVATE(x₁)) = x₁
POL(ADD(x₁, x₂)) = x₁
POL(FST(x₁, x₂)) = x₁ + x₂
POL(LEN(x₁)) = 1
POL(cons(x₁, x₂)) = x₂
POL(n__add(x₁, x₂)) = x₁
POL(n__fst(x₁, x₂)) = 1 + x₁ + x₂
POL(n__len(x₁)) = x₁
POL(s(x₁)) = x₁

The following usable rules [FROCOS05] were oriented: none

(6) Obligation:

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

ACTIVATE(n__add(X1, X2)) → ADD(X1, X2)
ADD(s(X), Y) → ACTIVATE(X)
ACTIVATE(n__len(X)) → LEN(X)
LEN(cons(X, Z)) → ACTIVATE(Z)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

fst(0, Z) → nil
fst(s(X), cons(Y, Z)) → cons(Y, n__fst(activate(X), activate(Z)))
from(X) → cons(X, n__from(s(X)))
add(0, X) → X
add(s(X), Y) → s(n__add(activate(X), Y))
len(nil) → 0
len(cons(X, Z)) → s(n__len(activate(Z)))
fst(X1, X2) → n__fst(X1, X2)
from(X) → n__from(X)
add(X1, X2) → n__add(X1, X2)
len(X) → n__len(X)
activate(n__fst(X1, X2)) → fst(X1, X2)
activate(n__from(X)) → from(X)
activate(n__add(X1, X2)) → add(X1, X2)
activate(n__len(X)) → len(X)
activate(X) → 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.

LEN(cons(X, Z)) → ACTIVATE(Z)

The remaining pairs can at least be oriented weakly.
Used ordering: SCNP Order with the following components:
Level mapping:
Top level AFS:
ACTIVATE(x0, x1) = ACTIVATE(x1)
ADD(x0, x1, x2) = ADD(x0)
LEN(x0, x1) = LEN(x0, x1)

Tags:
ACTIVATE has argument tags [6,1] and root tag 0
ADD has argument tags [1,0,3] and root tag 0
LEN 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(ACTIVATE(x₁)) = 0
POL(ADD(x₁, x₂)) = x₁
POL(LEN(x₁)) = 0
POL(cons(x₁, x₂)) = 1 + x₂
POL(n__add(x₁, x₂)) = x₁ + x₂
POL(n__len(x₁)) = x₁
POL(s(x₁)) = x₁

The following usable rules [FROCOS05] were oriented: none

(8) Obligation:

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

ACTIVATE(n__add(X1, X2)) → ADD(X1, X2)
ADD(s(X), Y) → ACTIVATE(X)
ACTIVATE(n__len(X)) → LEN(X)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

fst(0, Z) → nil
fst(s(X), cons(Y, Z)) → cons(Y, n__fst(activate(X), activate(Z)))
from(X) → cons(X, n__from(s(X)))
add(0, X) → X
add(s(X), Y) → s(n__add(activate(X), Y))
len(nil) → 0
len(cons(X, Z)) → s(n__len(activate(Z)))
fst(X1, X2) → n__fst(X1, X2)
from(X) → n__from(X)
add(X1, X2) → n__add(X1, X2)
len(X) → n__len(X)
activate(n__fst(X1, X2)) → fst(X1, X2)
activate(n__from(X)) → from(X)
activate(n__add(X1, X2)) → add(X1, X2)
activate(n__len(X)) → len(X)
activate(X) → X

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

(9) DependencyGraphProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

The approximation of the Dependency Graph [LPAR04,FROCOS05,EDGSTAR] contains 1 SCC with 1 less node.

(10) Obligation:

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

ADD(s(X), Y) → ACTIVATE(X)
ACTIVATE(n__add(X1, X2)) → ADD(X1, X2)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

fst(0, Z) → nil
fst(s(X), cons(Y, Z)) → cons(Y, n__fst(activate(X), activate(Z)))
from(X) → cons(X, n__from(s(X)))
add(0, X) → X
add(s(X), Y) → s(n__add(activate(X), Y))
len(nil) → 0
len(cons(X, Z)) → s(n__len(activate(Z)))
fst(X1, X2) → n__fst(X1, X2)
from(X) → n__from(X)
add(X1, X2) → n__add(X1, X2)
len(X) → n__len(X)
activate(n__fst(X1, X2)) → fst(X1, X2)
activate(n__from(X)) → from(X)
activate(n__add(X1, X2)) → add(X1, X2)
activate(n__len(X)) → len(X)
activate(X) → X

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

(11) QDPOrderProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

We use the reduction pair processor [LPAR04].

The following pairs can be oriented strictly and are deleted.

ADD(s(X), Y) → ACTIVATE(X)

The remaining pairs can at least be oriented weakly.
Used ordering: SCNP Order with the following components:
Level mapping:
Top level AFS:
ADD(x0, x1, x2) = ADD(x1)
ACTIVATE(x0, x1) = ACTIVATE(x0, x1)

Tags:
ADD has argument tags [3,2,4] and root tag 0
ACTIVATE has argument tags [4,2] and root tag 0

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

POL(ACTIVATE(x₁)) = 1 + x₁
POL(ADD(x₁, x₂)) = x₂
POL(n__add(x₁, x₂)) = x₁
POL(s(x₁)) = 1 + x₁

The following usable rules [FROCOS05] were oriented: none

(12) Obligation:

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

ACTIVATE(n__add(X1, X2)) → ADD(X1, X2)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

fst(0, Z) → nil
fst(s(X), cons(Y, Z)) → cons(Y, n__fst(activate(X), activate(Z)))
from(X) → cons(X, n__from(s(X)))
add(0, X) → X
add(s(X), Y) → s(n__add(activate(X), Y))
len(nil) → 0
len(cons(X, Z)) → s(n__len(activate(Z)))
fst(X1, X2) → n__fst(X1, X2)
from(X) → n__from(X)
add(X1, X2) → n__add(X1, X2)
len(X) → n__len(X)
activate(n__fst(X1, X2)) → fst(X1, X2)
activate(n__from(X)) → from(X)
activate(n__add(X1, X2)) → add(X1, X2)
activate(n__len(X)) → len(X)
activate(X) → X

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

(13) DependencyGraphProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

The approximation of the Dependency Graph [LPAR04,FROCOS05,EDGSTAR] contains 0 SCCs with 1 less node.

(0) Obligation:

(1) DependencyPairsProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

(2) Obligation:

(3) DependencyGraphProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

(4) Obligation:

(5) QDPOrderProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

(6) Obligation:

(7) QDPOrderProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

(8) Obligation:

(9) DependencyGraphProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

(10) Obligation:

(11) QDPOrderProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

(12) Obligation:

(13) DependencyGraphProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

(14) TRUE