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

0 QTRS
↳1 DependencyPairsProof (⇔)
↳2 QDP
↳3 QDPOrderProof (⇔)
↳4 QDP
↳5 DependencyGraphProof (⇔)
↳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(g(X), Y) → a__f(mark(X), f(g(X), Y))
mark(f(X1, X2)) → a__f(mark(X1), X2)
mark(g(X)) → g(mark(X))
a__f(X1, X2) → f(X1, X2)

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(g(X), Y) → A__F(mark(X), f(g(X), Y))
A__F(g(X), Y) → MARK(X)
MARK(f(X1, X2)) → A__F(mark(X1), X2)
MARK(f(X1, X2)) → MARK(X1)
MARK(g(X)) → MARK(X)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

a__f(g(X), Y) → a__f(mark(X), f(g(X), Y))
mark(f(X1, X2)) → a__f(mark(X1), X2)
mark(g(X)) → g(mark(X))
a__f(X1, X2) → f(X1, X2)

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

(3) QDPOrderProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

We use the reduction pair processor [LPAR04].


The following pairs can be oriented strictly and are deleted.


A__F(g(X), Y) → MARK(X)
MARK(f(X1, X2)) → MARK(X1)
MARK(g(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:
A__F(x0, x1, x2)  =  A__F(x1)
MARK(x0, x1)  =  MARK(x1)

Tags:
A__F has argument tags [1,1,3] and root tag 0
MARK has argument tags [2,1] and root tag 0

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

POL(A__F(x1, x2)) = 1 + x1 + x2   
POL(MARK(x1)) = 0   
POL(a__f(x1, x2)) = 1 + x1   
POL(f(x1, x2)) = 1 + x1   
POL(g(x1)) = 1 + x1   
POL(mark(x1)) = 1 + x1   

The following usable rules [FROCOS05] were oriented:

mark(f(X1, X2)) → a__f(mark(X1), X2)
mark(g(X)) → g(mark(X))
a__f(g(X), Y) → a__f(mark(X), f(g(X), Y))
a__f(X1, X2) → f(X1, X2)

(4) Obligation:

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

A__F(g(X), Y) → A__F(mark(X), f(g(X), Y))
MARK(f(X1, X2)) → A__F(mark(X1), X2)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

a__f(g(X), Y) → a__f(mark(X), f(g(X), Y))
mark(f(X1, X2)) → a__f(mark(X1), X2)
mark(g(X)) → g(mark(X))
a__f(X1, X2) → f(X1, X2)

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

(5) DependencyGraphProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

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

(6) Obligation:

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

A__F(g(X), Y) → A__F(mark(X), f(g(X), Y))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

a__f(g(X), Y) → a__f(mark(X), f(g(X), Y))
mark(f(X1, X2)) → a__f(mark(X1), X2)
mark(g(X)) → g(mark(X))
a__f(X1, X2) → f(X1, X2)

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.


A__F(g(X), Y) → A__F(mark(X), f(g(X), Y))
The remaining pairs can at least be oriented weakly.
Used ordering: SCNP Order with the following components:
Level mapping:
Top level AFS:
A__F(x0, x1, x2)  =  A__F(x1)

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

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

POL(A__F(x1, x2)) = 1 + x2   
POL(a__f(x1, x2)) = 0   
POL(f(x1, x2)) = 0   
POL(g(x1)) = 1 + x1   
POL(mark(x1)) = 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(g(X), Y) → a__f(mark(X), f(g(X), Y))
mark(f(X1, X2)) → a__f(mark(X1), X2)
mark(g(X)) → g(mark(X))
a__f(X1, X2) → f(X1, X2)

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