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 QDPOrderProof (⇔)
        ↳7 QDP
        ↳8 PisEmptyProof (⇔)
        ↳9 TRUE
    ↳10 QDP
        ↳11 QDPOrderProof (⇔)
        ↳12 QDP
        ↳13 QDPOrderProof (⇔)
        ↳14 QDP
        ↳15 PisEmptyProof (⇔)
        ↳16 TRUE
    ↳17 QDP
        ↳18 QDPOrderProof (⇔)
        ↳19 QDP
        ↳20 QDPOrderProof (⇔)
        ↳21 QDP
        ↳22 QDPOrderProof (⇔)
        ↳23 QDP
        ↳24 DependencyGraphProof (⇔)
        ↳25 TRUE

(0) Obligation:

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

active(f(g(X), Y)) → mark(f(X, f(g(X), Y)))
mark(f(X1, X2)) → active(f(mark(X1), X2))
mark(g(X)) → active(g(mark(X)))
f(mark(X1), X2) → f(X1, X2)
f(X1, mark(X2)) → f(X1, X2)
f(active(X1), X2) → f(X1, X2)
f(X1, active(X2)) → f(X1, X2)
g(mark(X)) → g(X)
g(active(X)) → g(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:

ACTIVE(f(g(X), Y)) → MARK(f(X, f(g(X), Y)))
ACTIVE(f(g(X), Y)) → F(X, f(g(X), Y))
MARK(f(X1, X2)) → ACTIVE(f(mark(X1), X2))
MARK(f(X1, X2)) → F(mark(X1), X2)
MARK(f(X1, X2)) → MARK(X1)
MARK(g(X)) → ACTIVE(g(mark(X)))
MARK(g(X)) → G(mark(X))
MARK(g(X)) → MARK(X)
F(mark(X1), X2) → F(X1, X2)
F(X1, mark(X2)) → F(X1, X2)
F(active(X1), X2) → F(X1, X2)
F(X1, active(X2)) → F(X1, X2)
G(mark(X)) → G(X)
G(active(X)) → G(X)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

active(f(g(X), Y)) → mark(f(X, f(g(X), Y)))
mark(f(X1, X2)) → active(f(mark(X1), X2))
mark(g(X)) → active(g(mark(X)))
f(mark(X1), X2) → f(X1, X2)
f(X1, mark(X2)) → f(X1, X2)
f(active(X1), X2) → f(X1, X2)
f(X1, active(X2)) → f(X1, X2)
g(mark(X)) → g(X)
g(active(X)) → g(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 3 less nodes.

(4) Complex Obligation (AND)

(5) Obligation:

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

G(active(X)) → G(X)
G(mark(X)) → G(X)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

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

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

(6) QDPOrderProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

We use the reduction pair processor [LPAR04].


The following pairs can be oriented strictly and are deleted.


G(active(X)) → G(X)
G(mark(X)) → G(X)
The remaining pairs can at least be oriented weakly.
Used ordering: Polynomial interpretation [POLO]:

POL(G(x1)) = x1   
POL(active(x1)) = 1 + x1   
POL(mark(x1)) = 1 + x1   

The following usable rules [FROCOS05] were oriented: none

(7) Obligation:

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

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

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

(8) PisEmptyProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

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

(9) TRUE

(10) Obligation:

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

F(X1, mark(X2)) → F(X1, X2)
F(mark(X1), X2) → F(X1, X2)
F(active(X1), X2) → F(X1, X2)
F(X1, active(X2)) → F(X1, X2)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

active(f(g(X), Y)) → mark(f(X, f(g(X), Y)))
mark(f(X1, X2)) → active(f(mark(X1), X2))
mark(g(X)) → active(g(mark(X)))
f(mark(X1), X2) → f(X1, X2)
f(X1, mark(X2)) → f(X1, X2)
f(active(X1), X2) → f(X1, X2)
f(X1, active(X2)) → f(X1, X2)
g(mark(X)) → g(X)
g(active(X)) → g(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.


F(mark(X1), X2) → F(X1, X2)
F(active(X1), X2) → F(X1, X2)
The remaining pairs can at least be oriented weakly.
Used ordering: Polynomial interpretation [POLO]:

POL(F(x1, x2)) = x1   
POL(active(x1)) = 1 + x1   
POL(mark(x1)) = 1 + x1   

The following usable rules [FROCOS05] were oriented: none

(12) Obligation:

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

F(X1, mark(X2)) → F(X1, X2)
F(X1, active(X2)) → F(X1, X2)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

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

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

(13) QDPOrderProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

We use the reduction pair processor [LPAR04].


The following pairs can be oriented strictly and are deleted.


F(X1, mark(X2)) → F(X1, X2)
F(X1, active(X2)) → F(X1, X2)
The remaining pairs can at least be oriented weakly.
Used ordering: Polynomial interpretation [POLO]:

POL(F(x1, x2)) = x2   
POL(active(x1)) = 1 + x1   
POL(mark(x1)) = 1 + x1   

The following usable rules [FROCOS05] were oriented: none

(14) Obligation:

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

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

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

(15) PisEmptyProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

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

(16) TRUE

(17) Obligation:

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

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

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

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

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

(18) QDPOrderProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

We use the reduction pair processor [LPAR04].


The following pairs can be oriented strictly and are deleted.


MARK(g(X)) → ACTIVE(g(mark(X)))
The remaining pairs can at least be oriented weakly.
Used ordering: Polynomial interpretation [POLO]:

POL(ACTIVE(x1)) = x1   
POL(MARK(x1)) = 1   
POL(active(x1)) = 0   
POL(f(x1, x2)) = 1   
POL(g(x1)) = 0   
POL(mark(x1)) = 0   

The following usable rules [FROCOS05] were oriented:

f(X1, mark(X2)) → f(X1, X2)
f(mark(X1), X2) → f(X1, X2)
f(active(X1), X2) → f(X1, X2)
f(X1, active(X2)) → f(X1, X2)
g(active(X)) → g(X)
g(mark(X)) → g(X)

(19) Obligation:

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

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

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

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

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

(20) QDPOrderProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

We use the reduction pair processor [LPAR04].


The following pairs can be oriented strictly and are deleted.


MARK(f(X1, X2)) → MARK(X1)
MARK(g(X)) → MARK(X)
The remaining pairs can at least be oriented weakly.
Used ordering: Polynomial interpretation [POLO]:

POL(ACTIVE(x1)) = x1   
POL(MARK(x1)) = 1 + x1   
POL(active(x1)) = 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)) → active(f(mark(X1), X2))
active(f(g(X), Y)) → mark(f(X, f(g(X), Y)))
mark(g(X)) → active(g(mark(X)))
f(X1, mark(X2)) → f(X1, X2)
f(mark(X1), X2) → f(X1, X2)
f(active(X1), X2) → f(X1, X2)
f(X1, active(X2)) → f(X1, X2)
g(active(X)) → g(X)
g(mark(X)) → g(X)

(21) Obligation:

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

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

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

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

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

(22) QDPOrderProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

We use the reduction pair processor [LPAR04].


The following pairs can be oriented strictly and are deleted.


ACTIVE(f(g(X), Y)) → MARK(f(X, f(g(X), Y)))
The remaining pairs can at least be oriented weakly.
Used ordering: Polynomial interpretation [POLO]:

POL(ACTIVE(x1)) = x1   
POL(MARK(x1)) = x1   
POL(active(x1)) = x1   
POL(f(x1, x2)) = x1   
POL(g(x1)) = 1 + x1   
POL(mark(x1)) = x1   

The following usable rules [FROCOS05] were oriented:

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

(23) Obligation:

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

MARK(f(X1, X2)) → ACTIVE(f(mark(X1), X2))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

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

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

(24) DependencyGraphProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

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

(25) TRUE