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 QDPOrderProof (⇔)
        ↳16 QDP
        ↳17 QDPOrderProof (⇔)
        ↳18 QDP
        ↳19 PisEmptyProof (⇔)
        ↳20 TRUE

(0) Obligation:

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

a__f(0) → cons(0, f(s(0)))
a__f(s(0)) → a__f(a__p(s(0)))
a__p(s(0)) → 0
mark(f(X)) → a__f(mark(X))
mark(p(X)) → a__p(mark(X))
mark(0) → 0
mark(cons(X1, X2)) → cons(mark(X1), X2)
mark(s(X)) → s(mark(X))
a__f(X) → f(X)
a__p(X) → p(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(s(0)) → A__F(a__p(s(0)))
A__F(s(0)) → A__P(s(0))
MARK(f(X)) → A__F(mark(X))
MARK(f(X)) → MARK(X)
MARK(p(X)) → A__P(mark(X))
MARK(p(X)) → MARK(X)
MARK(cons(X1, X2)) → MARK(X1)
MARK(s(X)) → MARK(X)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

a__f(0) → cons(0, f(s(0)))
a__f(s(0)) → a__f(a__p(s(0)))
a__p(s(0)) → 0
mark(f(X)) → a__f(mark(X))
mark(p(X)) → a__p(mark(X))
mark(0) → 0
mark(cons(X1, X2)) → cons(mark(X1), X2)
mark(s(X)) → s(mark(X))
a__f(X) → f(X)
a__p(X) → p(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 3 less nodes.

(4) Complex Obligation (AND)

(5) Obligation:

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

A__F(s(0)) → A__F(a__p(s(0)))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

a__f(0) → cons(0, f(s(0)))
a__f(s(0)) → a__f(a__p(s(0)))
a__p(s(0)) → 0
mark(f(X)) → a__f(mark(X))
mark(p(X)) → a__p(mark(X))
mark(0) → 0
mark(cons(X1, X2)) → cons(mark(X1), X2)
mark(s(X)) → s(mark(X))
a__f(X) → f(X)
a__p(X) → p(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.


A__F(s(0)) → A__F(a__p(s(0)))
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)  =  A__F(x1)

Tags:
A__F 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(0) = 0   
POL(A__F(x1)) = 0   
POL(a__p(x1)) = 0   
POL(p(x1)) = 0   
POL(s(x1)) = 1   

The following usable rules [FROCOS05] were oriented: none

(7) Obligation:

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

a__f(0) → cons(0, f(s(0)))
a__f(s(0)) → a__f(a__p(s(0)))
a__p(s(0)) → 0
mark(f(X)) → a__f(mark(X))
mark(p(X)) → a__p(mark(X))
mark(0) → 0
mark(cons(X1, X2)) → cons(mark(X1), X2)
mark(s(X)) → s(mark(X))
a__f(X) → f(X)
a__p(X) → p(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:

MARK(p(X)) → MARK(X)
MARK(f(X)) → MARK(X)
MARK(cons(X1, X2)) → MARK(X1)
MARK(s(X)) → MARK(X)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

a__f(0) → cons(0, f(s(0)))
a__f(s(0)) → a__f(a__p(s(0)))
a__p(s(0)) → 0
mark(f(X)) → a__f(mark(X))
mark(p(X)) → a__p(mark(X))
mark(0) → 0
mark(cons(X1, X2)) → cons(mark(X1), X2)
mark(s(X)) → s(mark(X))
a__f(X) → f(X)
a__p(X) → p(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.


MARK(p(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 [1,0] 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(cons(x1, x2)) = x1   
POL(f(x1)) = x1   
POL(p(x1)) = 1 + x1   
POL(s(x1)) = x1   

The following usable rules [FROCOS05] were oriented: none

(12) Obligation:

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

MARK(f(X)) → MARK(X)
MARK(cons(X1, X2)) → MARK(X1)
MARK(s(X)) → MARK(X)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

a__f(0) → cons(0, f(s(0)))
a__f(s(0)) → a__f(a__p(s(0)))
a__p(s(0)) → 0
mark(f(X)) → a__f(mark(X))
mark(p(X)) → a__p(mark(X))
mark(0) → 0
mark(cons(X1, X2)) → cons(mark(X1), X2)
mark(s(X)) → s(mark(X))
a__f(X) → f(X)
a__p(X) → p(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.


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)) = 1   
POL(cons(x1, x2)) = x1   
POL(f(x1)) = 1 + x1   
POL(s(x1)) = x1   

The following usable rules [FROCOS05] were oriented: none

(14) Obligation:

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

MARK(cons(X1, X2)) → MARK(X1)
MARK(s(X)) → MARK(X)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

a__f(0) → cons(0, f(s(0)))
a__f(s(0)) → a__f(a__p(s(0)))
a__p(s(0)) → 0
mark(f(X)) → a__f(mark(X))
mark(p(X)) → a__p(mark(X))
mark(0) → 0
mark(cons(X1, X2)) → cons(mark(X1), X2)
mark(s(X)) → s(mark(X))
a__f(X) → f(X)
a__p(X) → p(X)

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

(15) QDPOrderProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

We use the reduction pair processor [LPAR04].


The following pairs can be oriented strictly and are deleted.


MARK(cons(X1, X2)) → MARK(X1)
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(cons(x1, x2)) = 1 + x1   
POL(s(x1)) = x1   

The following usable rules [FROCOS05] were oriented: none

(16) Obligation:

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

MARK(s(X)) → MARK(X)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

a__f(0) → cons(0, f(s(0)))
a__f(s(0)) → a__f(a__p(s(0)))
a__p(s(0)) → 0
mark(f(X)) → a__f(mark(X))
mark(p(X)) → a__p(mark(X))
mark(0) → 0
mark(cons(X1, X2)) → cons(mark(X1), X2)
mark(s(X)) → s(mark(X))
a__f(X) → f(X)
a__p(X) → p(X)

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

(17) QDPOrderProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

We use the reduction pair processor [LPAR04].


The following pairs can be oriented strictly and are deleted.


MARK(s(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(s(x1)) = 1 + x1   

The following usable rules [FROCOS05] were oriented: none

(18) Obligation:

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

a__f(0) → cons(0, f(s(0)))
a__f(s(0)) → a__f(a__p(s(0)))
a__p(s(0)) → 0
mark(f(X)) → a__f(mark(X))
mark(p(X)) → a__p(mark(X))
mark(0) → 0
mark(cons(X1, X2)) → cons(mark(X1), X2)
mark(s(X)) → s(mark(X))
a__f(X) → f(X)
a__p(X) → p(X)

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

(19) PisEmptyProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

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

(20) TRUE