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 PisEmptyProof (⇔)
        ↳14 TRUE
    ↳15 QDP
        ↳16 QDPOrderProof (⇔)
        ↳17 QDP
        ↳18 DependencyGraphProof (⇔)
        ↳19 TRUE
    ↳20 QDP
        ↳21 QDPOrderProof (⇔)
        ↳22 QDP
        ↳23 PisEmptyProof (⇔)
        ↳24 TRUE

(0) Obligation:

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

from(X) → cons(X, n__from(s(X)))
sel(0, cons(X, XS)) → X
sel(s(N), cons(X, XS)) → sel(N, activate(XS))
minus(X, 0) → 0
minus(s(X), s(Y)) → minus(X, Y)
quot(0, s(Y)) → 0
quot(s(X), s(Y)) → s(quot(minus(X, Y), s(Y)))
zWquot(XS, nil) → nil
zWquot(nil, XS) → nil
zWquot(cons(X, XS), cons(Y, YS)) → cons(quot(X, Y), n__zWquot(activate(XS), activate(YS)))
from(X) → n__from(X)
zWquot(X1, X2) → n__zWquot(X1, X2)
activate(n__from(X)) → from(X)
activate(n__zWquot(X1, X2)) → zWquot(X1, X2)
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:

SEL(s(N), cons(X, XS)) → SEL(N, activate(XS))
SEL(s(N), cons(X, XS)) → ACTIVATE(XS)
MINUS(s(X), s(Y)) → MINUS(X, Y)
QUOT(s(X), s(Y)) → QUOT(minus(X, Y), s(Y))
QUOT(s(X), s(Y)) → MINUS(X, Y)
ZWQUOT(cons(X, XS), cons(Y, YS)) → QUOT(X, Y)
ZWQUOT(cons(X, XS), cons(Y, YS)) → ACTIVATE(XS)
ZWQUOT(cons(X, XS), cons(Y, YS)) → ACTIVATE(YS)
ACTIVATE(n__from(X)) → FROM(X)
ACTIVATE(n__zWquot(X1, X2)) → ZWQUOT(X1, X2)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

from(X) → cons(X, n__from(s(X)))
sel(0, cons(X, XS)) → X
sel(s(N), cons(X, XS)) → sel(N, activate(XS))
minus(X, 0) → 0
minus(s(X), s(Y)) → minus(X, Y)
quot(0, s(Y)) → 0
quot(s(X), s(Y)) → s(quot(minus(X, Y), s(Y)))
zWquot(XS, nil) → nil
zWquot(nil, XS) → nil
zWquot(cons(X, XS), cons(Y, YS)) → cons(quot(X, Y), n__zWquot(activate(XS), activate(YS)))
from(X) → n__from(X)
zWquot(X1, X2) → n__zWquot(X1, X2)
activate(n__from(X)) → from(X)
activate(n__zWquot(X1, X2)) → zWquot(X1, X2)
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 4 SCCs with 4 less nodes.

(4) Complex Obligation (AND)

(5) Obligation:

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

MINUS(s(X), s(Y)) → MINUS(X, Y)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

from(X) → cons(X, n__from(s(X)))
sel(0, cons(X, XS)) → X
sel(s(N), cons(X, XS)) → sel(N, activate(XS))
minus(X, 0) → 0
minus(s(X), s(Y)) → minus(X, Y)
quot(0, s(Y)) → 0
quot(s(X), s(Y)) → s(quot(minus(X, Y), s(Y)))
zWquot(XS, nil) → nil
zWquot(nil, XS) → nil
zWquot(cons(X, XS), cons(Y, YS)) → cons(quot(X, Y), n__zWquot(activate(XS), activate(YS)))
from(X) → n__from(X)
zWquot(X1, X2) → n__zWquot(X1, X2)
activate(n__from(X)) → from(X)
activate(n__zWquot(X1, X2)) → zWquot(X1, X2)
activate(X) → 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.


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

Tags:
MINUS has tags [1,1]

Comparison: MAX
Underlying order for the size change arcs and the rules of R:
Recursive path order with status [RPO].
Quasi-Precedence:
trivial

Status:
s1: multiset


The following usable rules [FROCOS05] were oriented: none

(7) Obligation:

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

from(X) → cons(X, n__from(s(X)))
sel(0, cons(X, XS)) → X
sel(s(N), cons(X, XS)) → sel(N, activate(XS))
minus(X, 0) → 0
minus(s(X), s(Y)) → minus(X, Y)
quot(0, s(Y)) → 0
quot(s(X), s(Y)) → s(quot(minus(X, Y), s(Y)))
zWquot(XS, nil) → nil
zWquot(nil, XS) → nil
zWquot(cons(X, XS), cons(Y, YS)) → cons(quot(X, Y), n__zWquot(activate(XS), activate(YS)))
from(X) → n__from(X)
zWquot(X1, X2) → n__zWquot(X1, X2)
activate(n__from(X)) → from(X)
activate(n__zWquot(X1, X2)) → zWquot(X1, X2)
activate(X) → 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:

QUOT(s(X), s(Y)) → QUOT(minus(X, Y), s(Y))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

from(X) → cons(X, n__from(s(X)))
sel(0, cons(X, XS)) → X
sel(s(N), cons(X, XS)) → sel(N, activate(XS))
minus(X, 0) → 0
minus(s(X), s(Y)) → minus(X, Y)
quot(0, s(Y)) → 0
quot(s(X), s(Y)) → s(quot(minus(X, Y), s(Y)))
zWquot(XS, nil) → nil
zWquot(nil, XS) → nil
zWquot(cons(X, XS), cons(Y, YS)) → cons(quot(X, Y), n__zWquot(activate(XS), activate(YS)))
from(X) → n__from(X)
zWquot(X1, X2) → n__zWquot(X1, X2)
activate(n__from(X)) → from(X)
activate(n__zWquot(X1, X2)) → zWquot(X1, X2)
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.


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

Tags:
QUOT has tags [0,1]

Comparison: MAX
Underlying order for the size change arcs and the rules of R:
Combined order from the following AFS and order.
s(x1)  =  s(x1)
minus(x1, x2)  =  minus
0  =  0

Recursive path order with status [RPO].
Quasi-Precedence:
[s1, minus, 0]

Status:
s1: multiset
minus: multiset
0: multiset


The following usable rules [FROCOS05] were oriented:

minus(X, 0) → 0
minus(s(X), s(Y)) → minus(X, Y)

(12) Obligation:

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

from(X) → cons(X, n__from(s(X)))
sel(0, cons(X, XS)) → X
sel(s(N), cons(X, XS)) → sel(N, activate(XS))
minus(X, 0) → 0
minus(s(X), s(Y)) → minus(X, Y)
quot(0, s(Y)) → 0
quot(s(X), s(Y)) → s(quot(minus(X, Y), s(Y)))
zWquot(XS, nil) → nil
zWquot(nil, XS) → nil
zWquot(cons(X, XS), cons(Y, YS)) → cons(quot(X, Y), n__zWquot(activate(XS), activate(YS)))
from(X) → n__from(X)
zWquot(X1, X2) → n__zWquot(X1, X2)
activate(n__from(X)) → from(X)
activate(n__zWquot(X1, X2)) → zWquot(X1, X2)
activate(X) → X

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

(13) PisEmptyProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

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

(14) TRUE

(15) Obligation:

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

ZWQUOT(cons(X, XS), cons(Y, YS)) → ACTIVATE(XS)
ACTIVATE(n__zWquot(X1, X2)) → ZWQUOT(X1, X2)
ZWQUOT(cons(X, XS), cons(Y, YS)) → ACTIVATE(YS)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

from(X) → cons(X, n__from(s(X)))
sel(0, cons(X, XS)) → X
sel(s(N), cons(X, XS)) → sel(N, activate(XS))
minus(X, 0) → 0
minus(s(X), s(Y)) → minus(X, Y)
quot(0, s(Y)) → 0
quot(s(X), s(Y)) → s(quot(minus(X, Y), s(Y)))
zWquot(XS, nil) → nil
zWquot(nil, XS) → nil
zWquot(cons(X, XS), cons(Y, YS)) → cons(quot(X, Y), n__zWquot(activate(XS), activate(YS)))
from(X) → n__from(X)
zWquot(X1, X2) → n__zWquot(X1, X2)
activate(n__from(X)) → from(X)
activate(n__zWquot(X1, X2)) → zWquot(X1, X2)
activate(X) → X

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

(16) QDPOrderProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

We use the reduction pair processor [LPAR04].


The following pairs can be oriented strictly and are deleted.


ACTIVATE(n__zWquot(X1, X2)) → ZWQUOT(X1, X2)
The remaining pairs can at least be oriented weakly.
Used ordering: SCNP Order with the following components:
Level mapping:
Top level AFS:
ZWQUOT(x1, x2)  =  ZWQUOT(x1, x2)
ACTIVATE(x1)  =  ACTIVATE(x1)

Tags:
ZWQUOT has tags [3,3]
ACTIVATE has tags [3]

Comparison: MAX
Underlying order for the size change arcs and the rules of R:
Combined order from the following AFS and order.
cons(x1, x2)  =  x2
n__zWquot(x1, x2)  =  n__zWquot(x1, x2)

Recursive path order with status [RPO].
Quasi-Precedence:
trivial

Status:
nzWquot2: multiset


The following usable rules [FROCOS05] were oriented: none

(17) Obligation:

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

ZWQUOT(cons(X, XS), cons(Y, YS)) → ACTIVATE(XS)
ZWQUOT(cons(X, XS), cons(Y, YS)) → ACTIVATE(YS)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

from(X) → cons(X, n__from(s(X)))
sel(0, cons(X, XS)) → X
sel(s(N), cons(X, XS)) → sel(N, activate(XS))
minus(X, 0) → 0
minus(s(X), s(Y)) → minus(X, Y)
quot(0, s(Y)) → 0
quot(s(X), s(Y)) → s(quot(minus(X, Y), s(Y)))
zWquot(XS, nil) → nil
zWquot(nil, XS) → nil
zWquot(cons(X, XS), cons(Y, YS)) → cons(quot(X, Y), n__zWquot(activate(XS), activate(YS)))
from(X) → n__from(X)
zWquot(X1, X2) → n__zWquot(X1, X2)
activate(n__from(X)) → from(X)
activate(n__zWquot(X1, X2)) → zWquot(X1, X2)
activate(X) → X

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

(18) DependencyGraphProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

The approximation of the Dependency Graph [LPAR04,FROCOS05,EDGSTAR] contains 0 SCCs with 2 less nodes.

(19) TRUE

(20) Obligation:

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

SEL(s(N), cons(X, XS)) → SEL(N, activate(XS))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

from(X) → cons(X, n__from(s(X)))
sel(0, cons(X, XS)) → X
sel(s(N), cons(X, XS)) → sel(N, activate(XS))
minus(X, 0) → 0
minus(s(X), s(Y)) → minus(X, Y)
quot(0, s(Y)) → 0
quot(s(X), s(Y)) → s(quot(minus(X, Y), s(Y)))
zWquot(XS, nil) → nil
zWquot(nil, XS) → nil
zWquot(cons(X, XS), cons(Y, YS)) → cons(quot(X, Y), n__zWquot(activate(XS), activate(YS)))
from(X) → n__from(X)
zWquot(X1, X2) → n__zWquot(X1, X2)
activate(n__from(X)) → from(X)
activate(n__zWquot(X1, X2)) → zWquot(X1, X2)
activate(X) → X

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

(21) QDPOrderProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

We use the reduction pair processor [LPAR04].


The following pairs can be oriented strictly and are deleted.


SEL(s(N), cons(X, XS)) → SEL(N, activate(XS))
The remaining pairs can at least be oriented weakly.
Used ordering: SCNP Order with the following components:
Level mapping:
Top level AFS:
SEL(x1, x2)  =  SEL(x1)

Tags:
SEL has tags [1,0]

Comparison: MAX
Underlying order for the size change arcs and the rules of R:
Combined order from the following AFS and order.
s(x1)  =  s(x1)
cons(x1, x2)  =  x2
activate(x1)  =  activate
n__from(x1)  =  x1
from(x1)  =  from(x1)
n__zWquot(x1, x2)  =  n__zWquot(x1, x2)
zWquot(x1, x2)  =  zWquot
quot(x1, x2)  =  quot(x1, x2)
nil  =  nil
0  =  0
minus(x1, x2)  =  minus(x1)

Recursive path order with status [RPO].
Quasi-Precedence:
quot2 > [s1, activate, from1, 0, minus1] > zWquot > nzWquot2

Status:
s1: multiset
activate: []
from1: [1]
nzWquot2: multiset
zWquot: []
quot2: multiset
nil: multiset
0: multiset
minus1: [1]


The following usable rules [FROCOS05] were oriented: none

(22) Obligation:

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

from(X) → cons(X, n__from(s(X)))
sel(0, cons(X, XS)) → X
sel(s(N), cons(X, XS)) → sel(N, activate(XS))
minus(X, 0) → 0
minus(s(X), s(Y)) → minus(X, Y)
quot(0, s(Y)) → 0
quot(s(X), s(Y)) → s(quot(minus(X, Y), s(Y)))
zWquot(XS, nil) → nil
zWquot(nil, XS) → nil
zWquot(cons(X, XS), cons(Y, YS)) → cons(quot(X, Y), n__zWquot(activate(XS), activate(YS)))
from(X) → n__from(X)
zWquot(X1, X2) → n__zWquot(X1, X2)
activate(n__from(X)) → from(X)
activate(n__zWquot(X1, X2)) → zWquot(X1, X2)
activate(X) → X

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

(23) PisEmptyProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

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

(24) TRUE