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 QDPSizeChangeProof (⇔)
        ↳7 TRUE
    ↳8 QDP
        ↳9 QDPSizeChangeProof (⇔)
        ↳10 TRUE
    ↳11 QDP
        ↳12 QDPSizeChangeProof (⇔)
        ↳13 TRUE

(0) Obligation:

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

f(X) → cons(X, n__f(n__g(X)))
g(0) → s(0)
g(s(X)) → s(s(g(X)))
sel(0, cons(X, Y)) → X
sel(s(X), cons(Y, Z)) → sel(X, activate(Z))
f(X) → n__f(X)
g(X) → n__g(X)
activate(n__f(X)) → f(activate(X))
activate(n__g(X)) → g(activate(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:

G(s(X)) → G(X)
SEL(s(X), cons(Y, Z)) → SEL(X, activate(Z))
SEL(s(X), cons(Y, Z)) → ACTIVATE(Z)
ACTIVATE(n__f(X)) → F(activate(X))
ACTIVATE(n__f(X)) → ACTIVATE(X)
ACTIVATE(n__g(X)) → G(activate(X))
ACTIVATE(n__g(X)) → ACTIVATE(X)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

f(X) → cons(X, n__f(n__g(X)))
g(0) → s(0)
g(s(X)) → s(s(g(X)))
sel(0, cons(X, Y)) → X
sel(s(X), cons(Y, Z)) → sel(X, activate(Z))
f(X) → n__f(X)
g(X) → n__g(X)
activate(n__f(X)) → f(activate(X))
activate(n__g(X)) → g(activate(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 3 SCCs with 3 less nodes.

(4) Complex Obligation (AND)

(5) Obligation:

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

G(s(X)) → G(X)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

f(X) → cons(X, n__f(n__g(X)))
g(0) → s(0)
g(s(X)) → s(s(g(X)))
sel(0, cons(X, Y)) → X
sel(s(X), cons(Y, Z)) → sel(X, activate(Z))
f(X) → n__f(X)
g(X) → n__g(X)
activate(n__f(X)) → f(activate(X))
activate(n__g(X)) → g(activate(X))
activate(X) → X

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

(6) QDPSizeChangeProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

We used the following order and afs together with the size-change analysis [AAECC05] to show that there are no infinite chains for this DP problem.

Order:Homeomorphic Embedding Order

AFS:
s(x1)  =  s(x1)

From the DPs we obtained the following set of size-change graphs:

  • G(s(X)) → G(X) (allowed arguments on rhs = {1})
    The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1

We oriented the following set of usable rules [AAECC05,FROCOS05]. none

(7) TRUE

(8) Obligation:

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

ACTIVATE(n__g(X)) → ACTIVATE(X)
ACTIVATE(n__f(X)) → ACTIVATE(X)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

f(X) → cons(X, n__f(n__g(X)))
g(0) → s(0)
g(s(X)) → s(s(g(X)))
sel(0, cons(X, Y)) → X
sel(s(X), cons(Y, Z)) → sel(X, activate(Z))
f(X) → n__f(X)
g(X) → n__g(X)
activate(n__f(X)) → f(activate(X))
activate(n__g(X)) → g(activate(X))
activate(X) → X

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

(9) QDPSizeChangeProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

We used the following order and afs together with the size-change analysis [AAECC05] to show that there are no infinite chains for this DP problem.

Order:Homeomorphic Embedding Order

AFS:
n__f(x1)  =  n__f(x1)
n__g(x1)  =  n__g(x1)

From the DPs we obtained the following set of size-change graphs:

  • ACTIVATE(n__g(X)) → ACTIVATE(X) (allowed arguments on rhs = {1})
    The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1

  • ACTIVATE(n__f(X)) → ACTIVATE(X) (allowed arguments on rhs = {1})
    The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1

We oriented the following set of usable rules [AAECC05,FROCOS05]. none

(10) TRUE

(11) Obligation:

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

SEL(s(X), cons(Y, Z)) → SEL(X, activate(Z))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

f(X) → cons(X, n__f(n__g(X)))
g(0) → s(0)
g(s(X)) → s(s(g(X)))
sel(0, cons(X, Y)) → X
sel(s(X), cons(Y, Z)) → sel(X, activate(Z))
f(X) → n__f(X)
g(X) → n__g(X)
activate(n__f(X)) → f(activate(X))
activate(n__g(X)) → g(activate(X))
activate(X) → X

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

(12) QDPSizeChangeProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

We used the following order and afs together with the size-change analysis [AAECC05] to show that there are no infinite chains for this DP problem.

Order:Homeomorphic Embedding Order

AFS:
s(x1)  =  s(x1)
cons(x1, x2)  =  cons

From the DPs we obtained the following set of size-change graphs:

  • SEL(s(X), cons(Y, Z)) → SEL(X, activate(Z)) (allowed arguments on rhs = {1})
    The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1

We oriented the following set of usable rules [AAECC05,FROCOS05]. none

(13) TRUE