Termination w.r.t. Q proof of /tmp/tmpa3MFX7/Ex7_BLR02

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 DependencyGraphProof (⇔)

        ↳9 QDP

        ↳10 QDPOrderProof (⇔)

        ↳11 QDP

        ↳12 PisEmptyProof (⇔)

        ↳13 TRUE

    ↳14 QDP

        ↳15 QDPOrderProof (⇔)

        ↳16 QDP

        ↳17 PisEmptyProof (⇔)

        ↳18 TRUE

(0) Obligation:

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

from(X) → cons(X, n__from(n__s(X)))
head(cons(X, XS)) → X
2nd(cons(X, XS)) → head(activate(XS))
take(0, XS) → nil
take(s(N), cons(X, XS)) → cons(X, n__take(N, activate(XS)))
sel(0, cons(X, XS)) → X
sel(s(N), cons(X, XS)) → sel(N, activate(XS))
from(X) → n__from(X)
s(X) → n__s(X)
take(X1, X2) → n__take(X1, X2)
activate(n__from(X)) → from(activate(X))
activate(n__s(X)) → s(activate(X))
activate(n__take(X1, X2)) → take(activate(X1), activate(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:

2ND(cons(X, XS)) → HEAD(activate(XS))
2ND(cons(X, XS)) → ACTIVATE(XS)
TAKE(s(N), cons(X, XS)) → ACTIVATE(XS)
SEL(s(N), cons(X, XS)) → SEL(N, activate(XS))
SEL(s(N), cons(X, XS)) → ACTIVATE(XS)
ACTIVATE(n__from(X)) → FROM(activate(X))
ACTIVATE(n__from(X)) → ACTIVATE(X)
ACTIVATE(n__s(X)) → S(activate(X))
ACTIVATE(n__s(X)) → ACTIVATE(X)
ACTIVATE(n__take(X1, X2)) → TAKE(activate(X1), activate(X2))
ACTIVATE(n__take(X1, X2)) → ACTIVATE(X1)
ACTIVATE(n__take(X1, X2)) → ACTIVATE(X2)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

from(X) → cons(X, n__from(n__s(X)))
head(cons(X, XS)) → X
2nd(cons(X, XS)) → head(activate(XS))
take(0, XS) → nil
take(s(N), cons(X, XS)) → cons(X, n__take(N, activate(XS)))
sel(0, cons(X, XS)) → X
sel(s(N), cons(X, XS)) → sel(N, activate(XS))
from(X) → n__from(X)
s(X) → n__s(X)
take(X1, X2) → n__take(X1, X2)
activate(n__from(X)) → from(activate(X))
activate(n__s(X)) → s(activate(X))
activate(n__take(X1, X2)) → take(activate(X1), activate(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 2 SCCs with 5 less nodes.

(4) Complex Obligation (AND)

(5) Obligation:

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

ACTIVATE(n__from(X)) → ACTIVATE(X)
ACTIVATE(n__s(X)) → ACTIVATE(X)
ACTIVATE(n__take(X1, X2)) → TAKE(activate(X1), activate(X2))
TAKE(s(N), cons(X, XS)) → ACTIVATE(XS)
ACTIVATE(n__take(X1, X2)) → ACTIVATE(X1)
ACTIVATE(n__take(X1, X2)) → ACTIVATE(X2)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

from(X) → cons(X, n__from(n__s(X)))
head(cons(X, XS)) → X
2nd(cons(X, XS)) → head(activate(XS))
take(0, XS) → nil
take(s(N), cons(X, XS)) → cons(X, n__take(N, activate(XS)))
sel(0, cons(X, XS)) → X
sel(s(N), cons(X, XS)) → sel(N, activate(XS))
from(X) → n__from(X)
s(X) → n__s(X)
take(X1, X2) → n__take(X1, X2)
activate(n__from(X)) → from(activate(X))
activate(n__s(X)) → s(activate(X))
activate(n__take(X1, X2)) → take(activate(X1), activate(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.

TAKE(s(N), cons(X, XS)) → ACTIVATE(XS)
ACTIVATE(n__take(X1, X2)) → ACTIVATE(X1)
ACTIVATE(n__take(X1, X2)) → ACTIVATE(X2)

The remaining pairs can at least be oriented weakly.
Used ordering: Polynomial interpretation [POLO]:

POL(0) = 0
POL(ACTIVATE(x₁)) = x₁
POL(TAKE(x₁, x₂)) = 1 + x₂
POL(activate(x₁)) = x₁
POL(cons(x₁, x₂)) = x₂
POL(from(x₁)) = x₁
POL(n__from(x₁)) = x₁
POL(n__s(x₁)) = x₁
POL(n__take(x₁, x₂)) = 1 + x₁ + x₂
POL(nil) = 0
POL(s(x₁)) = x₁
POL(take(x₁, x₂)) = 1 + x₁ + x₂

The following usable rules [FROCOS05] were oriented:

activate(n__from(X)) → from(activate(X))
activate(n__s(X)) → s(activate(X))
activate(n__take(X1, X2)) → take(activate(X1), activate(X2))
activate(X) → X
take(s(N), cons(X, XS)) → cons(X, n__take(N, activate(XS)))
s(X) → n__s(X)
from(X) → cons(X, n__from(n__s(X)))
from(X) → n__from(X)
take(0, XS) → nil
take(X1, X2) → n__take(X1, X2)

(7) Obligation:

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

ACTIVATE(n__from(X)) → ACTIVATE(X)
ACTIVATE(n__s(X)) → ACTIVATE(X)
ACTIVATE(n__take(X1, X2)) → TAKE(activate(X1), activate(X2))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

from(X) → cons(X, n__from(n__s(X)))
head(cons(X, XS)) → X
2nd(cons(X, XS)) → head(activate(XS))
take(0, XS) → nil
take(s(N), cons(X, XS)) → cons(X, n__take(N, activate(XS)))
sel(0, cons(X, XS)) → X
sel(s(N), cons(X, XS)) → sel(N, activate(XS))
from(X) → n__from(X)
s(X) → n__s(X)
take(X1, X2) → n__take(X1, X2)
activate(n__from(X)) → from(activate(X))
activate(n__s(X)) → s(activate(X))
activate(n__take(X1, X2)) → take(activate(X1), activate(X2))
activate(X) → X

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

(8) DependencyGraphProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

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

(9) Obligation:

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

ACTIVATE(n__s(X)) → ACTIVATE(X)
ACTIVATE(n__from(X)) → ACTIVATE(X)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

from(X) → cons(X, n__from(n__s(X)))
head(cons(X, XS)) → X
2nd(cons(X, XS)) → head(activate(XS))
take(0, XS) → nil
take(s(N), cons(X, XS)) → cons(X, n__take(N, activate(XS)))
sel(0, cons(X, XS)) → X
sel(s(N), cons(X, XS)) → sel(N, activate(XS))
from(X) → n__from(X)
s(X) → n__s(X)
take(X1, X2) → n__take(X1, X2)
activate(n__from(X)) → from(activate(X))
activate(n__s(X)) → s(activate(X))
activate(n__take(X1, X2)) → take(activate(X1), activate(X2))
activate(X) → X

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

(10) QDPOrderProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

We use the reduction pair processor [LPAR04].

The following pairs can be oriented strictly and are deleted.

ACTIVATE(n__s(X)) → ACTIVATE(X)
ACTIVATE(n__from(X)) → ACTIVATE(X)

The remaining pairs can at least be oriented weakly.
Used ordering: Polynomial interpretation [POLO]:

POL(ACTIVATE(x₁)) = x₁
POL(n__from(x₁)) = 1 + x₁
POL(n__s(x₁)) = 1 + x₁

The following usable rules [FROCOS05] were oriented: none

(11) Obligation:

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

from(X) → cons(X, n__from(n__s(X)))
head(cons(X, XS)) → X
2nd(cons(X, XS)) → head(activate(XS))
take(0, XS) → nil
take(s(N), cons(X, XS)) → cons(X, n__take(N, activate(XS)))
sel(0, cons(X, XS)) → X
sel(s(N), cons(X, XS)) → sel(N, activate(XS))
from(X) → n__from(X)
s(X) → n__s(X)
take(X1, X2) → n__take(X1, X2)
activate(n__from(X)) → from(activate(X))
activate(n__s(X)) → s(activate(X))
activate(n__take(X1, X2)) → take(activate(X1), activate(X2))
activate(X) → X

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

(12) PisEmptyProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

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

(13) TRUE

(14) 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(n__s(X)))
head(cons(X, XS)) → X
2nd(cons(X, XS)) → head(activate(XS))
take(0, XS) → nil
take(s(N), cons(X, XS)) → cons(X, n__take(N, activate(XS)))
sel(0, cons(X, XS)) → X
sel(s(N), cons(X, XS)) → sel(N, activate(XS))
from(X) → n__from(X)
s(X) → n__s(X)
take(X1, X2) → n__take(X1, X2)
activate(n__from(X)) → from(activate(X))
activate(n__s(X)) → s(activate(X))
activate(n__take(X1, X2)) → take(activate(X1), activate(X2))
activate(X) → 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.

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

The remaining pairs can at least be oriented weakly.
Used ordering: Polynomial interpretation [POLO]:

POL(0) = 0
POL(SEL(x₁, x₂)) = x₁
POL(activate(x₁)) = 0
POL(cons(x₁, x₂)) = 0
POL(from(x₁)) = 0
POL(n__from(x₁)) = 0
POL(n__s(x₁)) = 0
POL(n__take(x₁, x₂)) = 0
POL(nil) = 0
POL(s(x₁)) = 1 + x₁
POL(take(x₁, x₂)) = 0

The following usable rules [FROCOS05] were oriented: none

(16) Obligation:

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

from(X) → cons(X, n__from(n__s(X)))
head(cons(X, XS)) → X
2nd(cons(X, XS)) → head(activate(XS))
take(0, XS) → nil
take(s(N), cons(X, XS)) → cons(X, n__take(N, activate(XS)))
sel(0, cons(X, XS)) → X
sel(s(N), cons(X, XS)) → sel(N, activate(XS))
from(X) → n__from(X)
s(X) → n__s(X)
take(X1, X2) → n__take(X1, X2)
activate(n__from(X)) → from(activate(X))
activate(n__s(X)) → s(activate(X))
activate(n__take(X1, X2)) → take(activate(X1), activate(X2))
activate(X) → X

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

(17) PisEmptyProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

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

(0) Obligation:

(1) DependencyPairsProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

(2) Obligation:

(3) DependencyGraphProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

(4) Complex Obligation (AND)

(5) Obligation:

(6) QDPOrderProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

(7) Obligation:

(8) DependencyGraphProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

(9) Obligation:

(10) QDPOrderProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

(11) Obligation:

(12) PisEmptyProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

(13) TRUE

(14) Obligation:

(15) QDPOrderProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

(16) Obligation:

(17) PisEmptyProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

(18) TRUE