Termination w.r.t. Q of the given QTRS could be proven:

(0) Obligation:

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

fib(N) → sel(N, fib1(s(0), s(0)))
fib1(X, Y) → cons(X, n__fib1(Y, n__add(X, Y)))
add(0, X) → X
add(s(X), Y) → s(add(X, Y))
sel(0, cons(X, XS)) → X
sel(s(N), cons(X, XS)) → sel(N, activate(XS))
fib1(X1, X2) → n__fib1(X1, X2)
add(X1, X2) → n__add(X1, X2)
activate(n__fib1(X1, X2)) → fib1(activate(X1), activate(X2))
activate(n__add(X1, X2)) → add(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:

FIB(N) → SEL(N, fib1(s(0), s(0)))
FIB(N) → FIB1(s(0), s(0))
ADD(s(X), Y) → ADD(X, Y)
SEL(s(N), cons(X, XS)) → SEL(N, activate(XS))
SEL(s(N), cons(X, XS)) → ACTIVATE(XS)
ACTIVATE(n__fib1(X1, X2)) → FIB1(activate(X1), activate(X2))
ACTIVATE(n__fib1(X1, X2)) → ACTIVATE(X1)
ACTIVATE(n__fib1(X1, X2)) → ACTIVATE(X2)
ACTIVATE(n__add(X1, X2)) → ADD(activate(X1), activate(X2))
ACTIVATE(n__add(X1, X2)) → ACTIVATE(X1)
ACTIVATE(n__add(X1, X2)) → ACTIVATE(X2)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

fib(N) → sel(N, fib1(s(0), s(0)))
fib1(X, Y) → cons(X, n__fib1(Y, n__add(X, Y)))
add(0, X) → X
add(s(X), Y) → s(add(X, Y))
sel(0, cons(X, XS)) → X
sel(s(N), cons(X, XS)) → sel(N, activate(XS))
fib1(X1, X2) → n__fib1(X1, X2)
add(X1, X2) → n__add(X1, X2)
activate(n__fib1(X1, X2)) → fib1(activate(X1), activate(X2))
activate(n__add(X1, X2)) → add(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 3 SCCs with 5 less nodes.

(4) Complex Obligation (AND)

(5) Obligation:

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

ADD(s(X), Y) → ADD(X, Y)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

fib(N) → sel(N, fib1(s(0), s(0)))
fib1(X, Y) → cons(X, n__fib1(Y, n__add(X, Y)))
add(0, X) → X
add(s(X), Y) → s(add(X, Y))
sel(0, cons(X, XS)) → X
sel(s(N), cons(X, XS)) → sel(N, activate(XS))
fib1(X1, X2) → n__fib1(X1, X2)
add(X1, X2) → n__add(X1, X2)
activate(n__fib1(X1, X2)) → fib1(activate(X1), activate(X2))
activate(n__add(X1, X2)) → add(activate(X1), activate(X2))
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:

• ADD(s(X), Y) → ADD(X, Y) (allowed arguments on rhs = {1, 2})
  The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1, 2 >= 2

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__fib1(X1, X2)) → ACTIVATE(X2)
ACTIVATE(n__fib1(X1, X2)) → ACTIVATE(X1)
ACTIVATE(n__add(X1, X2)) → ACTIVATE(X1)
ACTIVATE(n__add(X1, X2)) → ACTIVATE(X2)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

fib(N) → sel(N, fib1(s(0), s(0)))
fib1(X, Y) → cons(X, n__fib1(Y, n__add(X, Y)))
add(0, X) → X
add(s(X), Y) → s(add(X, Y))
sel(0, cons(X, XS)) → X
sel(s(N), cons(X, XS)) → sel(N, activate(XS))
fib1(X1, X2) → n__fib1(X1, X2)
add(X1, X2) → n__add(X1, X2)
activate(n__fib1(X1, X2)) → fib1(activate(X1), activate(X2))
activate(n__add(X1, X2)) → add(activate(X1), activate(X2))
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__add(x1, x2)  =  n__add(x1, x2)
n__fib1(x1, x2)  =  n__fib1(x1, x2)

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

• ACTIVATE(n__fib1(X1, X2)) → ACTIVATE(X2) (allowed arguments on rhs = {1})
  The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1

• ACTIVATE(n__fib1(X1, X2)) → ACTIVATE(X1) (allowed arguments on rhs = {1})
  The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1

• ACTIVATE(n__add(X1, X2)) → ACTIVATE(X1) (allowed arguments on rhs = {1})
  The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1

• ACTIVATE(n__add(X1, X2)) → ACTIVATE(X2) (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(N), cons(X, XS)) → SEL(N, activate(XS))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

fib(N) → sel(N, fib1(s(0), s(0)))
fib1(X, Y) → cons(X, n__fib1(Y, n__add(X, Y)))
add(0, X) → X
add(s(X), Y) → s(add(X, Y))
sel(0, cons(X, XS)) → X
sel(s(N), cons(X, XS)) → sel(N, activate(XS))
fib1(X1, X2) → n__fib1(X1, X2)
add(X1, X2) → n__add(X1, X2)
activate(n__fib1(X1, X2)) → fib1(activate(X1), activate(X2))
activate(n__add(X1, X2)) → add(activate(X1), activate(X2))
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(N), cons(X, XS)) → SEL(N, activate(XS)) (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