Termination w.r.t. Q proof of /tmp/tmpjrAKAz/Ex4_7_37

Termination w.r.t. Q of the following Term Rewriting System could be disproven:

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

from(X) → cons(X, from(s(X)))
sel(0, cons(X, XS)) → X
sel(s(N), cons(X, XS)) → sel(N, 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), zWquot(XS, YS))

The set Q consists of the following terms:

minus(s(x0), s(x1))
from(x0)
zWquot(cons(x0, x1), cons(x2, x3))
quot(s(x0), s(x1))
zWquot(nil, x0)
zWquot(x0, nil)
quot(0, s(x0))
minus(x0, 0)
sel(s(x0), cons(x1, x2))
sel(0, cons(x0, x1))

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

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

from(X) → cons(X, from(s(X)))
sel(0, cons(X, XS)) → X
sel(s(N), cons(X, XS)) → sel(N, 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), zWquot(XS, YS))

The set Q consists of the following terms:

minus(s(x0), s(x1))
from(x0)
zWquot(cons(x0, x1), cons(x2, x3))
quot(s(x0), s(x1))
zWquot(nil, x0)
zWquot(x0, nil)
quot(0, s(x0))
minus(x0, 0)
sel(s(x0), cons(x1, x2))
sel(0, cons(x0, x1))

Using Dependency Pairs [1,15] we result in the following initial DP problem:
Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:

QUOT(s(X), s(Y)) → QUOT(minus(X, Y), s(Y))
MINUS(s(X), s(Y)) → MINUS(X, Y)
SEL(s(N), cons(X, XS)) → SEL(N, XS)
ZWQUOT(cons(X, XS), cons(Y, YS)) → QUOT(X, Y)
FROM(X) → FROM(s(X))
ZWQUOT(cons(X, XS), cons(Y, YS)) → ZWQUOT(XS, YS)
QUOT(s(X), s(Y)) → MINUS(X, Y)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

from(X) → cons(X, from(s(X)))
sel(0, cons(X, XS)) → X
sel(s(N), cons(X, XS)) → sel(N, 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), zWquot(XS, YS))

The set Q consists of the following terms:

minus(s(x0), s(x1))
from(x0)
zWquot(cons(x0, x1), cons(x2, x3))
quot(s(x0), s(x1))
zWquot(nil, x0)
zWquot(x0, nil)
quot(0, s(x0))
minus(x0, 0)
sel(s(x0), cons(x1, x2))
sel(0, cons(x0, x1))

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

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

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

QUOT(s(X), s(Y)) → QUOT(minus(X, Y), s(Y))
MINUS(s(X), s(Y)) → MINUS(X, Y)
SEL(s(N), cons(X, XS)) → SEL(N, XS)
ZWQUOT(cons(X, XS), cons(Y, YS)) → QUOT(X, Y)
FROM(X) → FROM(s(X))
ZWQUOT(cons(X, XS), cons(Y, YS)) → ZWQUOT(XS, YS)
QUOT(s(X), s(Y)) → MINUS(X, Y)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

from(X) → cons(X, from(s(X)))
sel(0, cons(X, XS)) → X
sel(s(N), cons(X, XS)) → sel(N, 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), zWquot(XS, YS))

The set Q consists of the following terms:

minus(s(x0), s(x1))
from(x0)
zWquot(cons(x0, x1), cons(x2, x3))
quot(s(x0), s(x1))
zWquot(nil, x0)
zWquot(x0, nil)
quot(0, s(x0))
minus(x0, 0)
sel(s(x0), cons(x1, x2))
sel(0, cons(x0, x1))

We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
The approximation of the Dependency Graph [15,17,22] contains 4 SCCs with 3 less nodes.

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ UsableRulesProof

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

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, from(s(X)))
sel(0, cons(X, XS)) → X
sel(s(N), cons(X, XS)) → sel(N, 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), zWquot(XS, YS))

The set Q consists of the following terms:

minus(s(x0), s(x1))
from(x0)
zWquot(cons(x0, x1), cons(x2, x3))
quot(s(x0), s(x1))
zWquot(nil, x0)
zWquot(x0, nil)
quot(0, s(x0))
minus(x0, 0)
sel(s(x0), cons(x1, x2))
sel(0, cons(x0, x1))

We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
As all Q-normal forms are R-normal forms we are in the innermost case. Hence, by the usable rules processor [15] we can delete all non-usable rules [17] from R.

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ UsableRulesProof

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ QReductionProof

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

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

MINUS(s(X), s(Y)) → MINUS(X, Y)

R is empty.
The set Q consists of the following terms:

minus(s(x0), s(x1))
from(x0)
zWquot(cons(x0, x1), cons(x2, x3))
quot(s(x0), s(x1))
zWquot(nil, x0)
zWquot(x0, nil)
quot(0, s(x0))
minus(x0, 0)
sel(s(x0), cons(x1, x2))
sel(0, cons(x0, x1))

We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
We deleted the following terms from Q as each root-symbol of these terms does neither occur in P nor in R.

minus(s(x0), s(x1))
from(x0)
zWquot(cons(x0, x1), cons(x2, x3))
quot(s(x0), s(x1))
zWquot(nil, x0)
zWquot(x0, nil)
quot(0, s(x0))
minus(x0, 0)
sel(s(x0), cons(x1, x2))
sel(0, cons(x0, x1))

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ UsableRulesProof

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ QReductionProof

                  ↳ QDP

                    ↳ QDPSizeChangeProof

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

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

MINUS(s(X), s(Y)) → MINUS(X, Y)

R is empty.
Q is empty.
We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
By using the subterm criterion [20] together with the size-change analysis [32] we have proven that there are no infinite chains for this DP problem.

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

MINUS(s(X), s(Y)) → MINUS(X, Y)
The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1, 2 > 2

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ UsableRulesProof

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

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

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

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

from(X) → cons(X, from(s(X)))
sel(0, cons(X, XS)) → X
sel(s(N), cons(X, XS)) → sel(N, 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), zWquot(XS, YS))

The set Q consists of the following terms:

minus(s(x0), s(x1))
from(x0)
zWquot(cons(x0, x1), cons(x2, x3))
quot(s(x0), s(x1))
zWquot(nil, x0)
zWquot(x0, nil)
quot(0, s(x0))
minus(x0, 0)
sel(s(x0), cons(x1, x2))
sel(0, cons(x0, x1))

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ UsableRulesProof

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ QReductionProof

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

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

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

R is empty.
The set Q consists of the following terms:

minus(s(x0), s(x1))
from(x0)
zWquot(cons(x0, x1), cons(x2, x3))
quot(s(x0), s(x1))
zWquot(nil, x0)
zWquot(x0, nil)
quot(0, s(x0))
minus(x0, 0)
sel(s(x0), cons(x1, x2))
sel(0, cons(x0, x1))

We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
We deleted the following terms from Q as each root-symbol of these terms does neither occur in P nor in R.

minus(s(x0), s(x1))
from(x0)
zWquot(cons(x0, x1), cons(x2, x3))
quot(s(x0), s(x1))
zWquot(nil, x0)
zWquot(x0, nil)
quot(0, s(x0))
minus(x0, 0)
sel(s(x0), cons(x1, x2))
sel(0, cons(x0, x1))

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ UsableRulesProof

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ QReductionProof

                  ↳ QDP

                    ↳ QDPSizeChangeProof

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

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

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

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

ZWQUOT(cons(X, XS), cons(Y, YS)) → ZWQUOT(XS, YS)
The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1, 2 > 2

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ UsableRulesProof

          ↳ QDP

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

SEL(s(N), cons(X, XS)) → SEL(N, XS)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

from(X) → cons(X, from(s(X)))
sel(0, cons(X, XS)) → X
sel(s(N), cons(X, XS)) → sel(N, 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), zWquot(XS, YS))

The set Q consists of the following terms:

minus(s(x0), s(x1))
from(x0)
zWquot(cons(x0, x1), cons(x2, x3))
quot(s(x0), s(x1))
zWquot(nil, x0)
zWquot(x0, nil)
quot(0, s(x0))
minus(x0, 0)
sel(s(x0), cons(x1, x2))
sel(0, cons(x0, x1))

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ UsableRulesProof

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ QReductionProof

          ↳ QDP

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

SEL(s(N), cons(X, XS)) → SEL(N, XS)

R is empty.
The set Q consists of the following terms:

minus(s(x0), s(x1))
from(x0)
zWquot(cons(x0, x1), cons(x2, x3))
quot(s(x0), s(x1))
zWquot(nil, x0)
zWquot(x0, nil)
quot(0, s(x0))
minus(x0, 0)
sel(s(x0), cons(x1, x2))
sel(0, cons(x0, x1))

We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
We deleted the following terms from Q as each root-symbol of these terms does neither occur in P nor in R.

minus(s(x0), s(x1))
from(x0)
zWquot(cons(x0, x1), cons(x2, x3))
quot(s(x0), s(x1))
zWquot(nil, x0)
zWquot(x0, nil)
quot(0, s(x0))
minus(x0, 0)
sel(s(x0), cons(x1, x2))
sel(0, cons(x0, x1))

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ UsableRulesProof

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ QReductionProof

                  ↳ QDP

                    ↳ QDPSizeChangeProof

          ↳ QDP

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

SEL(s(N), cons(X, XS)) → SEL(N, XS)

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

SEL(s(N), cons(X, XS)) → SEL(N, XS)
The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1, 2 > 2

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ UsableRulesProof

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

FROM(X) → FROM(s(X))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

from(X) → cons(X, from(s(X)))
sel(0, cons(X, XS)) → X
sel(s(N), cons(X, XS)) → sel(N, 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), zWquot(XS, YS))

The set Q consists of the following terms:

minus(s(x0), s(x1))
from(x0)
zWquot(cons(x0, x1), cons(x2, x3))
quot(s(x0), s(x1))
zWquot(nil, x0)
zWquot(x0, nil)
quot(0, s(x0))
minus(x0, 0)
sel(s(x0), cons(x1, x2))
sel(0, cons(x0, x1))

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ UsableRulesProof

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ QReductionProof

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

FROM(X) → FROM(s(X))

R is empty.
The set Q consists of the following terms:

minus(s(x0), s(x1))
from(x0)
zWquot(cons(x0, x1), cons(x2, x3))
quot(s(x0), s(x1))
zWquot(nil, x0)
zWquot(x0, nil)
quot(0, s(x0))
minus(x0, 0)
sel(s(x0), cons(x1, x2))
sel(0, cons(x0, x1))

We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
We deleted the following terms from Q as each root-symbol of these terms does neither occur in P nor in R.

minus(s(x0), s(x1))
from(x0)
zWquot(cons(x0, x1), cons(x2, x3))
quot(s(x0), s(x1))
zWquot(nil, x0)
zWquot(x0, nil)
quot(0, s(x0))
minus(x0, 0)
sel(s(x0), cons(x1, x2))
sel(0, cons(x0, x1))

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ UsableRulesProof

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ QReductionProof

                  ↳ QDP

                    ↳ Instantiation

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

FROM(X) → FROM(s(X))

R is empty.
Q is empty.
We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
By instantiating [15] the rule FROM(X) → FROM(s(X)) we obtained the following new rules:

FROM(s(z0)) → FROM(s(s(z0)))

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ UsableRulesProof

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ QReductionProof

                  ↳ QDP

                    ↳ Instantiation

                      ↳ QDP

                        ↳ Instantiation

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

FROM(s(z0)) → FROM(s(s(z0)))

R is empty.
Q is empty.
We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
By instantiating [15] the rule FROM(s(z0)) → FROM(s(s(z0))) we obtained the following new rules:

FROM(s(s(z0))) → FROM(s(s(s(z0))))

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ UsableRulesProof

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ QReductionProof

                  ↳ QDP

                    ↳ Instantiation

                      ↳ QDP

                        ↳ Instantiation

                          ↳ QDP

                            ↳ NonTerminationProof

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

FROM(s(s(z0))) → FROM(s(s(s(z0))))

R is empty.
Q is empty.
We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
We used the non-termination processor [17] to show that the DP problem is infinite.
Found a loop by semiunifying a rule from P directly.

The TRS P consists of the following rules:

FROM(s(s(z0))) → FROM(s(s(s(z0))))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:none

s = FROM(s(s(z0))) evaluates to t =FROM(s(s(s(z0))))

Thus s starts an infinite chain as s semiunifies with t with the following substitutions:

Semiunifier: [ ]
Matcher: [z0 / s(z0)]

Rewriting sequence

The DP semiunifies directly so there is only one rewrite step from FROM(s(s(z0))) to FROM(s(s(s(z0)))).