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

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

g(x, y) → x
g(x, y) → y
f(0, 1, x) → f(s(x), x, x)
f(x, y, s(z)) → s(f(0, 1, z))

Q is empty.


QTRS
  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

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

g(x, y) → x
g(x, y) → y
f(0, 1, x) → f(s(x), x, x)
f(x, y, s(z)) → s(f(0, 1, z))

Q is empty.

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

F(0, 1, x) → F(s(x), x, x)
F(x, y, s(z)) → F(0, 1, z)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

g(x, y) → x
g(x, y) → y
f(0, 1, x) → f(s(x), x, x)
f(x, y, s(z)) → s(f(0, 1, z))

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

↳ QTRS
  ↳ DependencyPairsProof
QDP
      ↳ QDPSizeChangeProof

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

F(0, 1, x) → F(s(x), x, x)
F(x, y, s(z)) → F(0, 1, z)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

g(x, y) → x
g(x, y) → y
f(0, 1, x) → f(s(x), x, x)
f(x, y, s(z)) → s(f(0, 1, z))

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: