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:

div(0, y) → 0
div(x, y) → quot(x, y, y)
quot(0, s(y), z) → 0
quot(s(x), s(y), z) → quot(x, y, z)
quot(x, 0, s(z)) → s(div(x, s(z)))

Q is empty.


↳ QTRS
  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

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

div(0, y) → 0
div(x, y) → quot(x, y, y)
quot(0, s(y), z) → 0
quot(s(x), s(y), z) → quot(x, y, z)
quot(x, 0, s(z)) → s(div(x, s(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:

QUOT(x, 0, s(z)) → DIV(x, s(z))
QUOT(s(x), s(y), z) → QUOT(x, y, z)
DIV(x, y) → QUOT(x, y, y)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

div(0, y) → 0
div(x, y) → quot(x, y, y)
quot(0, s(y), z) → 0
quot(s(x), s(y), z) → quot(x, y, z)
quot(x, 0, s(z)) → s(div(x, s(z)))

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

↳ QTRS
  ↳ DependencyPairsProof
    ↳ QDP
      ↳ QDPOrderProof

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

QUOT(x, 0, s(z)) → DIV(x, s(z))
QUOT(s(x), s(y), z) → QUOT(x, y, z)
DIV(x, y) → QUOT(x, y, y)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

div(0, y) → 0
div(x, y) → quot(x, y, y)
quot(0, s(y), z) → 0
quot(s(x), s(y), z) → quot(x, y, z)
quot(x, 0, s(z)) → s(div(x, s(z)))

Q is empty.
We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
We use the reduction pair processor [15].


The following pairs can be oriented strictly and are deleted.


QUOT(s(x), s(y), z) → QUOT(x, y, z)
The remaining pairs can at least be oriented weakly.

QUOT(x, 0, s(z)) → DIV(x, s(z))
DIV(x, y) → QUOT(x, y, y)
Used ordering: Polynomial interpretation [25]:

POL(0) = 0   
POL(DIV(x1, x2)) = x1   
POL(QUOT(x1, x2, x3)) = x1   
POL(s(x1)) = 1 + x1   

The following usable rules [17] were oriented: none



↳ QTRS
  ↳ DependencyPairsProof
    ↳ QDP
      ↳ QDPOrderProof
        ↳ QDP
          ↳ Instantiation

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

QUOT(x, 0, s(z)) → DIV(x, s(z))
DIV(x, y) → QUOT(x, y, y)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

div(0, y) → 0
div(x, y) → quot(x, y, y)
quot(0, s(y), z) → 0
quot(s(x), s(y), z) → quot(x, y, z)
quot(x, 0, s(z)) → s(div(x, s(z)))

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

DIV(y_0, s(y_1)) → QUOT(y_0, s(y_1), s(y_1))



↳ QTRS
  ↳ DependencyPairsProof
    ↳ QDP
      ↳ QDPOrderProof
        ↳ QDP
          ↳ Instantiation
            ↳ QDP
              ↳ DependencyGraphProof

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

QUOT(x, 0, s(z)) → DIV(x, s(z))
DIV(y_0, s(y_1)) → QUOT(y_0, s(y_1), s(y_1))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

div(0, y) → 0
div(x, y) → quot(x, y, y)
quot(0, s(y), z) → 0
quot(s(x), s(y), z) → quot(x, y, z)
quot(x, 0, s(z)) → s(div(x, s(z)))

Q is empty.
We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
The approximation of the Dependency Graph [15,17,22] contains 0 SCCs with 2 less nodes.