Termination w.r.t. Q proof of /tmp/tmp0lvHLL/IJCAR

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:

p(0) → 0
p(s(x)) → x
plus(x, 0) → x
plus(0, y) → y
plus(s(x), y) → s(plus(x, y))
plus(s(x), y) → s(plus(p(s(x)), y))
plus(x, s(y)) → s(plus(x, p(s(y))))
times(0, y) → 0
times(s(0), y) → y
times(s(x), y) → plus(y, times(x, y))
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)))
div(div(x, y), z) → div(x, times(y, z))
eq(0, 0) → true
eq(s(x), 0) → false
eq(0, s(y)) → false
eq(s(x), s(y)) → eq(x, y)
divides(y, x) → eq(x, times(div(x, y), y))
prime(s(s(x))) → pr(s(s(x)), s(x))
pr(x, s(0)) → true
pr(x, s(s(y))) → if(divides(s(s(y)), x), x, s(y))
if(true, x, y) → false
if(false, x, y) → pr(x, y)

Q is empty.

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

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

p(0) → 0
p(s(x)) → x
plus(x, 0) → x
plus(0, y) → y
plus(s(x), y) → s(plus(x, y))
plus(s(x), y) → s(plus(p(s(x)), y))
plus(x, s(y)) → s(plus(x, p(s(y))))
times(0, y) → 0
times(s(0), y) → y
times(s(x), y) → plus(y, times(x, y))
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)))
div(div(x, y), z) → div(x, times(y, z))
eq(0, 0) → true
eq(s(x), 0) → false
eq(0, s(y)) → false
eq(s(x), s(y)) → eq(x, y)
divides(y, x) → eq(x, times(div(x, y), y))
prime(s(s(x))) → pr(s(s(x)), s(x))
pr(x, s(0)) → true
pr(x, s(s(y))) → if(divides(s(s(y)), x), x, s(y))
if(true, x, y) → false
if(false, x, y) → pr(x, y)

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)
PLUS(x, s(y)) → PLUS(x, p(s(y)))
DIV(x, y) → QUOT(x, y, y)
PRIME(s(s(x))) → PR(s(s(x)), s(x))
IF(false, x, y) → PR(x, y)
PLUS(s(x), y) → P(s(x))
DIVIDES(y, x) → TIMES(div(x, y), y)
TIMES(s(x), y) → PLUS(y, times(x, y))
PR(x, s(s(y))) → IF(divides(s(s(y)), x), x, s(y))
TIMES(s(x), y) → TIMES(x, y)
DIVIDES(y, x) → EQ(x, times(div(x, y), y))
PLUS(x, s(y)) → P(s(y))
EQ(s(x), s(y)) → EQ(x, y)
PR(x, s(s(y))) → DIVIDES(s(s(y)), x)
DIV(div(x, y), z) → TIMES(y, z)
DIV(div(x, y), z) → DIV(x, times(y, z))
PLUS(s(x), y) → PLUS(p(s(x)), y)
DIVIDES(y, x) → DIV(x, y)
PLUS(s(x), y) → PLUS(x, y)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

p(0) → 0
p(s(x)) → x
plus(x, 0) → x
plus(0, y) → y
plus(s(x), y) → s(plus(x, y))
plus(s(x), y) → s(plus(p(s(x)), y))
plus(x, s(y)) → s(plus(x, p(s(y))))
times(0, y) → 0
times(s(0), y) → y
times(s(x), y) → plus(y, times(x, y))
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)))
div(div(x, y), z) → div(x, times(y, z))
eq(0, 0) → true
eq(s(x), 0) → false
eq(0, s(y)) → false
eq(s(x), s(y)) → eq(x, y)
divides(y, x) → eq(x, times(div(x, y), y))
prime(s(s(x))) → pr(s(s(x)), s(x))
pr(x, s(0)) → true
pr(x, s(s(y))) → if(divides(s(s(y)), x), x, s(y))
if(true, x, y) → false
if(false, x, y) → pr(x, y)

Q is empty.
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(x, 0, s(z)) → DIV(x, s(z))
QUOT(s(x), s(y), z) → QUOT(x, y, z)
PLUS(x, s(y)) → PLUS(x, p(s(y)))
DIV(x, y) → QUOT(x, y, y)
PRIME(s(s(x))) → PR(s(s(x)), s(x))
IF(false, x, y) → PR(x, y)
PLUS(s(x), y) → P(s(x))
DIVIDES(y, x) → TIMES(div(x, y), y)
TIMES(s(x), y) → PLUS(y, times(x, y))
PR(x, s(s(y))) → IF(divides(s(s(y)), x), x, s(y))
TIMES(s(x), y) → TIMES(x, y)
DIVIDES(y, x) → EQ(x, times(div(x, y), y))
PLUS(x, s(y)) → P(s(y))
EQ(s(x), s(y)) → EQ(x, y)
PR(x, s(s(y))) → DIVIDES(s(s(y)), x)
DIV(div(x, y), z) → TIMES(y, z)
DIV(div(x, y), z) → DIV(x, times(y, z))
PLUS(s(x), y) → PLUS(p(s(x)), y)
DIVIDES(y, x) → DIV(x, y)
PLUS(s(x), y) → PLUS(x, y)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

p(0) → 0
p(s(x)) → x
plus(x, 0) → x
plus(0, y) → y
plus(s(x), y) → s(plus(x, y))
plus(s(x), y) → s(plus(p(s(x)), y))
plus(x, s(y)) → s(plus(x, p(s(y))))
times(0, y) → 0
times(s(0), y) → y
times(s(x), y) → plus(y, times(x, y))
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)))
div(div(x, y), z) → div(x, times(y, z))
eq(0, 0) → true
eq(s(x), 0) → false
eq(0, s(y)) → false
eq(s(x), s(y)) → eq(x, y)
divides(y, x) → eq(x, times(div(x, y), y))
prime(s(s(x))) → pr(s(s(x)), s(x))
pr(x, s(0)) → true
pr(x, s(s(y))) → if(divides(s(s(y)), x), x, s(y))
if(true, x, y) → false
if(false, x, y) → pr(x, y)

Q is empty.
We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
The approximation of the Dependency Graph [15,17,22] contains 5 SCCs with 9 less nodes.

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ UsableRulesProof

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

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

EQ(s(x), s(y)) → EQ(x, y)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

p(0) → 0
p(s(x)) → x
plus(x, 0) → x
plus(0, y) → y
plus(s(x), y) → s(plus(x, y))
plus(s(x), y) → s(plus(p(s(x)), y))
plus(x, s(y)) → s(plus(x, p(s(y))))
times(0, y) → 0
times(s(0), y) → y
times(s(x), y) → plus(y, times(x, y))
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)))
div(div(x, y), z) → div(x, times(y, z))
eq(0, 0) → true
eq(s(x), 0) → false
eq(0, s(y)) → false
eq(s(x), s(y)) → eq(x, y)
divides(y, x) → eq(x, times(div(x, y), y))
prime(s(s(x))) → pr(s(s(x)), s(x))
pr(x, s(0)) → true
pr(x, s(s(y))) → if(divides(s(s(y)), x), x, s(y))
if(true, x, y) → false
if(false, x, y) → pr(x, y)

Q is empty.
We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
We can use the usable rules and reduction pair processor [15] with the Ce-compatible extension of the polynomial order that maps every function symbol to the sum of its argument. Then, we can delete all non-usable rules [17] from R.

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ UsableRulesProof

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ QDPSizeChangeProof

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

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

EQ(s(x), s(y)) → EQ(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:

EQ(s(x), s(y)) → EQ(x, y)
The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1, 2 > 2

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ UsableRulesProof

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

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

PLUS(x, s(y)) → PLUS(x, p(s(y)))
PLUS(s(x), y) → PLUS(p(s(x)), y)
PLUS(s(x), y) → PLUS(x, y)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

p(0) → 0
p(s(x)) → x
plus(x, 0) → x
plus(0, y) → y
plus(s(x), y) → s(plus(x, y))
plus(s(x), y) → s(plus(p(s(x)), y))
plus(x, s(y)) → s(plus(x, p(s(y))))
times(0, y) → 0
times(s(0), y) → y
times(s(x), y) → plus(y, times(x, y))
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)))
div(div(x, y), z) → div(x, times(y, z))
eq(0, 0) → true
eq(s(x), 0) → false
eq(0, s(y)) → false
eq(s(x), s(y)) → eq(x, y)
divides(y, x) → eq(x, times(div(x, y), y))
prime(s(s(x))) → pr(s(s(x)), s(x))
pr(x, s(0)) → true
pr(x, s(s(y))) → if(divides(s(s(y)), x), x, s(y))
if(true, x, y) → false
if(false, x, y) → pr(x, y)

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ UsableRulesProof

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ MNOCProof

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

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

PLUS(x, s(y)) → PLUS(x, p(s(y)))
PLUS(s(x), y) → PLUS(p(s(x)), y)
PLUS(s(x), y) → PLUS(x, y)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

p(s(x)) → x

Q is empty.
We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
We use the modular non-overlap check [15] to enlarge Q to all left-hand sides of R.

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ UsableRulesProof

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ MNOCProof

                  ↳ QDP

                    ↳ RuleRemovalProof

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

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

PLUS(x, s(y)) → PLUS(x, p(s(y)))
PLUS(s(x), y) → PLUS(p(s(x)), y)
PLUS(s(x), y) → PLUS(x, y)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

p(s(x)) → x

The set Q consists of the following terms:

p(s(x0))

We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
By using the rule removal processor [15] with the following polynomial ordering [25], at least one Dependency Pair or term rewrite system rule of this QDP problem can be strictly oriented.
Strictly oriented dependency pairs:

PLUS(s(x), y) → PLUS(x, y)

Strictly oriented rules of the TRS R:

p(s(x)) → x

Used ordering: POLO with Polynomial interpretation [25]:

POL(PLUS(x₁, x₂)) = x₁ + 2·x₂
POL(p(x₁)) = x₁
POL(s(x₁)) = 1 + 2·x₁

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ UsableRulesProof

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ MNOCProof

                  ↳ QDP

                    ↳ RuleRemovalProof

                      ↳ QDP

                        ↳ DependencyGraphProof

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

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

PLUS(x, s(y)) → PLUS(x, p(s(y)))
PLUS(s(x), y) → PLUS(p(s(x)), y)

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

p(s(x0))

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.

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ UsableRulesProof

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

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

TIMES(s(x), y) → TIMES(x, y)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

p(0) → 0
p(s(x)) → x
plus(x, 0) → x
plus(0, y) → y
plus(s(x), y) → s(plus(x, y))
plus(s(x), y) → s(plus(p(s(x)), y))
plus(x, s(y)) → s(plus(x, p(s(y))))
times(0, y) → 0
times(s(0), y) → y
times(s(x), y) → plus(y, times(x, y))
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)))
div(div(x, y), z) → div(x, times(y, z))
eq(0, 0) → true
eq(s(x), 0) → false
eq(0, s(y)) → false
eq(s(x), s(y)) → eq(x, y)
divides(y, x) → eq(x, times(div(x, y), y))
prime(s(s(x))) → pr(s(s(x)), s(x))
pr(x, s(0)) → true
pr(x, s(s(y))) → if(divides(s(s(y)), x), x, s(y))
if(true, x, y) → false
if(false, x, y) → pr(x, y)

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ UsableRulesProof

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ QDPSizeChangeProof

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

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

TIMES(s(x), y) → TIMES(x, y)

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

TIMES(s(x), y) → TIMES(x, y)
The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1, 2 >= 2

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ QDPOrderProof

          ↳ QDP

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)
DIV(div(x, y), z) → DIV(x, times(y, z))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

p(0) → 0
p(s(x)) → x
plus(x, 0) → x
plus(0, y) → y
plus(s(x), y) → s(plus(x, y))
plus(s(x), y) → s(plus(p(s(x)), y))
plus(x, s(y)) → s(plus(x, p(s(y))))
times(0, y) → 0
times(s(0), y) → y
times(s(x), y) → plus(y, times(x, y))
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)))
div(div(x, y), z) → div(x, times(y, z))
eq(0, 0) → true
eq(s(x), 0) → false
eq(0, s(y)) → false
eq(s(x), s(y)) → eq(x, y)
divides(y, x) → eq(x, times(div(x, y), y))
prime(s(s(x))) → pr(s(s(x)), s(x))
pr(x, s(0)) → true
pr(x, s(s(y))) → if(divides(s(s(y)), x), x, s(y))
if(true, x, y) → false
if(false, x, y) → pr(x, y)

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)
DIV(div(x, y), z) → DIV(x, times(y, z))

Used ordering: Polynomial interpretation [25]:

POL(0) = 0
POL(DIV(x₁, x₂)) = x₁
POL(QUOT(x₁, x₂, x₃)) = x₁
POL(div(x₁, x₂)) = x₁ + x₂
POL(p(x₁)) = x₁
POL(plus(x₁, x₂)) = 0
POL(s(x₁)) = 1 + x₁
POL(times(x₁, x₂)) = 0

The following usable rules [17] were oriented: none

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ QDPOrderProof

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ QDPOrderProof

          ↳ QDP

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)
DIV(div(x, y), z) → DIV(x, times(y, z))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

p(0) → 0
p(s(x)) → x
plus(x, 0) → x
plus(0, y) → y
plus(s(x), y) → s(plus(x, y))
plus(s(x), y) → s(plus(p(s(x)), y))
plus(x, s(y)) → s(plus(x, p(s(y))))
times(0, y) → 0
times(s(0), y) → y
times(s(x), y) → plus(y, times(x, y))
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)))
div(div(x, y), z) → div(x, times(y, z))
eq(0, 0) → true
eq(s(x), 0) → false
eq(0, s(y)) → false
eq(s(x), s(y)) → eq(x, y)
divides(y, x) → eq(x, times(div(x, y), y))
prime(s(s(x))) → pr(s(s(x)), s(x))
pr(x, s(0)) → true
pr(x, s(s(y))) → if(divides(s(s(y)), x), x, s(y))
if(true, x, y) → false
if(false, x, y) → pr(x, y)

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.

DIV(div(x, y), z) → DIV(x, times(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(div(x₁, x₂)) = 1 + x₁ + x₂
POL(p(x₁)) = x₁
POL(plus(x₁, x₂)) = 0
POL(s(x₁)) = x₁
POL(times(x₁, x₂)) = 0

The following usable rules [17] were oriented: none

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ QDPOrderProof

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ QDPOrderProof

                  ↳ QDP

                    ↳ Instantiation

          ↳ QDP

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:

p(0) → 0
p(s(x)) → x
plus(x, 0) → x
plus(0, y) → y
plus(s(x), y) → s(plus(x, y))
plus(s(x), y) → s(plus(p(s(x)), y))
plus(x, s(y)) → s(plus(x, p(s(y))))
times(0, y) → 0
times(s(0), y) → y
times(s(x), y) → plus(y, times(x, y))
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)))
div(div(x, y), z) → div(x, times(y, z))
eq(0, 0) → true
eq(s(x), 0) → false
eq(0, s(y)) → false
eq(s(x), s(y)) → eq(x, y)
divides(y, x) → eq(x, times(div(x, y), y))
prime(s(s(x))) → pr(s(s(x)), s(x))
pr(x, s(0)) → true
pr(x, s(s(y))) → if(divides(s(s(y)), x), x, s(y))
if(true, x, y) → false
if(false, x, y) → pr(x, y)

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

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ QDPOrderProof

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ QDPOrderProof

                  ↳ QDP

                    ↳ Instantiation

                      ↳ QDP

                        ↳ DependencyGraphProof

          ↳ QDP

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:

p(0) → 0
p(s(x)) → x
plus(x, 0) → x
plus(0, y) → y
plus(s(x), y) → s(plus(x, y))
plus(s(x), y) → s(plus(p(s(x)), y))
plus(x, s(y)) → s(plus(x, p(s(y))))
times(0, y) → 0
times(s(0), y) → y
times(s(x), y) → plus(y, times(x, y))
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)))
div(div(x, y), z) → div(x, times(y, z))
eq(0, 0) → true
eq(s(x), 0) → false
eq(0, s(y)) → false
eq(s(x), s(y)) → eq(x, y)
divides(y, x) → eq(x, times(div(x, y), y))
prime(s(s(x))) → pr(s(s(x)), s(x))
pr(x, s(0)) → true
pr(x, s(s(y))) → if(divides(s(s(y)), x), x, s(y))
if(true, x, y) → false
if(false, x, y) → pr(x, y)

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.

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ QDPSizeChangeProof

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

PR(x, s(s(y))) → IF(divides(s(s(y)), x), x, s(y))
IF(false, x, y) → PR(x, y)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

p(0) → 0
p(s(x)) → x
plus(x, 0) → x
plus(0, y) → y
plus(s(x), y) → s(plus(x, y))
plus(s(x), y) → s(plus(p(s(x)), y))
plus(x, s(y)) → s(plus(x, p(s(y))))
times(0, y) → 0
times(s(0), y) → y
times(s(x), y) → plus(y, times(x, y))
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)))
div(div(x, y), z) → div(x, times(y, z))
eq(0, 0) → true
eq(s(x), 0) → false
eq(0, s(y)) → false
eq(s(x), s(y)) → eq(x, y)
divides(y, x) → eq(x, times(div(x, y), y))
prime(s(s(x))) → pr(s(s(x)), s(x))
pr(x, s(0)) → true
pr(x, s(s(y))) → if(divides(s(s(y)), x), x, s(y))
if(true, x, y) → false
if(false, x, y) → pr(x, y)

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:

IF(false, x, y) → PR(x, y)
The graph contains the following edges 2 >= 1, 3 >= 2
PR(x, s(s(y))) → IF(divides(s(s(y)), x), x, s(y))
The graph contains the following edges 1 >= 2, 2 > 3