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:
f(x, y, z) → g(x, y, z)
g(0, 1, x) → f(x, x, x)
Q is empty.
↳ QTRS
↳ AAECC Innermost
Q restricted rewrite system:
The TRS R consists of the following rules:
f(x, y, z) → g(x, y, z)
g(0, 1, x) → f(x, x, x)
Q is empty.
We have applied [19,8] to switch to innermost. The TRS R 1 is none
The TRS R 2 is
f(x, y, z) → g(x, y, z)
g(0, 1, x) → f(x, x, x)
The signature Sigma is {f, g}
↳ QTRS
↳ AAECC Innermost
↳ QTRS
↳ DependencyPairsProof
Q restricted rewrite system:
The TRS R consists of the following rules:
f(x, y, z) → g(x, y, z)
g(0, 1, x) → f(x, x, x)
The set Q consists of the following terms:
f(x0, x1, x2)
g(0, 1, x0)
Using Dependency Pairs [1,15] we result in the following initial DP problem:
Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:
G(0, 1, x) → F(x, x, x)
F(x, y, z) → G(x, y, z)
The TRS R consists of the following rules:
f(x, y, z) → g(x, y, z)
g(0, 1, x) → f(x, x, x)
The set Q consists of the following terms:
f(x0, x1, x2)
g(0, 1, x0)
We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
↳ QTRS
↳ AAECC Innermost
↳ QTRS
↳ DependencyPairsProof
↳ QDP
↳ UsableRulesProof
Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:
G(0, 1, x) → F(x, x, x)
F(x, y, z) → G(x, y, z)
The TRS R consists of the following rules:
f(x, y, z) → g(x, y, z)
g(0, 1, x) → f(x, x, x)
The set Q consists of the following terms:
f(x0, x1, x2)
g(0, 1, x0)
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
↳ AAECC Innermost
↳ QTRS
↳ DependencyPairsProof
↳ QDP
↳ UsableRulesProof
↳ QDP
↳ QReductionProof
Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:
G(0, 1, x) → F(x, x, x)
F(x, y, z) → G(x, y, z)
R is empty.
The set Q consists of the following terms:
f(x0, x1, x2)
g(0, 1, x0)
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.
f(x0, x1, x2)
g(0, 1, x0)
↳ QTRS
↳ AAECC Innermost
↳ QTRS
↳ DependencyPairsProof
↳ QDP
↳ UsableRulesProof
↳ QDP
↳ QReductionProof
↳ QDP
↳ Instantiation
Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:
G(0, 1, x) → F(x, x, x)
F(x, y, z) → G(x, y, z)
R is empty.
Q is empty.
We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
By instantiating [15] the rule F(x, y, z) → G(x, y, z) we obtained the following new rules:
F(z0, z0, z0) → G(z0, z0, z0)
↳ QTRS
↳ AAECC Innermost
↳ QTRS
↳ DependencyPairsProof
↳ QDP
↳ UsableRulesProof
↳ QDP
↳ QReductionProof
↳ QDP
↳ Instantiation
↳ QDP
↳ DependencyGraphProof
Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:
G(0, 1, x) → F(x, x, x)
F(z0, z0, z0) → G(z0, z0, z0)
R is empty.
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.