Termination w.r.t. Q proof of /tmp/tmpMWNWvK/rta1.trs

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:

plus(s(s(x)), y) → s(plus(x, s(y)))
plus(x, s(s(y))) → s(plus(s(x), y))
plus(s(0), y) → s(y)
plus(0, y) → y
ack(0, y) → s(y)
ack(s(x), 0) → ack(x, s(0))
ack(s(x), s(y)) → ack(x, plus(y, ack(s(x), y)))

Q is empty.

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

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

plus(s(s(x)), y) → s(plus(x, s(y)))
plus(x, s(s(y))) → s(plus(s(x), y))
plus(s(0), y) → s(y)
plus(0, y) → y
ack(0, y) → s(y)
ack(s(x), 0) → ack(x, s(0))
ack(s(x), s(y)) → ack(x, plus(y, ack(s(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:

ACK(s(x), 0) → ACK(x, s(0))
ACK(s(x), s(y)) → ACK(s(x), y)
PLUS(s(s(x)), y) → PLUS(x, s(y))
ACK(s(x), s(y)) → ACK(x, plus(y, ack(s(x), y)))
PLUS(x, s(s(y))) → PLUS(s(x), y)
ACK(s(x), s(y)) → PLUS(y, ack(s(x), y))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

plus(s(s(x)), y) → s(plus(x, s(y)))
plus(x, s(s(y))) → s(plus(s(x), y))
plus(s(0), y) → s(y)
plus(0, y) → y
ack(0, y) → s(y)
ack(s(x), 0) → ack(x, s(0))
ack(s(x), s(y)) → ack(x, plus(y, ack(s(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:

ACK(s(x), 0) → ACK(x, s(0))
ACK(s(x), s(y)) → ACK(s(x), y)
PLUS(s(s(x)), y) → PLUS(x, s(y))
ACK(s(x), s(y)) → ACK(x, plus(y, ack(s(x), y)))
PLUS(x, s(s(y))) → PLUS(s(x), y)
ACK(s(x), s(y)) → PLUS(y, ack(s(x), y))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

plus(s(s(x)), y) → s(plus(x, s(y)))
plus(x, s(s(y))) → s(plus(s(x), y))
plus(s(0), y) → s(y)
plus(0, y) → y
ack(0, y) → s(y)
ack(s(x), 0) → ack(x, s(0))
ack(s(x), s(y)) → ack(x, plus(y, ack(s(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 2 SCCs with 1 less node.

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ MNOCProof

          ↳ QDP

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

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

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

plus(s(s(x)), y) → s(plus(x, s(y)))
plus(x, s(s(y))) → s(plus(s(x), y))
plus(s(0), y) → s(y)
plus(0, y) → y
ack(0, y) → s(y)
ack(s(x), 0) → ack(x, s(0))
ack(s(x), s(y)) → ack(x, plus(y, ack(s(x), y)))

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

            ↳ MNOCProof

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ UsableRulesProof

          ↳ QDP

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

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

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

plus(s(s(x)), y) → s(plus(x, s(y)))
plus(x, s(s(y))) → s(plus(s(x), y))
plus(s(0), y) → s(y)
plus(0, y) → y
ack(0, y) → s(y)
ack(s(x), 0) → ack(x, s(0))
ack(s(x), s(y)) → ack(x, plus(y, ack(s(x), y)))

The set Q consists of the following terms:

plus(s(s(x0)), x1)
plus(x0, s(s(x1)))
plus(s(0), x0)
plus(0, x0)
ack(0, x0)
ack(s(x0), 0)
ack(s(x0), s(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

            ↳ MNOCProof

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ UsableRulesProof

                  ↳ QDP

                    ↳ QReductionProof

          ↳ QDP

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

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

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

plus(s(s(x0)), x1)
plus(x0, s(s(x1)))
plus(s(0), x0)
plus(0, x0)
ack(0, x0)
ack(s(x0), 0)
ack(s(x0), s(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.

plus(s(s(x0)), x1)
plus(x0, s(s(x1)))
plus(s(0), x0)
plus(0, x0)
ack(0, x0)
ack(s(x0), 0)
ack(s(x0), s(x1))

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ MNOCProof

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ UsableRulesProof

                  ↳ QDP

                    ↳ QReductionProof

                      ↳ QDP

                        ↳ RuleRemovalProof

          ↳ QDP

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

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

R is empty.
Q is empty.
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(s(x)), y) → PLUS(x, s(y))
PLUS(x, s(s(y))) → PLUS(s(x), y)

Used ordering: POLO with Polynomial interpretation [25]:

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

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ MNOCProof

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ UsableRulesProof

                  ↳ QDP

                    ↳ QReductionProof

                      ↳ QDP

                        ↳ RuleRemovalProof

                          ↳ QDP

                            ↳ PisEmptyProof

          ↳ QDP

Q DP problem:
P is empty.
R is empty.
Q is empty.
We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
The TRS P is empty. Hence, there is no (P,Q,R) chain.

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ MNOCProof

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

ACK(s(x), 0) → ACK(x, s(0))
ACK(s(x), s(y)) → ACK(s(x), y)
ACK(s(x), s(y)) → ACK(x, plus(y, ack(s(x), y)))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

plus(s(s(x)), y) → s(plus(x, s(y)))
plus(x, s(s(y))) → s(plus(s(x), y))
plus(s(0), y) → s(y)
plus(0, y) → y
ack(0, y) → s(y)
ack(s(x), 0) → ack(x, s(0))
ack(s(x), s(y)) → ack(x, plus(y, ack(s(x), y)))

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

            ↳ MNOCProof

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ QDPSizeChangeProof

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

ACK(s(x), 0) → ACK(x, s(0))
ACK(s(x), s(y)) → ACK(s(x), y)
ACK(s(x), s(y)) → ACK(x, plus(y, ack(s(x), y)))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

plus(s(s(x)), y) → s(plus(x, s(y)))
plus(x, s(s(y))) → s(plus(s(x), y))
plus(s(0), y) → s(y)
plus(0, y) → y
ack(0, y) → s(y)
ack(s(x), 0) → ack(x, s(0))
ack(s(x), s(y)) → ack(x, plus(y, ack(s(x), y)))

The set Q consists of the following terms:

plus(s(s(x0)), x1)
plus(x0, s(s(x1)))
plus(s(0), x0)
plus(0, x0)
ack(0, x0)
ack(s(x0), 0)
ack(s(x0), s(x1))

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:

ACK(s(x), 0) → ACK(x, s(0))
The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1
ACK(s(x), s(y)) → ACK(s(x), y)
The graph contains the following edges 1 >= 1, 2 > 2
ACK(s(x), s(y)) → ACK(x, plus(y, ack(s(x), y)))
The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1