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:

ack_in(0, n) → ack_out(s(n))
ack_in(s(m), 0) → u11(ack_in(m, s(0)))
u11(ack_out(n)) → ack_out(n)
ack_in(s(m), s(n)) → u21(ack_in(s(m), n), m)
u21(ack_out(n), m) → u22(ack_in(m, n))
u22(ack_out(n)) → ack_out(n)

Q is empty.


↳ QTRS
  ↳ Overlay + Local Confluence

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

ack_in(0, n) → ack_out(s(n))
ack_in(s(m), 0) → u11(ack_in(m, s(0)))
u11(ack_out(n)) → ack_out(n)
ack_in(s(m), s(n)) → u21(ack_in(s(m), n), m)
u21(ack_out(n), m) → u22(ack_in(m, n))
u22(ack_out(n)) → ack_out(n)

Q is empty.

The TRS is overlay and locally confluent. By [19] we can switch to innermost.

↳ QTRS
  ↳ Overlay + Local Confluence
    ↳ QTRS
      ↳ DependencyPairsProof

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

ack_in(0, n) → ack_out(s(n))
ack_in(s(m), 0) → u11(ack_in(m, s(0)))
u11(ack_out(n)) → ack_out(n)
ack_in(s(m), s(n)) → u21(ack_in(s(m), n), m)
u21(ack_out(n), m) → u22(ack_in(m, n))
u22(ack_out(n)) → ack_out(n)

The set Q consists of the following terms:

ack_in(0, x0)
ack_in(s(x0), 0)
u11(ack_out(x0))
ack_in(s(x0), s(x1))
u21(ack_out(x0), x1)
u22(ack_out(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:

ACK_IN(s(m), 0) → U11(ack_in(m, s(0)))
U21(ack_out(n), m) → U22(ack_in(m, n))
ACK_IN(s(m), 0) → ACK_IN(m, s(0))
ACK_IN(s(m), s(n)) → U21(ack_in(s(m), n), m)
U21(ack_out(n), m) → ACK_IN(m, n)
ACK_IN(s(m), s(n)) → ACK_IN(s(m), n)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

ack_in(0, n) → ack_out(s(n))
ack_in(s(m), 0) → u11(ack_in(m, s(0)))
u11(ack_out(n)) → ack_out(n)
ack_in(s(m), s(n)) → u21(ack_in(s(m), n), m)
u21(ack_out(n), m) → u22(ack_in(m, n))
u22(ack_out(n)) → ack_out(n)

The set Q consists of the following terms:

ack_in(0, x0)
ack_in(s(x0), 0)
u11(ack_out(x0))
ack_in(s(x0), s(x1))
u21(ack_out(x0), x1)
u22(ack_out(x0))

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

↳ QTRS
  ↳ Overlay + Local Confluence
    ↳ QTRS
      ↳ DependencyPairsProof
        ↳ QDP
          ↳ DependencyGraphProof

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

ACK_IN(s(m), 0) → U11(ack_in(m, s(0)))
U21(ack_out(n), m) → U22(ack_in(m, n))
ACK_IN(s(m), 0) → ACK_IN(m, s(0))
ACK_IN(s(m), s(n)) → U21(ack_in(s(m), n), m)
U21(ack_out(n), m) → ACK_IN(m, n)
ACK_IN(s(m), s(n)) → ACK_IN(s(m), n)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

ack_in(0, n) → ack_out(s(n))
ack_in(s(m), 0) → u11(ack_in(m, s(0)))
u11(ack_out(n)) → ack_out(n)
ack_in(s(m), s(n)) → u21(ack_in(s(m), n), m)
u21(ack_out(n), m) → u22(ack_in(m, n))
u22(ack_out(n)) → ack_out(n)

The set Q consists of the following terms:

ack_in(0, x0)
ack_in(s(x0), 0)
u11(ack_out(x0))
ack_in(s(x0), s(x1))
u21(ack_out(x0), x1)
u22(ack_out(x0))

We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
The approximation of the Dependency Graph [15,17,22] contains 1 SCC with 2 less nodes.

↳ QTRS
  ↳ Overlay + Local Confluence
    ↳ QTRS
      ↳ DependencyPairsProof
        ↳ QDP
          ↳ DependencyGraphProof
            ↳ QDP
              ↳ QDPSizeChangeProof

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

ACK_IN(s(m), 0) → ACK_IN(m, s(0))
ACK_IN(s(m), s(n)) → U21(ack_in(s(m), n), m)
U21(ack_out(n), m) → ACK_IN(m, n)
ACK_IN(s(m), s(n)) → ACK_IN(s(m), n)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

ack_in(0, n) → ack_out(s(n))
ack_in(s(m), 0) → u11(ack_in(m, s(0)))
u11(ack_out(n)) → ack_out(n)
ack_in(s(m), s(n)) → u21(ack_in(s(m), n), m)
u21(ack_out(n), m) → u22(ack_in(m, n))
u22(ack_out(n)) → ack_out(n)

The set Q consists of the following terms:

ack_in(0, x0)
ack_in(s(x0), 0)
u11(ack_out(x0))
ack_in(s(x0), s(x1))
u21(ack_out(x0), x1)
u22(ack_out(x0))

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: