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:

0(#) → #
+(#, x) → x
+(x, #) → x
+(0(x), 0(y)) → 0(+(x, y))
+(0(x), 1(y)) → 1(+(x, y))
+(1(x), 0(y)) → 1(+(x, y))
+(1(x), 1(y)) → 0(+(+(x, y), 1(#)))
+(+(x, y), z) → +(x, +(y, z))
-(#, x) → #
-(x, #) → x
-(0(x), 0(y)) → 0(-(x, y))
-(0(x), 1(y)) → 1(-(-(x, y), 1(#)))
-(1(x), 0(y)) → 1(-(x, y))
-(1(x), 1(y)) → 0(-(x, y))
not(true) → false
not(false) → true
if(true, x, y) → x
if(false, x, y) → y
ge(0(x), 0(y)) → ge(x, y)
ge(0(x), 1(y)) → not(ge(y, x))
ge(1(x), 0(y)) → ge(x, y)
ge(1(x), 1(y)) → ge(x, y)
ge(x, #) → true
ge(#, 0(x)) → ge(#, x)
ge(#, 1(x)) → false
log(x) → -(log'(x), 1(#))
log'(#) → #
log'(1(x)) → +(log'(x), 1(#))
log'(0(x)) → if(ge(x, 1(#)), +(log'(x), 1(#)), #)

Q is empty.


QTRS
  ↳ RRRPoloQTRSProof

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

0(#) → #
+(#, x) → x
+(x, #) → x
+(0(x), 0(y)) → 0(+(x, y))
+(0(x), 1(y)) → 1(+(x, y))
+(1(x), 0(y)) → 1(+(x, y))
+(1(x), 1(y)) → 0(+(+(x, y), 1(#)))
+(+(x, y), z) → +(x, +(y, z))
-(#, x) → #
-(x, #) → x
-(0(x), 0(y)) → 0(-(x, y))
-(0(x), 1(y)) → 1(-(-(x, y), 1(#)))
-(1(x), 0(y)) → 1(-(x, y))
-(1(x), 1(y)) → 0(-(x, y))
not(true) → false
not(false) → true
if(true, x, y) → x
if(false, x, y) → y
ge(0(x), 0(y)) → ge(x, y)
ge(0(x), 1(y)) → not(ge(y, x))
ge(1(x), 0(y)) → ge(x, y)
ge(1(x), 1(y)) → ge(x, y)
ge(x, #) → true
ge(#, 0(x)) → ge(#, x)
ge(#, 1(x)) → false
log(x) → -(log'(x), 1(#))
log'(#) → #
log'(1(x)) → +(log'(x), 1(#))
log'(0(x)) → if(ge(x, 1(#)), +(log'(x), 1(#)), #)

Q is empty.

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

0(#) → #
+(#, x) → x
+(x, #) → x
+(0(x), 0(y)) → 0(+(x, y))
+(0(x), 1(y)) → 1(+(x, y))
+(1(x), 0(y)) → 1(+(x, y))
+(1(x), 1(y)) → 0(+(+(x, y), 1(#)))
+(+(x, y), z) → +(x, +(y, z))
-(#, x) → #
-(x, #) → x
-(0(x), 0(y)) → 0(-(x, y))
-(0(x), 1(y)) → 1(-(-(x, y), 1(#)))
-(1(x), 0(y)) → 1(-(x, y))
-(1(x), 1(y)) → 0(-(x, y))
not(true) → false
not(false) → true
if(true, x, y) → x
if(false, x, y) → y
ge(0(x), 0(y)) → ge(x, y)
ge(0(x), 1(y)) → not(ge(y, x))
ge(1(x), 0(y)) → ge(x, y)
ge(1(x), 1(y)) → ge(x, y)
ge(x, #) → true
ge(#, 0(x)) → ge(#, x)
ge(#, 1(x)) → false
log(x) → -(log'(x), 1(#))
log'(#) → #
log'(1(x)) → +(log'(x), 1(#))
log'(0(x)) → if(ge(x, 1(#)), +(log'(x), 1(#)), #)

Q is empty.
The following rules can be removed by the rule removal processor [15] because they are oriented strictly by a polynomial ordering:

log(x) → -(log'(x), 1(#))
Used ordering:
Polynomial interpretation [25]:

POL(#) = 0   
POL(+(x1, x2)) = x1 + x2   
POL(-(x1, x2)) = x1 + x2   
POL(0(x1)) = 2·x1   
POL(1(x1)) = 2·x1   
POL(false) = 0   
POL(ge(x1, x2)) = x1 + 2·x2   
POL(if(x1, x2, x3)) = x1 + x2 + x3   
POL(log(x1)) = 2 + 2·x1   
POL(log'(x1)) = 2·x1   
POL(not(x1)) = x1   
POL(true) = 0   




↳ QTRS
  ↳ RRRPoloQTRSProof
QTRS
      ↳ RRRPoloQTRSProof

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

0(#) → #
+(#, x) → x
+(x, #) → x
+(0(x), 0(y)) → 0(+(x, y))
+(0(x), 1(y)) → 1(+(x, y))
+(1(x), 0(y)) → 1(+(x, y))
+(1(x), 1(y)) → 0(+(+(x, y), 1(#)))
+(+(x, y), z) → +(x, +(y, z))
-(#, x) → #
-(x, #) → x
-(0(x), 0(y)) → 0(-(x, y))
-(0(x), 1(y)) → 1(-(-(x, y), 1(#)))
-(1(x), 0(y)) → 1(-(x, y))
-(1(x), 1(y)) → 0(-(x, y))
not(true) → false
not(false) → true
if(true, x, y) → x
if(false, x, y) → y
ge(0(x), 0(y)) → ge(x, y)
ge(0(x), 1(y)) → not(ge(y, x))
ge(1(x), 0(y)) → ge(x, y)
ge(1(x), 1(y)) → ge(x, y)
ge(x, #) → true
ge(#, 0(x)) → ge(#, x)
ge(#, 1(x)) → false
log'(#) → #
log'(1(x)) → +(log'(x), 1(#))
log'(0(x)) → if(ge(x, 1(#)), +(log'(x), 1(#)), #)

Q is empty.

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

0(#) → #
+(#, x) → x
+(x, #) → x
+(0(x), 0(y)) → 0(+(x, y))
+(0(x), 1(y)) → 1(+(x, y))
+(1(x), 0(y)) → 1(+(x, y))
+(1(x), 1(y)) → 0(+(+(x, y), 1(#)))
+(+(x, y), z) → +(x, +(y, z))
-(#, x) → #
-(x, #) → x
-(0(x), 0(y)) → 0(-(x, y))
-(0(x), 1(y)) → 1(-(-(x, y), 1(#)))
-(1(x), 0(y)) → 1(-(x, y))
-(1(x), 1(y)) → 0(-(x, y))
not(true) → false
not(false) → true
if(true, x, y) → x
if(false, x, y) → y
ge(0(x), 0(y)) → ge(x, y)
ge(0(x), 1(y)) → not(ge(y, x))
ge(1(x), 0(y)) → ge(x, y)
ge(1(x), 1(y)) → ge(x, y)
ge(x, #) → true
ge(#, 0(x)) → ge(#, x)
ge(#, 1(x)) → false
log'(#) → #
log'(1(x)) → +(log'(x), 1(#))
log'(0(x)) → if(ge(x, 1(#)), +(log'(x), 1(#)), #)

Q is empty.
The following rules can be removed by the rule removal processor [15] because they are oriented strictly by a polynomial ordering:

log'(#) → #
Used ordering:
Polynomial interpretation [25]:

POL(#) = 0   
POL(+(x1, x2)) = x1 + x2   
POL(-(x1, x2)) = x1 + 2·x2   
POL(0(x1)) = 2·x1   
POL(1(x1)) = 2·x1   
POL(false) = 0   
POL(ge(x1, x2)) = x1 + x2   
POL(if(x1, x2, x3)) = x1 + x2 + 2·x3   
POL(log'(x1)) = 1 + 2·x1   
POL(not(x1)) = 2·x1   
POL(true) = 0   




↳ QTRS
  ↳ RRRPoloQTRSProof
    ↳ QTRS
      ↳ RRRPoloQTRSProof
QTRS
          ↳ DependencyPairsProof

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

0(#) → #
+(#, x) → x
+(x, #) → x
+(0(x), 0(y)) → 0(+(x, y))
+(0(x), 1(y)) → 1(+(x, y))
+(1(x), 0(y)) → 1(+(x, y))
+(1(x), 1(y)) → 0(+(+(x, y), 1(#)))
+(+(x, y), z) → +(x, +(y, z))
-(#, x) → #
-(x, #) → x
-(0(x), 0(y)) → 0(-(x, y))
-(0(x), 1(y)) → 1(-(-(x, y), 1(#)))
-(1(x), 0(y)) → 1(-(x, y))
-(1(x), 1(y)) → 0(-(x, y))
not(true) → false
not(false) → true
if(true, x, y) → x
if(false, x, y) → y
ge(0(x), 0(y)) → ge(x, y)
ge(0(x), 1(y)) → not(ge(y, x))
ge(1(x), 0(y)) → ge(x, y)
ge(1(x), 1(y)) → ge(x, y)
ge(x, #) → true
ge(#, 0(x)) → ge(#, x)
ge(#, 1(x)) → false
log'(1(x)) → +(log'(x), 1(#))
log'(0(x)) → if(ge(x, 1(#)), +(log'(x), 1(#)), #)

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:

+1(0(x), 0(y)) → 01(+(x, y))
GE(#, 0(x)) → GE(#, x)
-1(0(x), 0(y)) → 01(-(x, y))
LOG'(0(x)) → GE(x, 1(#))
+1(1(x), 1(y)) → +1(x, y)
LOG'(1(x)) → +1(log'(x), 1(#))
GE(0(x), 1(y)) → NOT(ge(y, x))
LOG'(0(x)) → IF(ge(x, 1(#)), +(log'(x), 1(#)), #)
-1(0(x), 1(y)) → -1(-(x, y), 1(#))
-1(1(x), 1(y)) → 01(-(x, y))
+1(1(x), 1(y)) → 01(+(+(x, y), 1(#)))
+1(1(x), 1(y)) → +1(+(x, y), 1(#))
LOG'(1(x)) → LOG'(x)
GE(1(x), 1(y)) → GE(x, y)
LOG'(0(x)) → LOG'(x)
LOG'(0(x)) → +1(log'(x), 1(#))
-1(1(x), 1(y)) → -1(x, y)
+1(+(x, y), z) → +1(y, z)
-1(0(x), 0(y)) → -1(x, y)
+1(0(x), 0(y)) → +1(x, y)
+1(1(x), 0(y)) → +1(x, y)
+1(0(x), 1(y)) → +1(x, y)
GE(0(x), 0(y)) → GE(x, y)
+1(+(x, y), z) → +1(x, +(y, z))
GE(0(x), 1(y)) → GE(y, x)
GE(1(x), 0(y)) → GE(x, y)
-1(0(x), 1(y)) → -1(x, y)
-1(1(x), 0(y)) → -1(x, y)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

0(#) → #
+(#, x) → x
+(x, #) → x
+(0(x), 0(y)) → 0(+(x, y))
+(0(x), 1(y)) → 1(+(x, y))
+(1(x), 0(y)) → 1(+(x, y))
+(1(x), 1(y)) → 0(+(+(x, y), 1(#)))
+(+(x, y), z) → +(x, +(y, z))
-(#, x) → #
-(x, #) → x
-(0(x), 0(y)) → 0(-(x, y))
-(0(x), 1(y)) → 1(-(-(x, y), 1(#)))
-(1(x), 0(y)) → 1(-(x, y))
-(1(x), 1(y)) → 0(-(x, y))
not(true) → false
not(false) → true
if(true, x, y) → x
if(false, x, y) → y
ge(0(x), 0(y)) → ge(x, y)
ge(0(x), 1(y)) → not(ge(y, x))
ge(1(x), 0(y)) → ge(x, y)
ge(1(x), 1(y)) → ge(x, y)
ge(x, #) → true
ge(#, 0(x)) → ge(#, x)
ge(#, 1(x)) → false
log'(1(x)) → +(log'(x), 1(#))
log'(0(x)) → if(ge(x, 1(#)), +(log'(x), 1(#)), #)

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

↳ QTRS
  ↳ RRRPoloQTRSProof
    ↳ QTRS
      ↳ RRRPoloQTRSProof
        ↳ QTRS
          ↳ DependencyPairsProof
QDP
              ↳ DependencyGraphProof

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

+1(0(x), 0(y)) → 01(+(x, y))
GE(#, 0(x)) → GE(#, x)
-1(0(x), 0(y)) → 01(-(x, y))
LOG'(0(x)) → GE(x, 1(#))
+1(1(x), 1(y)) → +1(x, y)
LOG'(1(x)) → +1(log'(x), 1(#))
GE(0(x), 1(y)) → NOT(ge(y, x))
LOG'(0(x)) → IF(ge(x, 1(#)), +(log'(x), 1(#)), #)
-1(0(x), 1(y)) → -1(-(x, y), 1(#))
-1(1(x), 1(y)) → 01(-(x, y))
+1(1(x), 1(y)) → 01(+(+(x, y), 1(#)))
+1(1(x), 1(y)) → +1(+(x, y), 1(#))
LOG'(1(x)) → LOG'(x)
GE(1(x), 1(y)) → GE(x, y)
LOG'(0(x)) → LOG'(x)
LOG'(0(x)) → +1(log'(x), 1(#))
-1(1(x), 1(y)) → -1(x, y)
+1(+(x, y), z) → +1(y, z)
-1(0(x), 0(y)) → -1(x, y)
+1(0(x), 0(y)) → +1(x, y)
+1(1(x), 0(y)) → +1(x, y)
+1(0(x), 1(y)) → +1(x, y)
GE(0(x), 0(y)) → GE(x, y)
+1(+(x, y), z) → +1(x, +(y, z))
GE(0(x), 1(y)) → GE(y, x)
GE(1(x), 0(y)) → GE(x, y)
-1(0(x), 1(y)) → -1(x, y)
-1(1(x), 0(y)) → -1(x, y)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

0(#) → #
+(#, x) → x
+(x, #) → x
+(0(x), 0(y)) → 0(+(x, y))
+(0(x), 1(y)) → 1(+(x, y))
+(1(x), 0(y)) → 1(+(x, y))
+(1(x), 1(y)) → 0(+(+(x, y), 1(#)))
+(+(x, y), z) → +(x, +(y, z))
-(#, x) → #
-(x, #) → x
-(0(x), 0(y)) → 0(-(x, y))
-(0(x), 1(y)) → 1(-(-(x, y), 1(#)))
-(1(x), 0(y)) → 1(-(x, y))
-(1(x), 1(y)) → 0(-(x, y))
not(true) → false
not(false) → true
if(true, x, y) → x
if(false, x, y) → y
ge(0(x), 0(y)) → ge(x, y)
ge(0(x), 1(y)) → not(ge(y, x))
ge(1(x), 0(y)) → ge(x, y)
ge(1(x), 1(y)) → ge(x, y)
ge(x, #) → true
ge(#, 0(x)) → ge(#, x)
ge(#, 1(x)) → false
log'(1(x)) → +(log'(x), 1(#))
log'(0(x)) → if(ge(x, 1(#)), +(log'(x), 1(#)), #)

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
  ↳ RRRPoloQTRSProof
    ↳ QTRS
      ↳ RRRPoloQTRSProof
        ↳ QTRS
          ↳ DependencyPairsProof
            ↳ QDP
              ↳ DependencyGraphProof
                ↳ AND
QDP
                    ↳ UsableRulesProof
                  ↳ QDP
                  ↳ QDP
                  ↳ QDP
                  ↳ QDP

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

GE(#, 0(x)) → GE(#, x)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

0(#) → #
+(#, x) → x
+(x, #) → x
+(0(x), 0(y)) → 0(+(x, y))
+(0(x), 1(y)) → 1(+(x, y))
+(1(x), 0(y)) → 1(+(x, y))
+(1(x), 1(y)) → 0(+(+(x, y), 1(#)))
+(+(x, y), z) → +(x, +(y, z))
-(#, x) → #
-(x, #) → x
-(0(x), 0(y)) → 0(-(x, y))
-(0(x), 1(y)) → 1(-(-(x, y), 1(#)))
-(1(x), 0(y)) → 1(-(x, y))
-(1(x), 1(y)) → 0(-(x, y))
not(true) → false
not(false) → true
if(true, x, y) → x
if(false, x, y) → y
ge(0(x), 0(y)) → ge(x, y)
ge(0(x), 1(y)) → not(ge(y, x))
ge(1(x), 0(y)) → ge(x, y)
ge(1(x), 1(y)) → ge(x, y)
ge(x, #) → true
ge(#, 0(x)) → ge(#, x)
ge(#, 1(x)) → false
log'(1(x)) → +(log'(x), 1(#))
log'(0(x)) → if(ge(x, 1(#)), +(log'(x), 1(#)), #)

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
  ↳ RRRPoloQTRSProof
    ↳ QTRS
      ↳ RRRPoloQTRSProof
        ↳ QTRS
          ↳ DependencyPairsProof
            ↳ QDP
              ↳ DependencyGraphProof
                ↳ AND
                  ↳ QDP
                    ↳ UsableRulesProof
QDP
                        ↳ QDPSizeChangeProof
                  ↳ QDP
                  ↳ QDP
                  ↳ QDP
                  ↳ QDP

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

GE(#, 0(x)) → GE(#, x)

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:



↳ QTRS
  ↳ RRRPoloQTRSProof
    ↳ QTRS
      ↳ RRRPoloQTRSProof
        ↳ QTRS
          ↳ DependencyPairsProof
            ↳ QDP
              ↳ DependencyGraphProof
                ↳ AND
                  ↳ QDP
QDP
                    ↳ UsableRulesProof
                  ↳ QDP
                  ↳ QDP
                  ↳ QDP

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

GE(0(x), 0(y)) → GE(x, y)
GE(1(x), 0(y)) → GE(x, y)
GE(0(x), 1(y)) → GE(y, x)
GE(1(x), 1(y)) → GE(x, y)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

0(#) → #
+(#, x) → x
+(x, #) → x
+(0(x), 0(y)) → 0(+(x, y))
+(0(x), 1(y)) → 1(+(x, y))
+(1(x), 0(y)) → 1(+(x, y))
+(1(x), 1(y)) → 0(+(+(x, y), 1(#)))
+(+(x, y), z) → +(x, +(y, z))
-(#, x) → #
-(x, #) → x
-(0(x), 0(y)) → 0(-(x, y))
-(0(x), 1(y)) → 1(-(-(x, y), 1(#)))
-(1(x), 0(y)) → 1(-(x, y))
-(1(x), 1(y)) → 0(-(x, y))
not(true) → false
not(false) → true
if(true, x, y) → x
if(false, x, y) → y
ge(0(x), 0(y)) → ge(x, y)
ge(0(x), 1(y)) → not(ge(y, x))
ge(1(x), 0(y)) → ge(x, y)
ge(1(x), 1(y)) → ge(x, y)
ge(x, #) → true
ge(#, 0(x)) → ge(#, x)
ge(#, 1(x)) → false
log'(1(x)) → +(log'(x), 1(#))
log'(0(x)) → if(ge(x, 1(#)), +(log'(x), 1(#)), #)

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
  ↳ RRRPoloQTRSProof
    ↳ QTRS
      ↳ RRRPoloQTRSProof
        ↳ QTRS
          ↳ DependencyPairsProof
            ↳ QDP
              ↳ DependencyGraphProof
                ↳ AND
                  ↳ QDP
                  ↳ QDP
                    ↳ UsableRulesProof
QDP
                        ↳ QDPSizeChangeProof
                  ↳ QDP
                  ↳ QDP
                  ↳ QDP

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

GE(0(x), 0(y)) → GE(x, y)
GE(0(x), 1(y)) → GE(y, x)
GE(1(x), 0(y)) → GE(x, y)
GE(1(x), 1(y)) → GE(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:



↳ QTRS
  ↳ RRRPoloQTRSProof
    ↳ QTRS
      ↳ RRRPoloQTRSProof
        ↳ QTRS
          ↳ DependencyPairsProof
            ↳ QDP
              ↳ DependencyGraphProof
                ↳ AND
                  ↳ QDP
                  ↳ QDP
QDP
                    ↳ UsableRulesProof
                  ↳ QDP
                  ↳ QDP

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

-1(1(x), 1(y)) → -1(x, y)
-1(0(x), 0(y)) → -1(x, y)
-1(1(x), 0(y)) → -1(x, y)
-1(0(x), 1(y)) → -1(x, y)
-1(0(x), 1(y)) → -1(-(x, y), 1(#))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

0(#) → #
+(#, x) → x
+(x, #) → x
+(0(x), 0(y)) → 0(+(x, y))
+(0(x), 1(y)) → 1(+(x, y))
+(1(x), 0(y)) → 1(+(x, y))
+(1(x), 1(y)) → 0(+(+(x, y), 1(#)))
+(+(x, y), z) → +(x, +(y, z))
-(#, x) → #
-(x, #) → x
-(0(x), 0(y)) → 0(-(x, y))
-(0(x), 1(y)) → 1(-(-(x, y), 1(#)))
-(1(x), 0(y)) → 1(-(x, y))
-(1(x), 1(y)) → 0(-(x, y))
not(true) → false
not(false) → true
if(true, x, y) → x
if(false, x, y) → y
ge(0(x), 0(y)) → ge(x, y)
ge(0(x), 1(y)) → not(ge(y, x))
ge(1(x), 0(y)) → ge(x, y)
ge(1(x), 1(y)) → ge(x, y)
ge(x, #) → true
ge(#, 0(x)) → ge(#, x)
ge(#, 1(x)) → false
log'(1(x)) → +(log'(x), 1(#))
log'(0(x)) → if(ge(x, 1(#)), +(log'(x), 1(#)), #)

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
  ↳ RRRPoloQTRSProof
    ↳ QTRS
      ↳ RRRPoloQTRSProof
        ↳ QTRS
          ↳ DependencyPairsProof
            ↳ QDP
              ↳ DependencyGraphProof
                ↳ AND
                  ↳ QDP
                  ↳ QDP
                  ↳ QDP
                    ↳ UsableRulesProof
QDP
                        ↳ RuleRemovalProof
                  ↳ QDP
                  ↳ QDP

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

-1(1(x), 1(y)) → -1(x, y)
-1(0(x), 0(y)) → -1(x, y)
-1(0(x), 1(y)) → -1(-(x, y), 1(#))
-1(0(x), 1(y)) → -1(x, y)
-1(1(x), 0(y)) → -1(x, y)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

-(#, x) → #
-(x, #) → x
-(0(x), 0(y)) → 0(-(x, y))
-(0(x), 1(y)) → 1(-(-(x, y), 1(#)))
-(1(x), 0(y)) → 1(-(x, y))
-(1(x), 1(y)) → 0(-(x, y))
0(#) → #

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:

-1(1(x), 1(y)) → -1(x, y)
-1(0(x), 0(y)) → -1(x, y)
-1(0(x), 1(y)) → -1(-(x, y), 1(#))
-1(0(x), 1(y)) → -1(x, y)
-1(1(x), 0(y)) → -1(x, y)

Strictly oriented rules of the TRS R:

-(0(x), 0(y)) → 0(-(x, y))
-(1(x), 0(y)) → 1(-(x, y))
-(1(x), 1(y)) → 0(-(x, y))
0(#) → #

Used ordering: POLO with Polynomial interpretation [25]:

POL(#) = 0   
POL(-(x1, x2)) = x1 + x2   
POL(-1(x1, x2)) = 2·x1 + 2·x2   
POL(0(x1)) = 1 + x1   
POL(1(x1)) = 1 + x1   



↳ QTRS
  ↳ RRRPoloQTRSProof
    ↳ QTRS
      ↳ RRRPoloQTRSProof
        ↳ QTRS
          ↳ DependencyPairsProof
            ↳ QDP
              ↳ DependencyGraphProof
                ↳ AND
                  ↳ QDP
                  ↳ QDP
                  ↳ QDP
                    ↳ UsableRulesProof
                      ↳ QDP
                        ↳ RuleRemovalProof
QDP
                            ↳ PisEmptyProof
                  ↳ QDP
                  ↳ QDP

Q DP problem:
P is empty.
The TRS R consists of the following rules:

-(#, x) → #
-(x, #) → x
-(0(x), 1(y)) → 1(-(-(x, y), 1(#)))

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
  ↳ RRRPoloQTRSProof
    ↳ QTRS
      ↳ RRRPoloQTRSProof
        ↳ QTRS
          ↳ DependencyPairsProof
            ↳ QDP
              ↳ DependencyGraphProof
                ↳ AND
                  ↳ QDP
                  ↳ QDP
                  ↳ QDP
QDP
                    ↳ UsableRulesProof
                  ↳ QDP

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

+1(0(x), 0(y)) → +1(x, y)
+1(1(x), 0(y)) → +1(x, y)
+1(0(x), 1(y)) → +1(x, y)
+1(+(x, y), z) → +1(y, z)
+1(+(x, y), z) → +1(x, +(y, z))
+1(1(x), 1(y)) → +1(x, y)
+1(1(x), 1(y)) → +1(+(x, y), 1(#))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

0(#) → #
+(#, x) → x
+(x, #) → x
+(0(x), 0(y)) → 0(+(x, y))
+(0(x), 1(y)) → 1(+(x, y))
+(1(x), 0(y)) → 1(+(x, y))
+(1(x), 1(y)) → 0(+(+(x, y), 1(#)))
+(+(x, y), z) → +(x, +(y, z))
-(#, x) → #
-(x, #) → x
-(0(x), 0(y)) → 0(-(x, y))
-(0(x), 1(y)) → 1(-(-(x, y), 1(#)))
-(1(x), 0(y)) → 1(-(x, y))
-(1(x), 1(y)) → 0(-(x, y))
not(true) → false
not(false) → true
if(true, x, y) → x
if(false, x, y) → y
ge(0(x), 0(y)) → ge(x, y)
ge(0(x), 1(y)) → not(ge(y, x))
ge(1(x), 0(y)) → ge(x, y)
ge(1(x), 1(y)) → ge(x, y)
ge(x, #) → true
ge(#, 0(x)) → ge(#, x)
ge(#, 1(x)) → false
log'(1(x)) → +(log'(x), 1(#))
log'(0(x)) → if(ge(x, 1(#)), +(log'(x), 1(#)), #)

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
  ↳ RRRPoloQTRSProof
    ↳ QTRS
      ↳ RRRPoloQTRSProof
        ↳ QTRS
          ↳ DependencyPairsProof
            ↳ QDP
              ↳ DependencyGraphProof
                ↳ AND
                  ↳ QDP
                  ↳ QDP
                  ↳ QDP
                  ↳ QDP
                    ↳ UsableRulesProof
QDP
                        ↳ RuleRemovalProof
                  ↳ QDP

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

+1(0(x), 0(y)) → +1(x, y)
+1(0(x), 1(y)) → +1(x, y)
+1(1(x), 0(y)) → +1(x, y)
+1(+(x, y), z) → +1(y, z)
+1(1(x), 1(y)) → +1(x, y)
+1(+(x, y), z) → +1(x, +(y, z))
+1(1(x), 1(y)) → +1(+(x, y), 1(#))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

+(#, x) → x
+(x, #) → x
+(0(x), 0(y)) → 0(+(x, y))
+(0(x), 1(y)) → 1(+(x, y))
+(1(x), 0(y)) → 1(+(x, y))
+(1(x), 1(y)) → 0(+(+(x, y), 1(#)))
+(+(x, y), z) → +(x, +(y, z))
0(#) → #

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:

+1(0(x), 0(y)) → +1(x, y)
+1(0(x), 1(y)) → +1(x, y)
+1(1(x), 0(y)) → +1(x, y)
+1(1(x), 1(y)) → +1(x, y)
+1(1(x), 1(y)) → +1(+(x, y), 1(#))

Strictly oriented rules of the TRS R:

+(0(x), 0(y)) → 0(+(x, y))
+(0(x), 1(y)) → 1(+(x, y))
+(1(x), 0(y)) → 1(+(x, y))
0(#) → #

Used ordering: POLO with Polynomial interpretation [25]:

POL(#) = 0   
POL(+(x1, x2)) = x1 + x2   
POL(+1(x1, x2)) = 2·x1 + 2·x2   
POL(0(x1)) = 1 + x1   
POL(1(x1)) = 1 + x1   



↳ QTRS
  ↳ RRRPoloQTRSProof
    ↳ QTRS
      ↳ RRRPoloQTRSProof
        ↳ QTRS
          ↳ DependencyPairsProof
            ↳ QDP
              ↳ DependencyGraphProof
                ↳ AND
                  ↳ QDP
                  ↳ QDP
                  ↳ QDP
                  ↳ QDP
                    ↳ UsableRulesProof
                      ↳ QDP
                        ↳ RuleRemovalProof
QDP
                            ↳ QDPSizeChangeProof
                  ↳ QDP

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

+1(+(x, y), z) → +1(y, z)
+1(+(x, y), z) → +1(x, +(y, z))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

+(#, x) → x
+(x, #) → x
+(1(x), 1(y)) → 0(+(+(x, y), 1(#)))
+(+(x, y), z) → +(x, +(y, z))

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:



↳ QTRS
  ↳ RRRPoloQTRSProof
    ↳ QTRS
      ↳ RRRPoloQTRSProof
        ↳ QTRS
          ↳ DependencyPairsProof
            ↳ QDP
              ↳ DependencyGraphProof
                ↳ AND
                  ↳ QDP
                  ↳ QDP
                  ↳ QDP
                  ↳ QDP
QDP
                    ↳ UsableRulesProof

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

LOG'(1(x)) → LOG'(x)
LOG'(0(x)) → LOG'(x)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

0(#) → #
+(#, x) → x
+(x, #) → x
+(0(x), 0(y)) → 0(+(x, y))
+(0(x), 1(y)) → 1(+(x, y))
+(1(x), 0(y)) → 1(+(x, y))
+(1(x), 1(y)) → 0(+(+(x, y), 1(#)))
+(+(x, y), z) → +(x, +(y, z))
-(#, x) → #
-(x, #) → x
-(0(x), 0(y)) → 0(-(x, y))
-(0(x), 1(y)) → 1(-(-(x, y), 1(#)))
-(1(x), 0(y)) → 1(-(x, y))
-(1(x), 1(y)) → 0(-(x, y))
not(true) → false
not(false) → true
if(true, x, y) → x
if(false, x, y) → y
ge(0(x), 0(y)) → ge(x, y)
ge(0(x), 1(y)) → not(ge(y, x))
ge(1(x), 0(y)) → ge(x, y)
ge(1(x), 1(y)) → ge(x, y)
ge(x, #) → true
ge(#, 0(x)) → ge(#, x)
ge(#, 1(x)) → false
log'(1(x)) → +(log'(x), 1(#))
log'(0(x)) → if(ge(x, 1(#)), +(log'(x), 1(#)), #)

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
  ↳ RRRPoloQTRSProof
    ↳ QTRS
      ↳ RRRPoloQTRSProof
        ↳ QTRS
          ↳ DependencyPairsProof
            ↳ QDP
              ↳ DependencyGraphProof
                ↳ AND
                  ↳ QDP
                  ↳ QDP
                  ↳ QDP
                  ↳ QDP
                  ↳ QDP
                    ↳ UsableRulesProof
QDP
                        ↳ QDPSizeChangeProof

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

LOG'(1(x)) → LOG'(x)
LOG'(0(x)) → LOG'(x)

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: