Termination w.r.t. Q proof of /tmp/tmp59gIQu/quick.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:

test(x_0, y) → True
test(x_0, y) → False
append(l1_2, l2_1) → match_0(l1_2, l2_1, l1_2)
match_0(l1_2, l2_1, Nil) → l2_1
match_0(l1_2, l2_1, Cons(x, l)) → Cons(x, append(l, l2_1))
part(a_4, l_3) → match_1(a_4, l_3, l_3)
match_1(a_4, l_3, Nil) → Pair(Nil, Nil)
match_1(a_4, l_3, Cons(x, l')) → match_2(x, l', a_4, l_3, part(a_4, l'))
match_2(x, l', a_4, l_3, Pair(l1, l2)) → match_3(l1, l2, x, l', a_4, l_3, test(a_4, x))
match_3(l1, l2, x, l', a_4, l_3, False) → Pair(Cons(x, l1), l2)
match_3(l1, l2, x, l', a_4, l_3, True) → Pair(l1, Cons(x, l2))
quick(l_5) → match_4(l_5, l_5)
match_4(l_5, Nil) → Nil
match_4(l_5, Cons(a, l')) → match_5(a, l', l_5, part(a, l'))
match_5(a, l', l_5, Pair(l1, l2)) → append(quick(l1), Cons(a, quick(l2)))

Q is empty.

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

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

test(x_0, y) → True
test(x_0, y) → False
append(l1_2, l2_1) → match_0(l1_2, l2_1, l1_2)
match_0(l1_2, l2_1, Nil) → l2_1
match_0(l1_2, l2_1, Cons(x, l)) → Cons(x, append(l, l2_1))
part(a_4, l_3) → match_1(a_4, l_3, l_3)
match_1(a_4, l_3, Nil) → Pair(Nil, Nil)
match_1(a_4, l_3, Cons(x, l')) → match_2(x, l', a_4, l_3, part(a_4, l'))
match_2(x, l', a_4, l_3, Pair(l1, l2)) → match_3(l1, l2, x, l', a_4, l_3, test(a_4, x))
match_3(l1, l2, x, l', a_4, l_3, False) → Pair(Cons(x, l1), l2)
match_3(l1, l2, x, l', a_4, l_3, True) → Pair(l1, Cons(x, l2))
quick(l_5) → match_4(l_5, l_5)
match_4(l_5, Nil) → Nil
match_4(l_5, Cons(a, l')) → match_5(a, l', l_5, part(a, l'))
match_5(a, l', l_5, Pair(l1, l2)) → append(quick(l1), Cons(a, quick(l2)))

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:

APPEND(l1_2, l2_1) → MATCH_0(l1_2, l2_1, l1_2)
MATCH_4(l_5, Cons(a, l')) → MATCH_5(a, l', l_5, part(a, l'))
MATCH_5(a, l', l_5, Pair(l1, l2)) → APPEND(quick(l1), Cons(a, quick(l2)))
MATCH_5(a, l', l_5, Pair(l1, l2)) → QUICK(l2)
MATCH_1(a_4, l_3, Cons(x, l')) → MATCH_2(x, l', a_4, l_3, part(a_4, l'))
MATCH_4(l_5, Cons(a, l')) → PART(a, l')
MATCH_2(x, l', a_4, l_3, Pair(l1, l2)) → MATCH_3(l1, l2, x, l', a_4, l_3, test(a_4, x))
QUICK(l_5) → MATCH_4(l_5, l_5)
MATCH_2(x, l', a_4, l_3, Pair(l1, l2)) → TEST(a_4, x)
MATCH_5(a, l', l_5, Pair(l1, l2)) → QUICK(l1)
MATCH_0(l1_2, l2_1, Cons(x, l)) → APPEND(l, l2_1)
MATCH_1(a_4, l_3, Cons(x, l')) → PART(a_4, l')
PART(a_4, l_3) → MATCH_1(a_4, l_3, l_3)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

test(x_0, y) → True
test(x_0, y) → False
append(l1_2, l2_1) → match_0(l1_2, l2_1, l1_2)
match_0(l1_2, l2_1, Nil) → l2_1
match_0(l1_2, l2_1, Cons(x, l)) → Cons(x, append(l, l2_1))
part(a_4, l_3) → match_1(a_4, l_3, l_3)
match_1(a_4, l_3, Nil) → Pair(Nil, Nil)
match_1(a_4, l_3, Cons(x, l')) → match_2(x, l', a_4, l_3, part(a_4, l'))
match_2(x, l', a_4, l_3, Pair(l1, l2)) → match_3(l1, l2, x, l', a_4, l_3, test(a_4, x))
match_3(l1, l2, x, l', a_4, l_3, False) → Pair(Cons(x, l1), l2)
match_3(l1, l2, x, l', a_4, l_3, True) → Pair(l1, Cons(x, l2))
quick(l_5) → match_4(l_5, l_5)
match_4(l_5, Nil) → Nil
match_4(l_5, Cons(a, l')) → match_5(a, l', l_5, part(a, l'))
match_5(a, l', l_5, Pair(l1, l2)) → append(quick(l1), Cons(a, quick(l2)))

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:

APPEND(l1_2, l2_1) → MATCH_0(l1_2, l2_1, l1_2)
MATCH_4(l_5, Cons(a, l')) → MATCH_5(a, l', l_5, part(a, l'))
MATCH_5(a, l', l_5, Pair(l1, l2)) → APPEND(quick(l1), Cons(a, quick(l2)))
MATCH_5(a, l', l_5, Pair(l1, l2)) → QUICK(l2)
MATCH_1(a_4, l_3, Cons(x, l')) → MATCH_2(x, l', a_4, l_3, part(a_4, l'))
MATCH_4(l_5, Cons(a, l')) → PART(a, l')
MATCH_2(x, l', a_4, l_3, Pair(l1, l2)) → MATCH_3(l1, l2, x, l', a_4, l_3, test(a_4, x))
QUICK(l_5) → MATCH_4(l_5, l_5)
MATCH_2(x, l', a_4, l_3, Pair(l1, l2)) → TEST(a_4, x)
MATCH_5(a, l', l_5, Pair(l1, l2)) → QUICK(l1)
MATCH_0(l1_2, l2_1, Cons(x, l)) → APPEND(l, l2_1)
MATCH_1(a_4, l_3, Cons(x, l')) → PART(a_4, l')
PART(a_4, l_3) → MATCH_1(a_4, l_3, l_3)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

test(x_0, y) → True
test(x_0, y) → False
append(l1_2, l2_1) → match_0(l1_2, l2_1, l1_2)
match_0(l1_2, l2_1, Nil) → l2_1
match_0(l1_2, l2_1, Cons(x, l)) → Cons(x, append(l, l2_1))
part(a_4, l_3) → match_1(a_4, l_3, l_3)
match_1(a_4, l_3, Nil) → Pair(Nil, Nil)
match_1(a_4, l_3, Cons(x, l')) → match_2(x, l', a_4, l_3, part(a_4, l'))
match_2(x, l', a_4, l_3, Pair(l1, l2)) → match_3(l1, l2, x, l', a_4, l_3, test(a_4, x))
match_3(l1, l2, x, l', a_4, l_3, False) → Pair(Cons(x, l1), l2)
match_3(l1, l2, x, l', a_4, l_3, True) → Pair(l1, Cons(x, l2))
quick(l_5) → match_4(l_5, l_5)
match_4(l_5, Nil) → Nil
match_4(l_5, Cons(a, l')) → match_5(a, l', l_5, part(a, l'))
match_5(a, l', l_5, Pair(l1, l2)) → append(quick(l1), Cons(a, quick(l2)))

Q is empty.
We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
The approximation of the Dependency Graph [15,17,22] contains 3 SCCs with 5 less nodes.

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ QDPSizeChangeProof

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

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

MATCH_1(a_4, l_3, Cons(x, l')) → PART(a_4, l')
PART(a_4, l_3) → MATCH_1(a_4, l_3, l_3)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

test(x_0, y) → True
test(x_0, y) → False
append(l1_2, l2_1) → match_0(l1_2, l2_1, l1_2)
match_0(l1_2, l2_1, Nil) → l2_1
match_0(l1_2, l2_1, Cons(x, l)) → Cons(x, append(l, l2_1))
part(a_4, l_3) → match_1(a_4, l_3, l_3)
match_1(a_4, l_3, Nil) → Pair(Nil, Nil)
match_1(a_4, l_3, Cons(x, l')) → match_2(x, l', a_4, l_3, part(a_4, l'))
match_2(x, l', a_4, l_3, Pair(l1, l2)) → match_3(l1, l2, x, l', a_4, l_3, test(a_4, x))
match_3(l1, l2, x, l', a_4, l_3, False) → Pair(Cons(x, l1), l2)
match_3(l1, l2, x, l', a_4, l_3, True) → Pair(l1, Cons(x, l2))
quick(l_5) → match_4(l_5, l_5)
match_4(l_5, Nil) → Nil
match_4(l_5, Cons(a, l')) → match_5(a, l', l_5, part(a, l'))
match_5(a, l', l_5, Pair(l1, l2)) → append(quick(l1), Cons(a, quick(l2)))

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:

PART(a_4, l_3) → MATCH_1(a_4, l_3, l_3)
The graph contains the following edges 1 >= 1, 2 >= 2, 2 >= 3
MATCH_1(a_4, l_3, Cons(x, l')) → PART(a_4, l')
The graph contains the following edges 1 >= 1, 3 > 2

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ QDPSizeChangeProof

          ↳ QDP

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

APPEND(l1_2, l2_1) → MATCH_0(l1_2, l2_1, l1_2)
MATCH_0(l1_2, l2_1, Cons(x, l)) → APPEND(l, l2_1)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

test(x_0, y) → True
test(x_0, y) → False
append(l1_2, l2_1) → match_0(l1_2, l2_1, l1_2)
match_0(l1_2, l2_1, Nil) → l2_1
match_0(l1_2, l2_1, Cons(x, l)) → Cons(x, append(l, l2_1))
part(a_4, l_3) → match_1(a_4, l_3, l_3)
match_1(a_4, l_3, Nil) → Pair(Nil, Nil)
match_1(a_4, l_3, Cons(x, l')) → match_2(x, l', a_4, l_3, part(a_4, l'))
match_2(x, l', a_4, l_3, Pair(l1, l2)) → match_3(l1, l2, x, l', a_4, l_3, test(a_4, x))
match_3(l1, l2, x, l', a_4, l_3, False) → Pair(Cons(x, l1), l2)
match_3(l1, l2, x, l', a_4, l_3, True) → Pair(l1, Cons(x, l2))
quick(l_5) → match_4(l_5, l_5)
match_4(l_5, Nil) → Nil
match_4(l_5, Cons(a, l')) → match_5(a, l', l_5, part(a, l'))
match_5(a, l', l_5, Pair(l1, l2)) → append(quick(l1), Cons(a, quick(l2)))

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

APPEND(l1_2, l2_1) → MATCH_0(l1_2, l2_1, l1_2)
The graph contains the following edges 1 >= 1, 2 >= 2, 1 >= 3
MATCH_0(l1_2, l2_1, Cons(x, l)) → APPEND(l, l2_1)
The graph contains the following edges 3 > 1, 2 >= 2

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ QDPOrderProof

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

QUICK(l_5) → MATCH_4(l_5, l_5)
MATCH_5(a, l', l_5, Pair(l1, l2)) → QUICK(l1)
MATCH_4(l_5, Cons(a, l')) → MATCH_5(a, l', l_5, part(a, l'))
MATCH_5(a, l', l_5, Pair(l1, l2)) → QUICK(l2)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

test(x_0, y) → True
test(x_0, y) → False
append(l1_2, l2_1) → match_0(l1_2, l2_1, l1_2)
match_0(l1_2, l2_1, Nil) → l2_1
match_0(l1_2, l2_1, Cons(x, l)) → Cons(x, append(l, l2_1))
part(a_4, l_3) → match_1(a_4, l_3, l_3)
match_1(a_4, l_3, Nil) → Pair(Nil, Nil)
match_1(a_4, l_3, Cons(x, l')) → match_2(x, l', a_4, l_3, part(a_4, l'))
match_2(x, l', a_4, l_3, Pair(l1, l2)) → match_3(l1, l2, x, l', a_4, l_3, test(a_4, x))
match_3(l1, l2, x, l', a_4, l_3, False) → Pair(Cons(x, l1), l2)
match_3(l1, l2, x, l', a_4, l_3, True) → Pair(l1, Cons(x, l2))
quick(l_5) → match_4(l_5, l_5)
match_4(l_5, Nil) → Nil
match_4(l_5, Cons(a, l')) → match_5(a, l', l_5, part(a, l'))
match_5(a, l', l_5, Pair(l1, l2)) → append(quick(l1), Cons(a, quick(l2)))

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.

MATCH_4(l_5, Cons(a, l')) → MATCH_5(a, l', l_5, part(a, l'))

The remaining pairs can at least be oriented weakly.

QUICK(l_5) → MATCH_4(l_5, l_5)
MATCH_5(a, l', l_5, Pair(l1, l2)) → QUICK(l1)
MATCH_5(a, l', l_5, Pair(l1, l2)) → QUICK(l2)

Used ordering: Polynomial interpretation [25]:

POL(Cons(x₁, x₂)) = 1 + x₂
POL(False) = 0
POL(MATCH_4(x₁, x₂)) = x₂
POL(MATCH_5(x₁, x₂, x₃, x₄)) = x₄
POL(Nil) = 0
POL(Pair(x₁, x₂)) = x₁ + x₂
POL(QUICK(x₁)) = x₁
POL(True) = 0
POL(match_1(x₁, x₂, x₃)) = x₃
POL(match_2(x₁, x₂, x₃, x₄, x₅)) = 1 + x₅
POL(match_3(x₁, x₂, x₃, x₄, x₅, x₆, x₇)) = 1 + x₁ + x₂
POL(part(x₁, x₂)) = x₂
POL(test(x₁, x₂)) = 0

The following usable rules [17] were oriented:

match_1(a_4, l_3, Cons(x, l')) → match_2(x, l', a_4, l_3, part(a_4, l'))
match_2(x, l', a_4, l_3, Pair(l1, l2)) → match_3(l1, l2, x, l', a_4, l_3, test(a_4, x))
match_3(l1, l2, x, l', a_4, l_3, False) → Pair(Cons(x, l1), l2)
match_3(l1, l2, x, l', a_4, l_3, True) → Pair(l1, Cons(x, l2))
part(a_4, l_3) → match_1(a_4, l_3, l_3)
match_1(a_4, l_3, Nil) → Pair(Nil, Nil)

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ QDPOrderProof

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ DependencyGraphProof

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

QUICK(l_5) → MATCH_4(l_5, l_5)
MATCH_5(a, l', l_5, Pair(l1, l2)) → QUICK(l1)
MATCH_5(a, l', l_5, Pair(l1, l2)) → QUICK(l2)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

test(x_0, y) → True
test(x_0, y) → False
append(l1_2, l2_1) → match_0(l1_2, l2_1, l1_2)
match_0(l1_2, l2_1, Nil) → l2_1
match_0(l1_2, l2_1, Cons(x, l)) → Cons(x, append(l, l2_1))
part(a_4, l_3) → match_1(a_4, l_3, l_3)
match_1(a_4, l_3, Nil) → Pair(Nil, Nil)
match_1(a_4, l_3, Cons(x, l')) → match_2(x, l', a_4, l_3, part(a_4, l'))
match_2(x, l', a_4, l_3, Pair(l1, l2)) → match_3(l1, l2, x, l', a_4, l_3, test(a_4, x))
match_3(l1, l2, x, l', a_4, l_3, False) → Pair(Cons(x, l1), l2)
match_3(l1, l2, x, l', a_4, l_3, True) → Pair(l1, Cons(x, l2))
quick(l_5) → match_4(l_5, l_5)
match_4(l_5, Nil) → Nil
match_4(l_5, Cons(a, l')) → match_5(a, l', l_5, part(a, l'))
match_5(a, l', l_5, Pair(l1, l2)) → append(quick(l1), Cons(a, quick(l2)))

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 3 less nodes.