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:
-(x, 0) → x
-(s(x), s(y)) → -(x, y)
*(x, 0) → 0
*(x, s(y)) → +(*(x, y), x)
if(true, x, y) → x
if(false, x, y) → y
odd(0) → false
odd(s(0)) → true
odd(s(s(x))) → odd(x)
half(0) → 0
half(s(0)) → 0
half(s(s(x))) → s(half(x))
if(true, x, y) → true
if(false, x, y) → false
pow(x, y) → f(x, y, s(0))
f(x, 0, z) → z
f(x, s(y), z) → if(odd(s(y)), f(x, y, *(x, z)), f(*(x, x), half(s(y)), z))
Q is empty.
↳ QTRS
↳ DependencyPairsProof
Q restricted rewrite system:
The TRS R consists of the following rules:
-(x, 0) → x
-(s(x), s(y)) → -(x, y)
*(x, 0) → 0
*(x, s(y)) → +(*(x, y), x)
if(true, x, y) → x
if(false, x, y) → y
odd(0) → false
odd(s(0)) → true
odd(s(s(x))) → odd(x)
half(0) → 0
half(s(0)) → 0
half(s(s(x))) → s(half(x))
if(true, x, y) → true
if(false, x, y) → false
pow(x, y) → f(x, y, s(0))
f(x, 0, z) → z
f(x, s(y), z) → if(odd(s(y)), f(x, y, *(x, z)), f(*(x, x), half(s(y)), z))
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:
ODD(s(s(x))) → ODD(x)
-1(s(x), s(y)) → -1(x, y)
HALF(s(s(x))) → HALF(x)
F(x, s(y), z) → F(x, y, *(x, z))
F(x, s(y), z) → *1(x, x)
F(x, s(y), z) → F(*(x, x), half(s(y)), z)
POW(x, y) → F(x, y, s(0))
F(x, s(y), z) → ODD(s(y))
F(x, s(y), z) → IF(odd(s(y)), f(x, y, *(x, z)), f(*(x, x), half(s(y)), z))
*1(x, s(y)) → *1(x, y)
F(x, s(y), z) → HALF(s(y))
F(x, s(y), z) → *1(x, z)
The TRS R consists of the following rules:
-(x, 0) → x
-(s(x), s(y)) → -(x, y)
*(x, 0) → 0
*(x, s(y)) → +(*(x, y), x)
if(true, x, y) → x
if(false, x, y) → y
odd(0) → false
odd(s(0)) → true
odd(s(s(x))) → odd(x)
half(0) → 0
half(s(0)) → 0
half(s(s(x))) → s(half(x))
if(true, x, y) → true
if(false, x, y) → false
pow(x, y) → f(x, y, s(0))
f(x, 0, z) → z
f(x, s(y), z) → if(odd(s(y)), f(x, y, *(x, z)), f(*(x, x), half(s(y)), z))
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:
ODD(s(s(x))) → ODD(x)
-1(s(x), s(y)) → -1(x, y)
HALF(s(s(x))) → HALF(x)
F(x, s(y), z) → F(x, y, *(x, z))
F(x, s(y), z) → *1(x, x)
F(x, s(y), z) → F(*(x, x), half(s(y)), z)
POW(x, y) → F(x, y, s(0))
F(x, s(y), z) → ODD(s(y))
F(x, s(y), z) → IF(odd(s(y)), f(x, y, *(x, z)), f(*(x, x), half(s(y)), z))
*1(x, s(y)) → *1(x, y)
F(x, s(y), z) → HALF(s(y))
F(x, s(y), z) → *1(x, z)
The TRS R consists of the following rules:
-(x, 0) → x
-(s(x), s(y)) → -(x, y)
*(x, 0) → 0
*(x, s(y)) → +(*(x, y), x)
if(true, x, y) → x
if(false, x, y) → y
odd(0) → false
odd(s(0)) → true
odd(s(s(x))) → odd(x)
half(0) → 0
half(s(0)) → 0
half(s(s(x))) → s(half(x))
if(true, x, y) → true
if(false, x, y) → false
pow(x, y) → f(x, y, s(0))
f(x, 0, z) → z
f(x, s(y), z) → if(odd(s(y)), f(x, y, *(x, z)), f(*(x, x), half(s(y)), z))
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 6 less nodes.
↳ QTRS
↳ DependencyPairsProof
↳ QDP
↳ DependencyGraphProof
↳ AND
↳ QDP
↳ UsableRulesProof
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:
HALF(s(s(x))) → HALF(x)
The TRS R consists of the following rules:
-(x, 0) → x
-(s(x), s(y)) → -(x, y)
*(x, 0) → 0
*(x, s(y)) → +(*(x, y), x)
if(true, x, y) → x
if(false, x, y) → y
odd(0) → false
odd(s(0)) → true
odd(s(s(x))) → odd(x)
half(0) → 0
half(s(0)) → 0
half(s(s(x))) → s(half(x))
if(true, x, y) → true
if(false, x, y) → false
pow(x, y) → f(x, y, s(0))
f(x, 0, z) → z
f(x, s(y), z) → if(odd(s(y)), f(x, y, *(x, z)), f(*(x, x), half(s(y)), z))
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
↳ DependencyPairsProof
↳ QDP
↳ DependencyGraphProof
↳ AND
↳ QDP
↳ UsableRulesProof
↳ QDP
↳ QDPSizeChangeProof
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:
HALF(s(s(x))) → HALF(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:
- HALF(s(s(x))) → HALF(x)
The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1
↳ QTRS
↳ DependencyPairsProof
↳ QDP
↳ DependencyGraphProof
↳ AND
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ UsableRulesProof
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:
ODD(s(s(x))) → ODD(x)
The TRS R consists of the following rules:
-(x, 0) → x
-(s(x), s(y)) → -(x, y)
*(x, 0) → 0
*(x, s(y)) → +(*(x, y), x)
if(true, x, y) → x
if(false, x, y) → y
odd(0) → false
odd(s(0)) → true
odd(s(s(x))) → odd(x)
half(0) → 0
half(s(0)) → 0
half(s(s(x))) → s(half(x))
if(true, x, y) → true
if(false, x, y) → false
pow(x, y) → f(x, y, s(0))
f(x, 0, z) → z
f(x, s(y), z) → if(odd(s(y)), f(x, y, *(x, z)), f(*(x, x), half(s(y)), z))
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
↳ DependencyPairsProof
↳ QDP
↳ DependencyGraphProof
↳ AND
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ UsableRulesProof
↳ QDP
↳ QDPSizeChangeProof
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:
ODD(s(s(x))) → ODD(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:
- ODD(s(s(x))) → ODD(x)
The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1
↳ QTRS
↳ DependencyPairsProof
↳ QDP
↳ DependencyGraphProof
↳ AND
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ UsableRulesProof
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:
*1(x, s(y)) → *1(x, y)
The TRS R consists of the following rules:
-(x, 0) → x
-(s(x), s(y)) → -(x, y)
*(x, 0) → 0
*(x, s(y)) → +(*(x, y), x)
if(true, x, y) → x
if(false, x, y) → y
odd(0) → false
odd(s(0)) → true
odd(s(s(x))) → odd(x)
half(0) → 0
half(s(0)) → 0
half(s(s(x))) → s(half(x))
if(true, x, y) → true
if(false, x, y) → false
pow(x, y) → f(x, y, s(0))
f(x, 0, z) → z
f(x, s(y), z) → if(odd(s(y)), f(x, y, *(x, z)), f(*(x, x), half(s(y)), z))
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
↳ DependencyPairsProof
↳ QDP
↳ DependencyGraphProof
↳ AND
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ UsableRulesProof
↳ QDP
↳ QDPSizeChangeProof
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:
*1(x, s(y)) → *1(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:
- *1(x, s(y)) → *1(x, y)
The graph contains the following edges 1 >= 1, 2 > 2
↳ QTRS
↳ DependencyPairsProof
↳ QDP
↳ DependencyGraphProof
↳ AND
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ QDPOrderProof
↳ QDP
Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:
F(x, s(y), z) → F(x, y, *(x, z))
F(x, s(y), z) → F(*(x, x), half(s(y)), z)
The TRS R consists of the following rules:
-(x, 0) → x
-(s(x), s(y)) → -(x, y)
*(x, 0) → 0
*(x, s(y)) → +(*(x, y), x)
if(true, x, y) → x
if(false, x, y) → y
odd(0) → false
odd(s(0)) → true
odd(s(s(x))) → odd(x)
half(0) → 0
half(s(0)) → 0
half(s(s(x))) → s(half(x))
if(true, x, y) → true
if(false, x, y) → false
pow(x, y) → f(x, y, s(0))
f(x, 0, z) → z
f(x, s(y), z) → if(odd(s(y)), f(x, y, *(x, z)), f(*(x, x), half(s(y)), z))
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.
F(x, s(y), z) → F(x, y, *(x, z))
The remaining pairs can at least be oriented weakly.
F(x, s(y), z) → F(*(x, x), half(s(y)), z)
Used ordering: Polynomial interpretation [25]:
POL(*(x1, x2)) = 0
POL(+(x1, x2)) = 0
POL(0) = 1
POL(F(x1, x2, x3)) = x2
POL(half(x1)) = x1
POL(s(x1)) = 1 + x1
The following usable rules [17] were oriented:
half(0) → 0
half(s(0)) → 0
half(s(s(x))) → s(half(x))
↳ QTRS
↳ DependencyPairsProof
↳ QDP
↳ DependencyGraphProof
↳ AND
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ QDPOrderProof
↳ QDP
↳ QDPOrderProof
↳ QDP
Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:
F(x, s(y), z) → F(*(x, x), half(s(y)), z)
The TRS R consists of the following rules:
-(x, 0) → x
-(s(x), s(y)) → -(x, y)
*(x, 0) → 0
*(x, s(y)) → +(*(x, y), x)
if(true, x, y) → x
if(false, x, y) → y
odd(0) → false
odd(s(0)) → true
odd(s(s(x))) → odd(x)
half(0) → 0
half(s(0)) → 0
half(s(s(x))) → s(half(x))
if(true, x, y) → true
if(false, x, y) → false
pow(x, y) → f(x, y, s(0))
f(x, 0, z) → z
f(x, s(y), z) → if(odd(s(y)), f(x, y, *(x, z)), f(*(x, x), half(s(y)), z))
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.
F(x, s(y), z) → F(*(x, x), half(s(y)), z)
The remaining pairs can at least be oriented weakly.
none
Used ordering: Matrix interpretation [3]:
Non-tuple symbols:
M( *(x1, x2) ) = | | + | | · | x1 | + | | · | x2 |
M( +(x1, x2) ) = | | + | | · | x1 | + | | · | x2 |
Tuple symbols:
M( F(x1, ..., x3) ) = | 0 | + | | · | x1 | + | | · | x2 | + | | · | x3 |
Matrix type:
We used a basic matrix type which is not further parametrizeable.
As matrix orders are CE-compatible, we used usable rules w.r.t. argument filtering in the order.
The following usable rules [17] were oriented:
*(x, 0) → 0
*(x, s(y)) → +(*(x, y), x)
half(0) → 0
half(s(0)) → 0
half(s(s(x))) → s(half(x))
↳ QTRS
↳ DependencyPairsProof
↳ QDP
↳ DependencyGraphProof
↳ AND
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ QDPOrderProof
↳ QDP
↳ QDPOrderProof
↳ QDP
↳ PisEmptyProof
↳ QDP
Q DP problem:
P is empty.
The TRS R consists of the following rules:
-(x, 0) → x
-(s(x), s(y)) → -(x, y)
*(x, 0) → 0
*(x, s(y)) → +(*(x, y), x)
if(true, x, y) → x
if(false, x, y) → y
odd(0) → false
odd(s(0)) → true
odd(s(s(x))) → odd(x)
half(0) → 0
half(s(0)) → 0
half(s(s(x))) → s(half(x))
if(true, x, y) → true
if(false, x, y) → false
pow(x, y) → f(x, y, s(0))
f(x, 0, z) → z
f(x, s(y), z) → if(odd(s(y)), f(x, y, *(x, z)), f(*(x, x), half(s(y)), z))
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
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ UsableRulesProof
Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:
-1(s(x), s(y)) → -1(x, y)
The TRS R consists of the following rules:
-(x, 0) → x
-(s(x), s(y)) → -(x, y)
*(x, 0) → 0
*(x, s(y)) → +(*(x, y), x)
if(true, x, y) → x
if(false, x, y) → y
odd(0) → false
odd(s(0)) → true
odd(s(s(x))) → odd(x)
half(0) → 0
half(s(0)) → 0
half(s(s(x))) → s(half(x))
if(true, x, y) → true
if(false, x, y) → false
pow(x, y) → f(x, y, s(0))
f(x, 0, z) → z
f(x, s(y), z) → if(odd(s(y)), f(x, y, *(x, z)), f(*(x, x), half(s(y)), z))
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
↳ DependencyPairsProof
↳ QDP
↳ DependencyGraphProof
↳ AND
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ UsableRulesProof
↳ QDP
↳ QDPSizeChangeProof
Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:
-1(s(x), s(y)) → -1(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:
- -1(s(x), s(y)) → -1(x, y)
The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1, 2 > 2