Termination w.r.t. Q proof of /tmp/tmp73wbly/gm.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:

minus(X, 0) → X
minus(s(X), s(Y)) → p(minus(X, Y))
p(s(X)) → X
div(0, s(Y)) → 0
div(s(X), s(Y)) → s(div(minus(X, Y), s(Y)))

Q is empty.

↳ QTRS

  ↳ Overlay + Local Confluence

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

minus(X, 0) → X
minus(s(X), s(Y)) → p(minus(X, Y))
p(s(X)) → X
div(0, s(Y)) → 0
div(s(X), s(Y)) → s(div(minus(X, Y), s(Y)))

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:

minus(X, 0) → X
minus(s(X), s(Y)) → p(minus(X, Y))
p(s(X)) → X
div(0, s(Y)) → 0
div(s(X), s(Y)) → s(div(minus(X, Y), s(Y)))

The set Q consists of the following terms:

minus(x0, 0)
minus(s(x0), s(x1))
p(s(x0))
div(0, s(x0))
div(s(x0), s(x1))

Using Dependency Pairs [1,15] we result in the following initial DP problem:
Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:

DIV(s(X), s(Y)) → DIV(minus(X, Y), s(Y))
MINUS(s(X), s(Y)) → MINUS(X, Y)
MINUS(s(X), s(Y)) → P(minus(X, Y))
DIV(s(X), s(Y)) → MINUS(X, Y)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

minus(X, 0) → X
minus(s(X), s(Y)) → p(minus(X, Y))
p(s(X)) → X
div(0, s(Y)) → 0
div(s(X), s(Y)) → s(div(minus(X, Y), s(Y)))

The set Q consists of the following terms:

minus(x0, 0)
minus(s(x0), s(x1))
p(s(x0))
div(0, s(x0))
div(s(x0), s(x1))

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:

DIV(s(X), s(Y)) → DIV(minus(X, Y), s(Y))
MINUS(s(X), s(Y)) → MINUS(X, Y)
MINUS(s(X), s(Y)) → P(minus(X, Y))
DIV(s(X), s(Y)) → MINUS(X, Y)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

minus(X, 0) → X
minus(s(X), s(Y)) → p(minus(X, Y))
p(s(X)) → X
div(0, s(Y)) → 0
div(s(X), s(Y)) → s(div(minus(X, Y), s(Y)))

The set Q consists of the following terms:

minus(x0, 0)
minus(s(x0), s(x1))
p(s(x0))
div(0, s(x0))
div(s(x0), s(x1))

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

↳ QTRS

  ↳ Overlay + Local Confluence

    ↳ QTRS

      ↳ DependencyPairsProof

        ↳ QDP

          ↳ DependencyGraphProof

            ↳ AND

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ UsableRulesProof

              ↳ QDP

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

MINUS(s(X), s(Y)) → MINUS(X, Y)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

minus(X, 0) → X
minus(s(X), s(Y)) → p(minus(X, Y))
p(s(X)) → X
div(0, s(Y)) → 0
div(s(X), s(Y)) → s(div(minus(X, Y), s(Y)))

The set Q consists of the following terms:

minus(x0, 0)
minus(s(x0), s(x1))
p(s(x0))
div(0, s(x0))
div(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

  ↳ Overlay + Local Confluence

    ↳ QTRS

      ↳ DependencyPairsProof

        ↳ QDP

          ↳ DependencyGraphProof

            ↳ AND

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ UsableRulesProof

                  ↳ QDP

                    ↳ QReductionProof

              ↳ QDP

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

MINUS(s(X), s(Y)) → MINUS(X, Y)

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

minus(x0, 0)
minus(s(x0), s(x1))
p(s(x0))
div(0, s(x0))
div(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.

minus(x0, 0)
minus(s(x0), s(x1))
p(s(x0))
div(0, s(x0))
div(s(x0), s(x1))

↳ QTRS

  ↳ Overlay + Local Confluence

    ↳ QTRS

      ↳ DependencyPairsProof

        ↳ QDP

          ↳ DependencyGraphProof

            ↳ AND

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ UsableRulesProof

                  ↳ QDP

                    ↳ QReductionProof

                      ↳ QDP

                        ↳ QDPSizeChangeProof

              ↳ QDP

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

MINUS(s(X), s(Y)) → MINUS(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:

MINUS(s(X), s(Y)) → MINUS(X, Y)
The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1, 2 > 2

↳ QTRS

  ↳ Overlay + Local Confluence

    ↳ QTRS

      ↳ DependencyPairsProof

        ↳ QDP

          ↳ DependencyGraphProof

            ↳ AND

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ UsableRulesProof

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

DIV(s(X), s(Y)) → DIV(minus(X, Y), s(Y))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

minus(X, 0) → X
minus(s(X), s(Y)) → p(minus(X, Y))
p(s(X)) → X
div(0, s(Y)) → 0
div(s(X), s(Y)) → s(div(minus(X, Y), s(Y)))

The set Q consists of the following terms:

minus(x0, 0)
minus(s(x0), s(x1))
p(s(x0))
div(0, s(x0))
div(s(x0), s(x1))

↳ QTRS

  ↳ Overlay + Local Confluence

    ↳ QTRS

      ↳ DependencyPairsProof

        ↳ QDP

          ↳ DependencyGraphProof

            ↳ AND

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ UsableRulesProof

                  ↳ QDP

                    ↳ QReductionProof

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

DIV(s(X), s(Y)) → DIV(minus(X, Y), s(Y))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

minus(X, 0) → X
minus(s(X), s(Y)) → p(minus(X, Y))
p(s(X)) → X

The set Q consists of the following terms:

minus(x0, 0)
minus(s(x0), s(x1))
p(s(x0))
div(0, s(x0))
div(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.

div(0, s(x0))
div(s(x0), s(x1))

↳ QTRS

  ↳ Overlay + Local Confluence

    ↳ QTRS

      ↳ DependencyPairsProof

        ↳ QDP

          ↳ DependencyGraphProof

            ↳ AND

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ UsableRulesProof

                  ↳ QDP

                    ↳ QReductionProof

                      ↳ QDP

                        ↳ QDPOrderProof

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

DIV(s(X), s(Y)) → DIV(minus(X, Y), s(Y))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

minus(X, 0) → X
minus(s(X), s(Y)) → p(minus(X, Y))
p(s(X)) → X

The set Q consists of the following terms:

minus(x0, 0)
minus(s(x0), s(x1))
p(s(x0))

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.

DIV(s(X), s(Y)) → DIV(minus(X, Y), s(Y))

The remaining pairs can at least be oriented weakly.
none
Used ordering: Polynomial interpretation [25]:

POL(0) = 0
POL(DIV(x₁, x₂)) = x₁
POL(minus(x₁, x₂)) = x₁
POL(p(x₁)) = x₁
POL(s(x₁)) = 1 + x₁

The following usable rules [17] were oriented:

minus(s(X), s(Y)) → p(minus(X, Y))
minus(X, 0) → X
p(s(X)) → X

↳ QTRS

  ↳ Overlay + Local Confluence

    ↳ QTRS

      ↳ DependencyPairsProof

        ↳ QDP

          ↳ DependencyGraphProof

            ↳ AND

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ UsableRulesProof

                  ↳ QDP

                    ↳ QReductionProof

                      ↳ QDP

                        ↳ QDPOrderProof

                          ↳ QDP

                            ↳ PisEmptyProof

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

minus(X, 0) → X
minus(s(X), s(Y)) → p(minus(X, Y))
p(s(X)) → X

The set Q consists of the following terms:

minus(x0, 0)
minus(s(x0), s(x1))
p(s(x0))

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