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:

+(a, b) → +(b, a)
+(a, +(b, z)) → +(b, +(a, z))
+(+(x, y), z) → +(x, +(y, z))
f(a, y) → a
f(b, y) → b
f(+(x, y), z) → +(f(x, z), f(y, z))

Q is empty.


↳ QTRS
  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

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

+(a, b) → +(b, a)
+(a, +(b, z)) → +(b, +(a, z))
+(+(x, y), z) → +(x, +(y, z))
f(a, y) → a
f(b, y) → b
f(+(x, y), z) → +(f(x, z), f(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:

F(+(x, y), z) → F(y, z)
F(+(x, y), z) → F(x, z)
F(+(x, y), z) → +1(f(x, z), f(y, z))
+1(+(x, y), z) → +1(y, z)
+1(+(x, y), z) → +1(x, +(y, z))
+1(a, b) → +1(b, a)
+1(a, +(b, z)) → +1(b, +(a, z))
+1(a, +(b, z)) → +1(a, z)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

+(a, b) → +(b, a)
+(a, +(b, z)) → +(b, +(a, z))
+(+(x, y), z) → +(x, +(y, z))
f(a, y) → a
f(b, y) → b
f(+(x, y), z) → +(f(x, z), f(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:

F(+(x, y), z) → F(y, z)
F(+(x, y), z) → F(x, z)
F(+(x, y), z) → +1(f(x, z), f(y, z))
+1(+(x, y), z) → +1(y, z)
+1(+(x, y), z) → +1(x, +(y, z))
+1(a, b) → +1(b, a)
+1(a, +(b, z)) → +1(b, +(a, z))
+1(a, +(b, z)) → +1(a, z)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

+(a, b) → +(b, a)
+(a, +(b, z)) → +(b, +(a, z))
+(+(x, y), z) → +(x, +(y, z))
f(a, y) → a
f(b, y) → b
f(+(x, y), z) → +(f(x, z), f(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 3 SCCs with 3 less nodes.

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

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

+1(a, +(b, z)) → +1(a, z)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

+(a, b) → +(b, a)
+(a, +(b, z)) → +(b, +(a, z))
+(+(x, y), z) → +(x, +(y, z))
f(a, y) → a
f(b, y) → b
f(+(x, y), z) → +(f(x, z), f(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
                ↳ ATransformationProof
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP

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

+1(a, +(b, z)) → +1(a, z)

R is empty.
Q is empty.
We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
We have applied the A-Transformation [17] to get from an applicative problem to a standard problem. 

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

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

a(b(z)) → a(z)

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
  ↳ DependencyPairsProof
    ↳ QDP
      ↳ DependencyGraphProof
        ↳ AND
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP
            ↳ UsableRulesProof
          ↳ 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:

+(a, b) → +(b, a)
+(a, +(b, z)) → +(b, +(a, z))
+(+(x, y), z) → +(x, +(y, z))
f(a, y) → a
f(b, y) → b
f(+(x, y), z) → +(f(x, z), f(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

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:

+(a, b) → +(b, a)
+(a, +(b, z)) → +(b, +(a, z))
+(+(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
  ↳ DependencyPairsProof
    ↳ QDP
      ↳ DependencyGraphProof
        ↳ AND
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP
            ↳ UsableRulesProof

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

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

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

+(a, b) → +(b, a)
+(a, +(b, z)) → +(b, +(a, z))
+(+(x, y), z) → +(x, +(y, z))
f(a, y) → a
f(b, y) → b
f(+(x, y), z) → +(f(x, z), f(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

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

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

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: