Termination w.r.t. Q proof of /tmp/tmptWScrV/2.23.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:

fac(0) → 1
fac(s(x)) → *(s(x), fac(x))
floop(0, y) → y
floop(s(x), y) → floop(x, *(s(x), y))
*(x, 0) → 0
*(x, s(y)) → +(*(x, y), x)
+(x, 0) → x
+(x, s(y)) → s(+(x, y))
1 → s(0)
fac(0) → s(0)

Q is empty.

↳ QTRS

  ↳ Overlay + Local Confluence

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

fac(0) → 1
fac(s(x)) → *(s(x), fac(x))
floop(0, y) → y
floop(s(x), y) → floop(x, *(s(x), y))
*(x, 0) → 0
*(x, s(y)) → +(*(x, y), x)
+(x, 0) → x
+(x, s(y)) → s(+(x, y))
1 → s(0)
fac(0) → s(0)

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:

fac(0) → 1
fac(s(x)) → *(s(x), fac(x))
floop(0, y) → y
floop(s(x), y) → floop(x, *(s(x), y))
*(x, 0) → 0
*(x, s(y)) → +(*(x, y), x)
+(x, 0) → x
+(x, s(y)) → s(+(x, y))
1 → s(0)
fac(0) → s(0)

The set Q consists of the following terms:

fac(0)
fac(s(x0))
floop(0, x0)
floop(s(x0), x1)
*(x0, 0)
*(x0, s(x1))
+(x0, 0)
+(x0, s(x1))
1

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

FAC(s(x)) → *¹(s(x), fac(x))
FAC(s(x)) → FAC(x)
+¹(x, s(y)) → +¹(x, y)
FLOOP(s(x), y) → FLOOP(x, *(s(x), y))
FLOOP(s(x), y) → *¹(s(x), y)
*¹(x, s(y)) → *¹(x, y)
FAC(0) → 1¹
*¹(x, s(y)) → +¹(*(x, y), x)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

fac(0) → 1
fac(s(x)) → *(s(x), fac(x))
floop(0, y) → y
floop(s(x), y) → floop(x, *(s(x), y))
*(x, 0) → 0
*(x, s(y)) → +(*(x, y), x)
+(x, 0) → x
+(x, s(y)) → s(+(x, y))
1 → s(0)
fac(0) → s(0)

The set Q consists of the following terms:

fac(0)
fac(s(x0))
floop(0, x0)
floop(s(x0), x1)
*(x0, 0)
*(x0, s(x1))
+(x0, 0)
+(x0, s(x1))
1

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:

FAC(s(x)) → *¹(s(x), fac(x))
FAC(s(x)) → FAC(x)
+¹(x, s(y)) → +¹(x, y)
FLOOP(s(x), y) → FLOOP(x, *(s(x), y))
FLOOP(s(x), y) → *¹(s(x), y)
*¹(x, s(y)) → *¹(x, y)
FAC(0) → 1¹
*¹(x, s(y)) → +¹(*(x, y), x)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

fac(0) → 1
fac(s(x)) → *(s(x), fac(x))
floop(0, y) → y
floop(s(x), y) → floop(x, *(s(x), y))
*(x, 0) → 0
*(x, s(y)) → +(*(x, y), x)
+(x, 0) → x
+(x, s(y)) → s(+(x, y))
1 → s(0)
fac(0) → s(0)

The set Q consists of the following terms:

fac(0)
fac(s(x0))
floop(0, x0)
floop(s(x0), x1)
*(x0, 0)
*(x0, s(x1))
+(x0, 0)
+(x0, s(x1))
1

We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
The approximation of the Dependency Graph [15,17,22] contains 4 SCCs with 4 less nodes.

↳ QTRS

  ↳ Overlay + Local Confluence

    ↳ QTRS

      ↳ DependencyPairsProof

        ↳ QDP

          ↳ DependencyGraphProof

            ↳ AND

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ UsableRulesProof

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ 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:

fac(0) → 1
fac(s(x)) → *(s(x), fac(x))
floop(0, y) → y
floop(s(x), y) → floop(x, *(s(x), y))
*(x, 0) → 0
*(x, s(y)) → +(*(x, y), x)
+(x, 0) → x
+(x, s(y)) → s(+(x, y))
1 → s(0)
fac(0) → s(0)

The set Q consists of the following terms:

fac(0)
fac(s(x0))
floop(0, x0)
floop(s(x0), x1)
*(x0, 0)
*(x0, s(x1))
+(x0, 0)
+(x0, s(x1))
1

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

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

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

+¹(x, s(y)) → +¹(x, y)

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

fac(0)
fac(s(x0))
floop(0, x0)
floop(s(x0), x1)
*(x0, 0)
*(x0, s(x1))
+(x0, 0)
+(x0, s(x1))
1

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.

fac(0)
fac(s(x0))
floop(0, x0)
floop(s(x0), x1)
*(x0, 0)
*(x0, s(x1))
+(x0, 0)
+(x0, s(x1))
1

↳ QTRS

  ↳ Overlay + Local Confluence

    ↳ QTRS

      ↳ DependencyPairsProof

        ↳ QDP

          ↳ DependencyGraphProof

            ↳ AND

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ UsableRulesProof

                  ↳ QDP

                    ↳ QReductionProof

                      ↳ QDP

                        ↳ QDPSizeChangeProof

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ 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

  ↳ Overlay + Local Confluence

    ↳ QTRS

      ↳ DependencyPairsProof

        ↳ QDP

          ↳ DependencyGraphProof

            ↳ AND

              ↳ 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:

fac(0) → 1
fac(s(x)) → *(s(x), fac(x))
floop(0, y) → y
floop(s(x), y) → floop(x, *(s(x), y))
*(x, 0) → 0
*(x, s(y)) → +(*(x, y), x)
+(x, 0) → x
+(x, s(y)) → s(+(x, y))
1 → s(0)
fac(0) → s(0)

The set Q consists of the following terms:

fac(0)
fac(s(x0))
floop(0, x0)
floop(s(x0), x1)
*(x0, 0)
*(x0, s(x1))
+(x0, 0)
+(x0, s(x1))
1

↳ QTRS

  ↳ Overlay + Local Confluence

    ↳ QTRS

      ↳ DependencyPairsProof

        ↳ QDP

          ↳ DependencyGraphProof

            ↳ AND

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ UsableRulesProof

                  ↳ QDP

                    ↳ QReductionProof

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

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

*¹(x, s(y)) → *¹(x, y)

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

fac(0)
fac(s(x0))
floop(0, x0)
floop(s(x0), x1)
*(x0, 0)
*(x0, s(x1))
+(x0, 0)
+(x0, s(x1))
1

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.

fac(0)
fac(s(x0))
floop(0, x0)
floop(s(x0), x1)
*(x0, 0)
*(x0, s(x1))
+(x0, 0)
+(x0, s(x1))
1

↳ QTRS

  ↳ Overlay + Local Confluence

    ↳ QTRS

      ↳ DependencyPairsProof

        ↳ QDP

          ↳ DependencyGraphProof

            ↳ AND

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ UsableRulesProof

                  ↳ QDP

                    ↳ QReductionProof

                      ↳ QDP

                        ↳ QDPSizeChangeProof

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

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

*¹(x, s(y)) → *¹(x, y)

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

  ↳ Overlay + Local Confluence

    ↳ QTRS

      ↳ DependencyPairsProof

        ↳ QDP

          ↳ DependencyGraphProof

            ↳ AND

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ UsableRulesProof

              ↳ QDP

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

FLOOP(s(x), y) → FLOOP(x, *(s(x), y))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

fac(0) → 1
fac(s(x)) → *(s(x), fac(x))
floop(0, y) → y
floop(s(x), y) → floop(x, *(s(x), y))
*(x, 0) → 0
*(x, s(y)) → +(*(x, y), x)
+(x, 0) → x
+(x, s(y)) → s(+(x, y))
1 → s(0)
fac(0) → s(0)

The set Q consists of the following terms:

fac(0)
fac(s(x0))
floop(0, x0)
floop(s(x0), x1)
*(x0, 0)
*(x0, s(x1))
+(x0, 0)
+(x0, s(x1))
1

↳ QTRS

  ↳ Overlay + Local Confluence

    ↳ QTRS

      ↳ DependencyPairsProof

        ↳ QDP

          ↳ DependencyGraphProof

            ↳ AND

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ UsableRulesProof

                  ↳ QDP

                    ↳ QReductionProof

              ↳ QDP

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

FLOOP(s(x), y) → FLOOP(x, *(s(x), y))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

*(x, 0) → 0
*(x, s(y)) → +(*(x, y), x)
+(x, 0) → x
+(x, s(y)) → s(+(x, y))

The set Q consists of the following terms:

fac(0)
fac(s(x0))
floop(0, x0)
floop(s(x0), x1)
*(x0, 0)
*(x0, s(x1))
+(x0, 0)
+(x0, s(x1))
1

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.

fac(0)
fac(s(x0))
floop(0, x0)
floop(s(x0), x1)
1

↳ QTRS

  ↳ Overlay + Local Confluence

    ↳ QTRS

      ↳ DependencyPairsProof

        ↳ QDP

          ↳ DependencyGraphProof

            ↳ AND

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ UsableRulesProof

                  ↳ QDP

                    ↳ QReductionProof

                      ↳ QDP

                        ↳ QDPSizeChangeProof

              ↳ QDP

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

FLOOP(s(x), y) → FLOOP(x, *(s(x), y))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

*(x, 0) → 0
*(x, s(y)) → +(*(x, y), x)
+(x, 0) → x
+(x, s(y)) → s(+(x, y))

The set Q consists of the following terms:

*(x0, 0)
*(x0, s(x1))
+(x0, 0)
+(x0, s(x1))

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:

FLOOP(s(x), y) → FLOOP(x, *(s(x), y))
The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1

↳ QTRS

  ↳ Overlay + Local Confluence

    ↳ QTRS

      ↳ DependencyPairsProof

        ↳ QDP

          ↳ DependencyGraphProof

            ↳ AND

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ UsableRulesProof

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

FAC(s(x)) → FAC(x)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

fac(0) → 1
fac(s(x)) → *(s(x), fac(x))
floop(0, y) → y
floop(s(x), y) → floop(x, *(s(x), y))
*(x, 0) → 0
*(x, s(y)) → +(*(x, y), x)
+(x, 0) → x
+(x, s(y)) → s(+(x, y))
1 → s(0)
fac(0) → s(0)

The set Q consists of the following terms:

fac(0)
fac(s(x0))
floop(0, x0)
floop(s(x0), x1)
*(x0, 0)
*(x0, s(x1))
+(x0, 0)
+(x0, s(x1))
1

↳ QTRS

  ↳ Overlay + Local Confluence

    ↳ QTRS

      ↳ DependencyPairsProof

        ↳ QDP

          ↳ DependencyGraphProof

            ↳ AND

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ UsableRulesProof

                  ↳ QDP

                    ↳ QReductionProof

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

FAC(s(x)) → FAC(x)

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

fac(0)
fac(s(x0))
floop(0, x0)
floop(s(x0), x1)
*(x0, 0)
*(x0, s(x1))
+(x0, 0)
+(x0, s(x1))
1

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.

fac(0)
fac(s(x0))
floop(0, x0)
floop(s(x0), x1)
*(x0, 0)
*(x0, s(x1))
+(x0, 0)
+(x0, s(x1))
1

↳ QTRS

  ↳ Overlay + Local Confluence

    ↳ QTRS

      ↳ DependencyPairsProof

        ↳ QDP

          ↳ DependencyGraphProof

            ↳ AND

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ UsableRulesProof

                  ↳ QDP

                    ↳ QReductionProof

                      ↳ QDP

                        ↳ QDPSizeChangeProof

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

FAC(s(x)) → FAC(x)

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

FAC(s(x)) → FAC(x)
The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1