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:

and(x, or(y, z)) → or(and(x, y), and(x, z))
and(x, and(y, y)) → and(x, y)
or(or(x, y), and(y, z)) → or(x, y)
or(x, and(x, y)) → x
or(true, y) → true
or(x, false) → x
or(x, x) → x
or(x, or(y, y)) → or(x, y)
and(x, true) → x
and(false, y) → false
and(x, x) → x

Q is empty.


↳ QTRS
  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

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

and(x, or(y, z)) → or(and(x, y), and(x, z))
and(x, and(y, y)) → and(x, y)
or(or(x, y), and(y, z)) → or(x, y)
or(x, and(x, y)) → x
or(true, y) → true
or(x, false) → x
or(x, x) → x
or(x, or(y, y)) → or(x, y)
and(x, true) → x
and(false, y) → false
and(x, x) → x

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:

AND(x, or(y, z)) → AND(x, y)
AND(x, or(y, z)) → OR(and(x, y), and(x, z))
AND(x, or(y, z)) → AND(x, z)
OR(x, or(y, y)) → OR(x, y)
AND(x, and(y, y)) → AND(x, y)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

and(x, or(y, z)) → or(and(x, y), and(x, z))
and(x, and(y, y)) → and(x, y)
or(or(x, y), and(y, z)) → or(x, y)
or(x, and(x, y)) → x
or(true, y) → true
or(x, false) → x
or(x, x) → x
or(x, or(y, y)) → or(x, y)
and(x, true) → x
and(false, y) → false
and(x, x) → x

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:

AND(x, or(y, z)) → AND(x, y)
AND(x, or(y, z)) → OR(and(x, y), and(x, z))
AND(x, or(y, z)) → AND(x, z)
OR(x, or(y, y)) → OR(x, y)
AND(x, and(y, y)) → AND(x, y)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

and(x, or(y, z)) → or(and(x, y), and(x, z))
and(x, and(y, y)) → and(x, y)
or(or(x, y), and(y, z)) → or(x, y)
or(x, and(x, y)) → x
or(true, y) → true
or(x, false) → x
or(x, x) → x
or(x, or(y, y)) → or(x, y)
and(x, true) → x
and(false, y) → false
and(x, x) → x

Q is empty.
We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
The approximation of the Dependency Graph [15,17,22] contains 2 SCCs with 1 less node.

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

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

OR(x, or(y, y)) → OR(x, y)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

and(x, or(y, z)) → or(and(x, y), and(x, z))
and(x, and(y, y)) → and(x, y)
or(or(x, y), and(y, z)) → or(x, y)
or(x, and(x, y)) → x
or(true, y) → true
or(x, false) → x
or(x, x) → x
or(x, or(y, y)) → or(x, y)
and(x, true) → x
and(false, y) → false
and(x, x) → x

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

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

OR(x, or(y, y)) → OR(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: 



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

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

AND(x, or(y, z)) → AND(x, y)
AND(x, or(y, z)) → AND(x, z)
AND(x, and(y, y)) → AND(x, y)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

and(x, or(y, z)) → or(and(x, y), and(x, z))
and(x, and(y, y)) → and(x, y)
or(or(x, y), and(y, z)) → or(x, y)
or(x, and(x, y)) → x
or(true, y) → true
or(x, false) → x
or(x, x) → x
or(x, or(y, y)) → or(x, y)
and(x, true) → x
and(false, y) → false
and(x, x) → x

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

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

AND(x, or(y, z)) → AND(x, y)
AND(x, or(y, z)) → AND(x, z)
AND(x, and(y, y)) → AND(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: