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:

half(0) → 0
half(s(0)) → 0
half(s(s(x))) → s(half(x))
le(0, y) → true
le(s(x), 0) → false
le(s(x), s(y)) → le(x, y)
inc(0) → 0
inc(s(x)) → s(inc(x))
log(x) → log2(x, 0)
log2(x, y) → if(le(x, s(0)), x, inc(y))
if(true, x, s(y)) → y
if(false, x, y) → log2(half(x), y)

Q is empty.


QTRS
  ↳ Overlay + Local Confluence

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

half(0) → 0
half(s(0)) → 0
half(s(s(x))) → s(half(x))
le(0, y) → true
le(s(x), 0) → false
le(s(x), s(y)) → le(x, y)
inc(0) → 0
inc(s(x)) → s(inc(x))
log(x) → log2(x, 0)
log2(x, y) → if(le(x, s(0)), x, inc(y))
if(true, x, s(y)) → y
if(false, x, y) → log2(half(x), 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:

half(0) → 0
half(s(0)) → 0
half(s(s(x))) → s(half(x))
le(0, y) → true
le(s(x), 0) → false
le(s(x), s(y)) → le(x, y)
inc(0) → 0
inc(s(x)) → s(inc(x))
log(x) → log2(x, 0)
log2(x, y) → if(le(x, s(0)), x, inc(y))
if(true, x, s(y)) → y
if(false, x, y) → log2(half(x), y)

The set Q consists of the following terms:

half(0)
half(s(0))
half(s(s(x0)))
le(0, x0)
le(s(x0), 0)
le(s(x0), s(x1))
inc(0)
inc(s(x0))
log(x0)
log2(x0, x1)
if(true, x0, s(x1))
if(false, x0, 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:

LOG2(x, y) → IF(le(x, s(0)), x, inc(y))
IF(false, x, y) → HALF(x)
LOG2(x, y) → LE(x, s(0))
HALF(s(s(x))) → HALF(x)
LOG(x) → LOG2(x, 0)
LOG2(x, y) → INC(y)
IF(false, x, y) → LOG2(half(x), y)
INC(s(x)) → INC(x)
LE(s(x), s(y)) → LE(x, y)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

half(0) → 0
half(s(0)) → 0
half(s(s(x))) → s(half(x))
le(0, y) → true
le(s(x), 0) → false
le(s(x), s(y)) → le(x, y)
inc(0) → 0
inc(s(x)) → s(inc(x))
log(x) → log2(x, 0)
log2(x, y) → if(le(x, s(0)), x, inc(y))
if(true, x, s(y)) → y
if(false, x, y) → log2(half(x), y)

The set Q consists of the following terms:

half(0)
half(s(0))
half(s(s(x0)))
le(0, x0)
le(s(x0), 0)
le(s(x0), s(x1))
inc(0)
inc(s(x0))
log(x0)
log2(x0, x1)
if(true, x0, s(x1))
if(false, x0, 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:

LOG2(x, y) → IF(le(x, s(0)), x, inc(y))
IF(false, x, y) → HALF(x)
LOG2(x, y) → LE(x, s(0))
HALF(s(s(x))) → HALF(x)
LOG(x) → LOG2(x, 0)
LOG2(x, y) → INC(y)
IF(false, x, y) → LOG2(half(x), y)
INC(s(x)) → INC(x)
LE(s(x), s(y)) → LE(x, y)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

half(0) → 0
half(s(0)) → 0
half(s(s(x))) → s(half(x))
le(0, y) → true
le(s(x), 0) → false
le(s(x), s(y)) → le(x, y)
inc(0) → 0
inc(s(x)) → s(inc(x))
log(x) → log2(x, 0)
log2(x, y) → if(le(x, s(0)), x, inc(y))
if(true, x, s(y)) → y
if(false, x, y) → log2(half(x), y)

The set Q consists of the following terms:

half(0)
half(s(0))
half(s(s(x0)))
le(0, x0)
le(s(x0), 0)
le(s(x0), s(x1))
inc(0)
inc(s(x0))
log(x0)
log2(x0, x1)
if(true, x0, s(x1))
if(false, x0, x1)

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:

INC(s(x)) → INC(x)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

half(0) → 0
half(s(0)) → 0
half(s(s(x))) → s(half(x))
le(0, y) → true
le(s(x), 0) → false
le(s(x), s(y)) → le(x, y)
inc(0) → 0
inc(s(x)) → s(inc(x))
log(x) → log2(x, 0)
log2(x, y) → if(le(x, s(0)), x, inc(y))
if(true, x, s(y)) → y
if(false, x, y) → log2(half(x), y)

The set Q consists of the following terms:

half(0)
half(s(0))
half(s(s(x0)))
le(0, x0)
le(s(x0), 0)
le(s(x0), s(x1))
inc(0)
inc(s(x0))
log(x0)
log2(x0, x1)
if(true, x0, s(x1))
if(false, x0, 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
              ↳ QDP
              ↳ QDP

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

INC(s(x)) → INC(x)

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

half(0)
half(s(0))
half(s(s(x0)))
le(0, x0)
le(s(x0), 0)
le(s(x0), s(x1))
inc(0)
inc(s(x0))
log(x0)
log2(x0, x1)
if(true, x0, s(x1))
if(false, x0, 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.

half(0)
half(s(0))
half(s(s(x0)))
le(0, x0)
le(s(x0), 0)
le(s(x0), s(x1))
inc(0)
inc(s(x0))
log(x0)
log2(x0, x1)
if(true, x0, s(x1))
if(false, x0, x1)



↳ 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:

INC(s(x)) → INC(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:



↳ 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:

LE(s(x), s(y)) → LE(x, y)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

half(0) → 0
half(s(0)) → 0
half(s(s(x))) → s(half(x))
le(0, y) → true
le(s(x), 0) → false
le(s(x), s(y)) → le(x, y)
inc(0) → 0
inc(s(x)) → s(inc(x))
log(x) → log2(x, 0)
log2(x, y) → if(le(x, s(0)), x, inc(y))
if(true, x, s(y)) → y
if(false, x, y) → log2(half(x), y)

The set Q consists of the following terms:

half(0)
half(s(0))
half(s(s(x0)))
le(0, x0)
le(s(x0), 0)
le(s(x0), s(x1))
inc(0)
inc(s(x0))
log(x0)
log2(x0, x1)
if(true, x0, s(x1))
if(false, x0, 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
              ↳ QDP
                ↳ UsableRulesProof
QDP
                    ↳ QReductionProof
              ↳ QDP
              ↳ QDP

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

LE(s(x), s(y)) → LE(x, y)

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

half(0)
half(s(0))
half(s(s(x0)))
le(0, x0)
le(s(x0), 0)
le(s(x0), s(x1))
inc(0)
inc(s(x0))
log(x0)
log2(x0, x1)
if(true, x0, s(x1))
if(false, x0, 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.

half(0)
half(s(0))
half(s(s(x0)))
le(0, x0)
le(s(x0), 0)
le(s(x0), s(x1))
inc(0)
inc(s(x0))
log(x0)
log2(x0, x1)
if(true, x0, s(x1))
if(false, x0, x1)



↳ 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:

LE(s(x), s(y)) → LE(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
  ↳ Overlay + Local Confluence
    ↳ QTRS
      ↳ DependencyPairsProof
        ↳ QDP
          ↳ DependencyGraphProof
            ↳ AND
              ↳ QDP
              ↳ QDP
QDP
                ↳ UsableRulesProof
              ↳ 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:

half(0) → 0
half(s(0)) → 0
half(s(s(x))) → s(half(x))
le(0, y) → true
le(s(x), 0) → false
le(s(x), s(y)) → le(x, y)
inc(0) → 0
inc(s(x)) → s(inc(x))
log(x) → log2(x, 0)
log2(x, y) → if(le(x, s(0)), x, inc(y))
if(true, x, s(y)) → y
if(false, x, y) → log2(half(x), y)

The set Q consists of the following terms:

half(0)
half(s(0))
half(s(s(x0)))
le(0, x0)
le(s(x0), 0)
le(s(x0), s(x1))
inc(0)
inc(s(x0))
log(x0)
log2(x0, x1)
if(true, x0, s(x1))
if(false, x0, 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
              ↳ QDP
              ↳ QDP
                ↳ UsableRulesProof
QDP
                    ↳ QReductionProof
              ↳ QDP

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

HALF(s(s(x))) → HALF(x)

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

half(0)
half(s(0))
half(s(s(x0)))
le(0, x0)
le(s(x0), 0)
le(s(x0), s(x1))
inc(0)
inc(s(x0))
log(x0)
log2(x0, x1)
if(true, x0, s(x1))
if(false, x0, 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.

half(0)
half(s(0))
half(s(s(x0)))
le(0, x0)
le(s(x0), 0)
le(s(x0), s(x1))
inc(0)
inc(s(x0))
log(x0)
log2(x0, x1)
if(true, x0, s(x1))
if(false, x0, x1)



↳ 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:

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:



↳ 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:

LOG2(x, y) → IF(le(x, s(0)), x, inc(y))
IF(false, x, y) → LOG2(half(x), y)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

half(0) → 0
half(s(0)) → 0
half(s(s(x))) → s(half(x))
le(0, y) → true
le(s(x), 0) → false
le(s(x), s(y)) → le(x, y)
inc(0) → 0
inc(s(x)) → s(inc(x))
log(x) → log2(x, 0)
log2(x, y) → if(le(x, s(0)), x, inc(y))
if(true, x, s(y)) → y
if(false, x, y) → log2(half(x), y)

The set Q consists of the following terms:

half(0)
half(s(0))
half(s(s(x0)))
le(0, x0)
le(s(x0), 0)
le(s(x0), s(x1))
inc(0)
inc(s(x0))
log(x0)
log2(x0, x1)
if(true, x0, s(x1))
if(false, x0, 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
              ↳ QDP
              ↳ QDP
              ↳ QDP
                ↳ UsableRulesProof
QDP
                    ↳ QReductionProof

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

LOG2(x, y) → IF(le(x, s(0)), x, inc(y))
IF(false, x, y) → LOG2(half(x), y)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

half(0) → 0
half(s(0)) → 0
half(s(s(x))) → s(half(x))
le(0, y) → true
le(s(x), s(y)) → le(x, y)
inc(0) → 0
inc(s(x)) → s(inc(x))
le(s(x), 0) → false

The set Q consists of the following terms:

half(0)
half(s(0))
half(s(s(x0)))
le(0, x0)
le(s(x0), 0)
le(s(x0), s(x1))
inc(0)
inc(s(x0))
log(x0)
log2(x0, x1)
if(true, x0, s(x1))
if(false, x0, 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.

log(x0)
log2(x0, x1)
if(true, x0, s(x1))
if(false, x0, x1)



↳ QTRS
  ↳ Overlay + Local Confluence
    ↳ QTRS
      ↳ DependencyPairsProof
        ↳ QDP
          ↳ DependencyGraphProof
            ↳ AND
              ↳ QDP
              ↳ QDP
              ↳ QDP
              ↳ QDP
                ↳ UsableRulesProof
                  ↳ QDP
                    ↳ QReductionProof
QDP
                        ↳ Narrowing

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

LOG2(x, y) → IF(le(x, s(0)), x, inc(y))
IF(false, x, y) → LOG2(half(x), y)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

half(0) → 0
half(s(0)) → 0
half(s(s(x))) → s(half(x))
le(0, y) → true
le(s(x), s(y)) → le(x, y)
inc(0) → 0
inc(s(x)) → s(inc(x))
le(s(x), 0) → false

The set Q consists of the following terms:

half(0)
half(s(0))
half(s(s(x0)))
le(0, x0)
le(s(x0), 0)
le(s(x0), s(x1))
inc(0)
inc(s(x0))

We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
By narrowing [15] the rule LOG2(x, y) → IF(le(x, s(0)), x, inc(y)) at position [0] we obtained the following new rules:

LOG2(0, y1) → IF(true, 0, inc(y1))
LOG2(s(x0), y1) → IF(le(x0, 0), s(x0), inc(y1))



↳ QTRS
  ↳ Overlay + Local Confluence
    ↳ QTRS
      ↳ DependencyPairsProof
        ↳ QDP
          ↳ DependencyGraphProof
            ↳ AND
              ↳ QDP
              ↳ QDP
              ↳ QDP
              ↳ QDP
                ↳ UsableRulesProof
                  ↳ QDP
                    ↳ QReductionProof
                      ↳ QDP
                        ↳ Narrowing
QDP
                            ↳ DependencyGraphProof

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

LOG2(0, y1) → IF(true, 0, inc(y1))
LOG2(s(x0), y1) → IF(le(x0, 0), s(x0), inc(y1))
IF(false, x, y) → LOG2(half(x), y)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

half(0) → 0
half(s(0)) → 0
half(s(s(x))) → s(half(x))
le(0, y) → true
le(s(x), s(y)) → le(x, y)
inc(0) → 0
inc(s(x)) → s(inc(x))
le(s(x), 0) → false

The set Q consists of the following terms:

half(0)
half(s(0))
half(s(s(x0)))
le(0, x0)
le(s(x0), 0)
le(s(x0), s(x1))
inc(0)
inc(s(x0))

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

↳ QTRS
  ↳ Overlay + Local Confluence
    ↳ QTRS
      ↳ DependencyPairsProof
        ↳ QDP
          ↳ DependencyGraphProof
            ↳ AND
              ↳ QDP
              ↳ QDP
              ↳ QDP
              ↳ QDP
                ↳ UsableRulesProof
                  ↳ QDP
                    ↳ QReductionProof
                      ↳ QDP
                        ↳ Narrowing
                          ↳ QDP
                            ↳ DependencyGraphProof
QDP
                                ↳ UsableRulesProof

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

LOG2(s(x0), y1) → IF(le(x0, 0), s(x0), inc(y1))
IF(false, x, y) → LOG2(half(x), y)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

half(0) → 0
half(s(0)) → 0
half(s(s(x))) → s(half(x))
le(0, y) → true
le(s(x), s(y)) → le(x, y)
inc(0) → 0
inc(s(x)) → s(inc(x))
le(s(x), 0) → false

The set Q consists of the following terms:

half(0)
half(s(0))
half(s(s(x0)))
le(0, x0)
le(s(x0), 0)
le(s(x0), s(x1))
inc(0)
inc(s(x0))

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
              ↳ QDP
              ↳ QDP
              ↳ QDP
                ↳ UsableRulesProof
                  ↳ QDP
                    ↳ QReductionProof
                      ↳ QDP
                        ↳ Narrowing
                          ↳ QDP
                            ↳ DependencyGraphProof
                              ↳ QDP
                                ↳ UsableRulesProof
QDP
                                    ↳ Narrowing

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

LOG2(s(x0), y1) → IF(le(x0, 0), s(x0), inc(y1))
IF(false, x, y) → LOG2(half(x), y)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

half(0) → 0
half(s(0)) → 0
half(s(s(x))) → s(half(x))
le(0, y) → true
le(s(x), 0) → false
inc(0) → 0
inc(s(x)) → s(inc(x))

The set Q consists of the following terms:

half(0)
half(s(0))
half(s(s(x0)))
le(0, x0)
le(s(x0), 0)
le(s(x0), s(x1))
inc(0)
inc(s(x0))

We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
By narrowing [15] the rule LOG2(s(x0), y1) → IF(le(x0, 0), s(x0), inc(y1)) at position [0] we obtained the following new rules:

LOG2(s(0), y1) → IF(true, s(0), inc(y1))
LOG2(s(s(x0)), y1) → IF(false, s(s(x0)), inc(y1))



↳ QTRS
  ↳ Overlay + Local Confluence
    ↳ QTRS
      ↳ DependencyPairsProof
        ↳ QDP
          ↳ DependencyGraphProof
            ↳ AND
              ↳ QDP
              ↳ QDP
              ↳ QDP
              ↳ QDP
                ↳ UsableRulesProof
                  ↳ QDP
                    ↳ QReductionProof
                      ↳ QDP
                        ↳ Narrowing
                          ↳ QDP
                            ↳ DependencyGraphProof
                              ↳ QDP
                                ↳ UsableRulesProof
                                  ↳ QDP
                                    ↳ Narrowing
QDP
                                        ↳ DependencyGraphProof

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

LOG2(s(0), y1) → IF(true, s(0), inc(y1))
LOG2(s(s(x0)), y1) → IF(false, s(s(x0)), inc(y1))
IF(false, x, y) → LOG2(half(x), y)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

half(0) → 0
half(s(0)) → 0
half(s(s(x))) → s(half(x))
le(0, y) → true
le(s(x), 0) → false
inc(0) → 0
inc(s(x)) → s(inc(x))

The set Q consists of the following terms:

half(0)
half(s(0))
half(s(s(x0)))
le(0, x0)
le(s(x0), 0)
le(s(x0), s(x1))
inc(0)
inc(s(x0))

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

↳ QTRS
  ↳ Overlay + Local Confluence
    ↳ QTRS
      ↳ DependencyPairsProof
        ↳ QDP
          ↳ DependencyGraphProof
            ↳ AND
              ↳ QDP
              ↳ QDP
              ↳ QDP
              ↳ QDP
                ↳ UsableRulesProof
                  ↳ QDP
                    ↳ QReductionProof
                      ↳ QDP
                        ↳ Narrowing
                          ↳ QDP
                            ↳ DependencyGraphProof
                              ↳ QDP
                                ↳ UsableRulesProof
                                  ↳ QDP
                                    ↳ Narrowing
                                      ↳ QDP
                                        ↳ DependencyGraphProof
QDP
                                            ↳ UsableRulesProof

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

LOG2(s(s(x0)), y1) → IF(false, s(s(x0)), inc(y1))
IF(false, x, y) → LOG2(half(x), y)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

half(0) → 0
half(s(0)) → 0
half(s(s(x))) → s(half(x))
le(0, y) → true
le(s(x), 0) → false
inc(0) → 0
inc(s(x)) → s(inc(x))

The set Q consists of the following terms:

half(0)
half(s(0))
half(s(s(x0)))
le(0, x0)
le(s(x0), 0)
le(s(x0), s(x1))
inc(0)
inc(s(x0))

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
              ↳ QDP
              ↳ QDP
              ↳ QDP
                ↳ UsableRulesProof
                  ↳ QDP
                    ↳ QReductionProof
                      ↳ QDP
                        ↳ Narrowing
                          ↳ QDP
                            ↳ DependencyGraphProof
                              ↳ QDP
                                ↳ UsableRulesProof
                                  ↳ QDP
                                    ↳ Narrowing
                                      ↳ QDP
                                        ↳ DependencyGraphProof
                                          ↳ QDP
                                            ↳ UsableRulesProof
QDP
                                                ↳ QReductionProof

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

LOG2(s(s(x0)), y1) → IF(false, s(s(x0)), inc(y1))
IF(false, x, y) → LOG2(half(x), y)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

half(0) → 0
half(s(0)) → 0
half(s(s(x))) → s(half(x))
inc(0) → 0
inc(s(x)) → s(inc(x))

The set Q consists of the following terms:

half(0)
half(s(0))
half(s(s(x0)))
le(0, x0)
le(s(x0), 0)
le(s(x0), s(x1))
inc(0)
inc(s(x0))

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.

le(0, x0)
le(s(x0), 0)
le(s(x0), s(x1))



↳ QTRS
  ↳ Overlay + Local Confluence
    ↳ QTRS
      ↳ DependencyPairsProof
        ↳ QDP
          ↳ DependencyGraphProof
            ↳ AND
              ↳ QDP
              ↳ QDP
              ↳ QDP
              ↳ QDP
                ↳ UsableRulesProof
                  ↳ QDP
                    ↳ QReductionProof
                      ↳ QDP
                        ↳ Narrowing
                          ↳ QDP
                            ↳ DependencyGraphProof
                              ↳ QDP
                                ↳ UsableRulesProof
                                  ↳ QDP
                                    ↳ Narrowing
                                      ↳ QDP
                                        ↳ DependencyGraphProof
                                          ↳ QDP
                                            ↳ UsableRulesProof
                                              ↳ QDP
                                                ↳ QReductionProof
QDP
                                                    ↳ Narrowing

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

LOG2(s(s(x0)), y1) → IF(false, s(s(x0)), inc(y1))
IF(false, x, y) → LOG2(half(x), y)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

half(0) → 0
half(s(0)) → 0
half(s(s(x))) → s(half(x))
inc(0) → 0
inc(s(x)) → s(inc(x))

The set Q consists of the following terms:

half(0)
half(s(0))
half(s(s(x0)))
inc(0)
inc(s(x0))

We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
By narrowing [15] the rule IF(false, x, y) → LOG2(half(x), y) at position [0] we obtained the following new rules:

IF(false, s(0), y1) → LOG2(0, y1)
IF(false, 0, y1) → LOG2(0, y1)
IF(false, s(s(x0)), y1) → LOG2(s(half(x0)), y1)



↳ QTRS
  ↳ Overlay + Local Confluence
    ↳ QTRS
      ↳ DependencyPairsProof
        ↳ QDP
          ↳ DependencyGraphProof
            ↳ AND
              ↳ QDP
              ↳ QDP
              ↳ QDP
              ↳ QDP
                ↳ UsableRulesProof
                  ↳ QDP
                    ↳ QReductionProof
                      ↳ QDP
                        ↳ Narrowing
                          ↳ QDP
                            ↳ DependencyGraphProof
                              ↳ QDP
                                ↳ UsableRulesProof
                                  ↳ QDP
                                    ↳ Narrowing
                                      ↳ QDP
                                        ↳ DependencyGraphProof
                                          ↳ QDP
                                            ↳ UsableRulesProof
                                              ↳ QDP
                                                ↳ QReductionProof
                                                  ↳ QDP
                                                    ↳ Narrowing
QDP
                                                        ↳ DependencyGraphProof

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

IF(false, 0, y1) → LOG2(0, y1)
LOG2(s(s(x0)), y1) → IF(false, s(s(x0)), inc(y1))
IF(false, s(0), y1) → LOG2(0, y1)
IF(false, s(s(x0)), y1) → LOG2(s(half(x0)), y1)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

half(0) → 0
half(s(0)) → 0
half(s(s(x))) → s(half(x))
inc(0) → 0
inc(s(x)) → s(inc(x))

The set Q consists of the following terms:

half(0)
half(s(0))
half(s(s(x0)))
inc(0)
inc(s(x0))

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

↳ QTRS
  ↳ Overlay + Local Confluence
    ↳ QTRS
      ↳ DependencyPairsProof
        ↳ QDP
          ↳ DependencyGraphProof
            ↳ AND
              ↳ QDP
              ↳ QDP
              ↳ QDP
              ↳ QDP
                ↳ UsableRulesProof
                  ↳ QDP
                    ↳ QReductionProof
                      ↳ QDP
                        ↳ Narrowing
                          ↳ QDP
                            ↳ DependencyGraphProof
                              ↳ QDP
                                ↳ UsableRulesProof
                                  ↳ QDP
                                    ↳ Narrowing
                                      ↳ QDP
                                        ↳ DependencyGraphProof
                                          ↳ QDP
                                            ↳ UsableRulesProof
                                              ↳ QDP
                                                ↳ QReductionProof
                                                  ↳ QDP
                                                    ↳ Narrowing
                                                      ↳ QDP
                                                        ↳ DependencyGraphProof
QDP
                                                            ↳ RuleRemovalProof

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

LOG2(s(s(x0)), y1) → IF(false, s(s(x0)), inc(y1))
IF(false, s(s(x0)), y1) → LOG2(s(half(x0)), y1)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

half(0) → 0
half(s(0)) → 0
half(s(s(x))) → s(half(x))
inc(0) → 0
inc(s(x)) → s(inc(x))

The set Q consists of the following terms:

half(0)
half(s(0))
half(s(s(x0)))
inc(0)
inc(s(x0))

We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
By using the rule removal processor [15] with the following polynomial ordering [25], at least one Dependency Pair or term rewrite system rule of this QDP problem can be strictly oriented.

Strictly oriented rules of the TRS R:

half(0) → 0
half(s(0)) → 0

Used ordering: POLO with Polynomial interpretation [25]:

POL(0) = 1   
POL(IF(x1, x2, x3)) = 2·x1 + 2·x2 + x3   
POL(LOG2(x1, x2)) = 2·x1 + x2   
POL(false) = 0   
POL(half(x1)) = 2·x1   
POL(inc(x1)) = x1   
POL(s(x1)) = 2·x1   



↳ QTRS
  ↳ Overlay + Local Confluence
    ↳ QTRS
      ↳ DependencyPairsProof
        ↳ QDP
          ↳ DependencyGraphProof
            ↳ AND
              ↳ QDP
              ↳ QDP
              ↳ QDP
              ↳ QDP
                ↳ UsableRulesProof
                  ↳ QDP
                    ↳ QReductionProof
                      ↳ QDP
                        ↳ Narrowing
                          ↳ QDP
                            ↳ DependencyGraphProof
                              ↳ QDP
                                ↳ UsableRulesProof
                                  ↳ QDP
                                    ↳ Narrowing
                                      ↳ QDP
                                        ↳ DependencyGraphProof
                                          ↳ QDP
                                            ↳ UsableRulesProof
                                              ↳ QDP
                                                ↳ QReductionProof
                                                  ↳ QDP
                                                    ↳ Narrowing
                                                      ↳ QDP
                                                        ↳ DependencyGraphProof
                                                          ↳ QDP
                                                            ↳ RuleRemovalProof
QDP
                                                                ↳ RuleRemovalProof

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

LOG2(s(s(x0)), y1) → IF(false, s(s(x0)), inc(y1))
IF(false, s(s(x0)), y1) → LOG2(s(half(x0)), y1)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

half(s(s(x))) → s(half(x))
inc(0) → 0
inc(s(x)) → s(inc(x))

The set Q consists of the following terms:

half(0)
half(s(0))
half(s(s(x0)))
inc(0)
inc(s(x0))

We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
By using the rule removal processor [15] with the following polynomial ordering [25], at least one Dependency Pair or term rewrite system rule of this QDP problem can be strictly oriented.

Strictly oriented rules of the TRS R:

half(s(s(x))) → s(half(x))

Used ordering: POLO with Polynomial interpretation [25]:

POL(0) = 0   
POL(IF(x1, x2, x3)) = x1 + 2·x2 + x3   
POL(LOG2(x1, x2)) = 2·x1 + x2   
POL(false) = 0   
POL(half(x1)) = 2 + x1   
POL(inc(x1)) = x1   
POL(s(x1)) = 2 + 2·x1   



↳ QTRS
  ↳ Overlay + Local Confluence
    ↳ QTRS
      ↳ DependencyPairsProof
        ↳ QDP
          ↳ DependencyGraphProof
            ↳ AND
              ↳ QDP
              ↳ QDP
              ↳ QDP
              ↳ QDP
                ↳ UsableRulesProof
                  ↳ QDP
                    ↳ QReductionProof
                      ↳ QDP
                        ↳ Narrowing
                          ↳ QDP
                            ↳ DependencyGraphProof
                              ↳ QDP
                                ↳ UsableRulesProof
                                  ↳ QDP
                                    ↳ Narrowing
                                      ↳ QDP
                                        ↳ DependencyGraphProof
                                          ↳ QDP
                                            ↳ UsableRulesProof
                                              ↳ QDP
                                                ↳ QReductionProof
                                                  ↳ QDP
                                                    ↳ Narrowing
                                                      ↳ QDP
                                                        ↳ DependencyGraphProof
                                                          ↳ QDP
                                                            ↳ RuleRemovalProof
                                                              ↳ QDP
                                                                ↳ RuleRemovalProof
QDP
                                                                    ↳ DependencyGraphProof

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

LOG2(s(s(x0)), y1) → IF(false, s(s(x0)), inc(y1))
IF(false, s(s(x0)), y1) → LOG2(s(half(x0)), y1)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

inc(0) → 0
inc(s(x)) → s(inc(x))

The set Q consists of the following terms:

half(0)
half(s(0))
half(s(s(x0)))
inc(0)
inc(s(x0))

We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
The approximation of the Dependency Graph [15,17,22] contains 0 SCCs with 2 less nodes.