Termination w.r.t. Q proof of /tmp/tmp006WIx/Ex1_GL02a

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__eq(0, 0) → true
a__eq(s(X), s(Y)) → a__eq(X, Y)
a__eq(X, Y) → false
a__inf(X) → cons(X, inf(s(X)))
a__take(0, X) → nil
a__take(s(X), cons(Y, L)) → cons(Y, take(X, L))
a__length(nil) → 0
a__length(cons(X, L)) → s(length(L))
mark(eq(X1, X2)) → a__eq(X1, X2)
mark(inf(X)) → a__inf(mark(X))
mark(take(X1, X2)) → a__take(mark(X1), mark(X2))
mark(length(X)) → a__length(mark(X))
mark(0) → 0
mark(true) → true
mark(s(X)) → s(X)
mark(false) → false
mark(cons(X1, X2)) → cons(X1, X2)
mark(nil) → nil
a__eq(X1, X2) → eq(X1, X2)
a__inf(X) → inf(X)
a__take(X1, X2) → take(X1, X2)
a__length(X) → length(X)

Q is empty.

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

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

a__eq(0, 0) → true
a__eq(s(X), s(Y)) → a__eq(X, Y)
a__eq(X, Y) → false
a__inf(X) → cons(X, inf(s(X)))
a__take(0, X) → nil
a__take(s(X), cons(Y, L)) → cons(Y, take(X, L))
a__length(nil) → 0
a__length(cons(X, L)) → s(length(L))
mark(eq(X1, X2)) → a__eq(X1, X2)
mark(inf(X)) → a__inf(mark(X))
mark(take(X1, X2)) → a__take(mark(X1), mark(X2))
mark(length(X)) → a__length(mark(X))
mark(0) → 0
mark(true) → true
mark(s(X)) → s(X)
mark(false) → false
mark(cons(X1, X2)) → cons(X1, X2)
mark(nil) → nil
a__eq(X1, X2) → eq(X1, X2)
a__inf(X) → inf(X)
a__take(X1, X2) → take(X1, X2)
a__length(X) → length(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:

MARK(length(X)) → MARK(X)
MARK(take(X1, X2)) → MARK(X2)
MARK(take(X1, X2)) → A__TAKE(mark(X1), mark(X2))
MARK(take(X1, X2)) → MARK(X1)
MARK(length(X)) → A__LENGTH(mark(X))
MARK(inf(X)) → MARK(X)
MARK(inf(X)) → A__INF(mark(X))
MARK(eq(X1, X2)) → A__EQ(X1, X2)
A__EQ(s(X), s(Y)) → A__EQ(X, Y)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

a__eq(0, 0) → true
a__eq(s(X), s(Y)) → a__eq(X, Y)
a__eq(X, Y) → false
a__inf(X) → cons(X, inf(s(X)))
a__take(0, X) → nil
a__take(s(X), cons(Y, L)) → cons(Y, take(X, L))
a__length(nil) → 0
a__length(cons(X, L)) → s(length(L))
mark(eq(X1, X2)) → a__eq(X1, X2)
mark(inf(X)) → a__inf(mark(X))
mark(take(X1, X2)) → a__take(mark(X1), mark(X2))
mark(length(X)) → a__length(mark(X))
mark(0) → 0
mark(true) → true
mark(s(X)) → s(X)
mark(false) → false
mark(cons(X1, X2)) → cons(X1, X2)
mark(nil) → nil
a__eq(X1, X2) → eq(X1, X2)
a__inf(X) → inf(X)
a__take(X1, X2) → take(X1, X2)
a__length(X) → length(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:

MARK(length(X)) → MARK(X)
MARK(take(X1, X2)) → MARK(X2)
MARK(take(X1, X2)) → A__TAKE(mark(X1), mark(X2))
MARK(take(X1, X2)) → MARK(X1)
MARK(length(X)) → A__LENGTH(mark(X))
MARK(inf(X)) → MARK(X)
MARK(inf(X)) → A__INF(mark(X))
MARK(eq(X1, X2)) → A__EQ(X1, X2)
A__EQ(s(X), s(Y)) → A__EQ(X, Y)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

a__eq(0, 0) → true
a__eq(s(X), s(Y)) → a__eq(X, Y)
a__eq(X, Y) → false
a__inf(X) → cons(X, inf(s(X)))
a__take(0, X) → nil
a__take(s(X), cons(Y, L)) → cons(Y, take(X, L))
a__length(nil) → 0
a__length(cons(X, L)) → s(length(L))
mark(eq(X1, X2)) → a__eq(X1, X2)
mark(inf(X)) → a__inf(mark(X))
mark(take(X1, X2)) → a__take(mark(X1), mark(X2))
mark(length(X)) → a__length(mark(X))
mark(0) → 0
mark(true) → true
mark(s(X)) → s(X)
mark(false) → false
mark(cons(X1, X2)) → cons(X1, X2)
mark(nil) → nil
a__eq(X1, X2) → eq(X1, X2)
a__inf(X) → inf(X)
a__take(X1, X2) → take(X1, X2)
a__length(X) → length(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 4 less nodes.

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ UsableRulesProof

          ↳ QDP

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

A__EQ(s(X), s(Y)) → A__EQ(X, Y)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

a__eq(0, 0) → true
a__eq(s(X), s(Y)) → a__eq(X, Y)
a__eq(X, Y) → false
a__inf(X) → cons(X, inf(s(X)))
a__take(0, X) → nil
a__take(s(X), cons(Y, L)) → cons(Y, take(X, L))
a__length(nil) → 0
a__length(cons(X, L)) → s(length(L))
mark(eq(X1, X2)) → a__eq(X1, X2)
mark(inf(X)) → a__inf(mark(X))
mark(take(X1, X2)) → a__take(mark(X1), mark(X2))
mark(length(X)) → a__length(mark(X))
mark(0) → 0
mark(true) → true
mark(s(X)) → s(X)
mark(false) → false
mark(cons(X1, X2)) → cons(X1, X2)
mark(nil) → nil
a__eq(X1, X2) → eq(X1, X2)
a__inf(X) → inf(X)
a__take(X1, X2) → take(X1, X2)
a__length(X) → length(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:

A__EQ(s(X), s(Y)) → A__EQ(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:

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

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ UsableRulesProof

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

MARK(length(X)) → MARK(X)
MARK(take(X1, X2)) → MARK(X2)
MARK(take(X1, X2)) → MARK(X1)
MARK(inf(X)) → MARK(X)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

a__eq(0, 0) → true
a__eq(s(X), s(Y)) → a__eq(X, Y)
a__eq(X, Y) → false
a__inf(X) → cons(X, inf(s(X)))
a__take(0, X) → nil
a__take(s(X), cons(Y, L)) → cons(Y, take(X, L))
a__length(nil) → 0
a__length(cons(X, L)) → s(length(L))
mark(eq(X1, X2)) → a__eq(X1, X2)
mark(inf(X)) → a__inf(mark(X))
mark(take(X1, X2)) → a__take(mark(X1), mark(X2))
mark(length(X)) → a__length(mark(X))
mark(0) → 0
mark(true) → true
mark(s(X)) → s(X)
mark(false) → false
mark(cons(X1, X2)) → cons(X1, X2)
mark(nil) → nil
a__eq(X1, X2) → eq(X1, X2)
a__inf(X) → inf(X)
a__take(X1, X2) → take(X1, X2)
a__length(X) → length(X)

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ UsableRulesProof

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ QDPSizeChangeProof

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

MARK(take(X1, X2)) → MARK(X2)
MARK(length(X)) → MARK(X)
MARK(take(X1, X2)) → MARK(X1)
MARK(inf(X)) → MARK(X)

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

MARK(length(X)) → MARK(X)
The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1
MARK(take(X1, X2)) → MARK(X2)
The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1
MARK(take(X1, X2)) → MARK(X1)
The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1
MARK(inf(X)) → MARK(X)
The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1