Termination w.r.t. Q proof of /tmp/tmpQH1ZjI/Ex24_GM04

Termination w.r.t. Q of the following Term Rewriting System could not be shown:

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

active(f(X, g(X), Y)) → mark(f(Y, Y, Y))
active(g(b)) → mark(c)
active(b) → mark(c)
mark(f(X1, X2, X3)) → active(f(X1, X2, X3))
mark(g(X)) → active(g(mark(X)))
mark(b) → active(b)
mark(c) → active(c)
f(mark(X1), X2, X3) → f(X1, X2, X3)
f(X1, mark(X2), X3) → f(X1, X2, X3)
f(X1, X2, mark(X3)) → f(X1, X2, X3)
f(active(X1), X2, X3) → f(X1, X2, X3)
f(X1, active(X2), X3) → f(X1, X2, X3)
f(X1, X2, active(X3)) → f(X1, X2, X3)
g(mark(X)) → g(X)
g(active(X)) → g(X)

Q is empty.

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

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

active(f(X, g(X), Y)) → mark(f(Y, Y, Y))
active(g(b)) → mark(c)
active(b) → mark(c)
mark(f(X1, X2, X3)) → active(f(X1, X2, X3))
mark(g(X)) → active(g(mark(X)))
mark(b) → active(b)
mark(c) → active(c)
f(mark(X1), X2, X3) → f(X1, X2, X3)
f(X1, mark(X2), X3) → f(X1, X2, X3)
f(X1, X2, mark(X3)) → f(X1, X2, X3)
f(active(X1), X2, X3) → f(X1, X2, X3)
f(X1, active(X2), X3) → f(X1, X2, X3)
f(X1, X2, active(X3)) → f(X1, X2, X3)
g(mark(X)) → g(X)
g(active(X)) → g(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:

ACTIVE(b) → MARK(c)
MARK(g(X)) → ACTIVE(g(mark(X)))
F(X1, mark(X2), X3) → F(X1, X2, X3)
G(active(X)) → G(X)
MARK(b) → ACTIVE(b)
F(X1, X2, mark(X3)) → F(X1, X2, X3)
G(mark(X)) → G(X)
F(active(X1), X2, X3) → F(X1, X2, X3)
MARK(g(X)) → G(mark(X))
MARK(g(X)) → MARK(X)
ACTIVE(f(X, g(X), Y)) → MARK(f(Y, Y, Y))
ACTIVE(g(b)) → MARK(c)
MARK(f(X1, X2, X3)) → ACTIVE(f(X1, X2, X3))
F(X1, active(X2), X3) → F(X1, X2, X3)
MARK(c) → ACTIVE(c)
ACTIVE(f(X, g(X), Y)) → F(Y, Y, Y)
F(X1, X2, active(X3)) → F(X1, X2, X3)
F(mark(X1), X2, X3) → F(X1, X2, X3)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

active(f(X, g(X), Y)) → mark(f(Y, Y, Y))
active(g(b)) → mark(c)
active(b) → mark(c)
mark(f(X1, X2, X3)) → active(f(X1, X2, X3))
mark(g(X)) → active(g(mark(X)))
mark(b) → active(b)
mark(c) → active(c)
f(mark(X1), X2, X3) → f(X1, X2, X3)
f(X1, mark(X2), X3) → f(X1, X2, X3)
f(X1, X2, mark(X3)) → f(X1, X2, X3)
f(active(X1), X2, X3) → f(X1, X2, X3)
f(X1, active(X2), X3) → f(X1, X2, X3)
f(X1, X2, active(X3)) → f(X1, X2, X3)
g(mark(X)) → g(X)
g(active(X)) → g(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:

ACTIVE(b) → MARK(c)
MARK(g(X)) → ACTIVE(g(mark(X)))
F(X1, mark(X2), X3) → F(X1, X2, X3)
G(active(X)) → G(X)
MARK(b) → ACTIVE(b)
F(X1, X2, mark(X3)) → F(X1, X2, X3)
G(mark(X)) → G(X)
F(active(X1), X2, X3) → F(X1, X2, X3)
MARK(g(X)) → G(mark(X))
MARK(g(X)) → MARK(X)
ACTIVE(f(X, g(X), Y)) → MARK(f(Y, Y, Y))
ACTIVE(g(b)) → MARK(c)
MARK(f(X1, X2, X3)) → ACTIVE(f(X1, X2, X3))
F(X1, active(X2), X3) → F(X1, X2, X3)
MARK(c) → ACTIVE(c)
ACTIVE(f(X, g(X), Y)) → F(Y, Y, Y)
F(X1, X2, active(X3)) → F(X1, X2, X3)
F(mark(X1), X2, X3) → F(X1, X2, X3)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

active(f(X, g(X), Y)) → mark(f(Y, Y, Y))
active(g(b)) → mark(c)
active(b) → mark(c)
mark(f(X1, X2, X3)) → active(f(X1, X2, X3))
mark(g(X)) → active(g(mark(X)))
mark(b) → active(b)
mark(c) → active(c)
f(mark(X1), X2, X3) → f(X1, X2, X3)
f(X1, mark(X2), X3) → f(X1, X2, X3)
f(X1, X2, mark(X3)) → f(X1, X2, X3)
f(active(X1), X2, X3) → f(X1, X2, X3)
f(X1, active(X2), X3) → f(X1, X2, X3)
f(X1, X2, active(X3)) → f(X1, X2, X3)
g(mark(X)) → g(X)
g(active(X)) → g(X)

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 6 less nodes.

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ UsableRulesProof

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

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

G(active(X)) → G(X)
G(mark(X)) → G(X)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

active(f(X, g(X), Y)) → mark(f(Y, Y, Y))
active(g(b)) → mark(c)
active(b) → mark(c)
mark(f(X1, X2, X3)) → active(f(X1, X2, X3))
mark(g(X)) → active(g(mark(X)))
mark(b) → active(b)
mark(c) → active(c)
f(mark(X1), X2, X3) → f(X1, X2, X3)
f(X1, mark(X2), X3) → f(X1, X2, X3)
f(X1, X2, mark(X3)) → f(X1, X2, X3)
f(active(X1), X2, X3) → f(X1, X2, X3)
f(X1, active(X2), X3) → f(X1, X2, X3)
f(X1, X2, active(X3)) → f(X1, X2, X3)
g(mark(X)) → g(X)
g(active(X)) → g(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

          ↳ QDP

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

G(active(X)) → G(X)
G(mark(X)) → G(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:

G(active(X)) → G(X)
The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1
G(mark(X)) → G(X)
The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ UsableRulesProof

          ↳ QDP

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

F(X1, active(X2), X3) → F(X1, X2, X3)
F(X1, X2, active(X3)) → F(X1, X2, X3)
F(mark(X1), X2, X3) → F(X1, X2, X3)
F(X1, mark(X2), X3) → F(X1, X2, X3)
F(X1, X2, mark(X3)) → F(X1, X2, X3)
F(active(X1), X2, X3) → F(X1, X2, X3)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

active(f(X, g(X), Y)) → mark(f(Y, Y, Y))
active(g(b)) → mark(c)
active(b) → mark(c)
mark(f(X1, X2, X3)) → active(f(X1, X2, X3))
mark(g(X)) → active(g(mark(X)))
mark(b) → active(b)
mark(c) → active(c)
f(mark(X1), X2, X3) → f(X1, X2, X3)
f(X1, mark(X2), X3) → f(X1, X2, X3)
f(X1, X2, mark(X3)) → f(X1, X2, X3)
f(active(X1), X2, X3) → f(X1, X2, X3)
f(X1, active(X2), X3) → f(X1, X2, X3)
f(X1, X2, active(X3)) → f(X1, X2, X3)
g(mark(X)) → g(X)
g(active(X)) → g(X)

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ UsableRulesProof

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ QDPSizeChangeProof

          ↳ QDP

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

F(X1, active(X2), X3) → F(X1, X2, X3)
F(mark(X1), X2, X3) → F(X1, X2, X3)
F(X1, X2, active(X3)) → F(X1, X2, X3)
F(X1, mark(X2), X3) → F(X1, X2, X3)
F(X1, X2, mark(X3)) → F(X1, X2, X3)
F(active(X1), X2, X3) → F(X1, X2, X3)

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

F(X1, active(X2), X3) → F(X1, X2, X3)
The graph contains the following edges 1 >= 1, 2 > 2, 3 >= 3
F(X1, X2, active(X3)) → F(X1, X2, X3)
The graph contains the following edges 1 >= 1, 2 >= 2, 3 > 3
F(mark(X1), X2, X3) → F(X1, X2, X3)
The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1, 2 >= 2, 3 >= 3
F(X1, mark(X2), X3) → F(X1, X2, X3)
The graph contains the following edges 1 >= 1, 2 > 2, 3 >= 3
F(X1, X2, mark(X3)) → F(X1, X2, X3)
The graph contains the following edges 1 >= 1, 2 >= 2, 3 > 3
F(active(X1), X2, X3) → F(X1, X2, X3)
The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1, 2 >= 2, 3 >= 3

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ QDPOrderProof

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

ACTIVE(f(X, g(X), Y)) → MARK(f(Y, Y, Y))
MARK(f(X1, X2, X3)) → ACTIVE(f(X1, X2, X3))
MARK(g(X)) → ACTIVE(g(mark(X)))
MARK(g(X)) → MARK(X)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

active(f(X, g(X), Y)) → mark(f(Y, Y, Y))
active(g(b)) → mark(c)
active(b) → mark(c)
mark(f(X1, X2, X3)) → active(f(X1, X2, X3))
mark(g(X)) → active(g(mark(X)))
mark(b) → active(b)
mark(c) → active(c)
f(mark(X1), X2, X3) → f(X1, X2, X3)
f(X1, mark(X2), X3) → f(X1, X2, X3)
f(X1, X2, mark(X3)) → f(X1, X2, X3)
f(active(X1), X2, X3) → f(X1, X2, X3)
f(X1, active(X2), X3) → f(X1, X2, X3)
f(X1, X2, active(X3)) → f(X1, X2, X3)
g(mark(X)) → g(X)
g(active(X)) → g(X)

Q is empty.
We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
We use the reduction pair processor [15].

The following pairs can be oriented strictly and are deleted.

MARK(g(X)) → ACTIVE(g(mark(X)))

The remaining pairs can at least be oriented weakly.

ACTIVE(f(X, g(X), Y)) → MARK(f(Y, Y, Y))
MARK(f(X1, X2, X3)) → ACTIVE(f(X1, X2, X3))
MARK(g(X)) → MARK(X)

Used ordering: Polynomial interpretation with max and min functions [25]:

POL(ACTIVE(x₁)) = x₁
POL(MARK(x₁)) = 1
POL(active(x₁)) = 0
POL(b) = 0
POL(c) = 0
POL(f(x₁, x₂, x₃)) = 1
POL(g(x₁)) = 0
POL(mark(x₁)) = 0

The following usable rules [17] were oriented:

f(X1, X2, active(X3)) → f(X1, X2, X3)
f(mark(X1), X2, X3) → f(X1, X2, X3)
f(active(X1), X2, X3) → f(X1, X2, X3)
f(X1, active(X2), X3) → f(X1, X2, X3)
f(X1, X2, mark(X3)) → f(X1, X2, X3)
f(X1, mark(X2), X3) → f(X1, X2, X3)
g(active(X)) → g(X)
g(mark(X)) → g(X)

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ QDPOrderProof

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ QDPOrderProof

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

ACTIVE(f(X, g(X), Y)) → MARK(f(Y, Y, Y))
MARK(f(X1, X2, X3)) → ACTIVE(f(X1, X2, X3))
MARK(g(X)) → MARK(X)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

active(f(X, g(X), Y)) → mark(f(Y, Y, Y))
active(g(b)) → mark(c)
active(b) → mark(c)
mark(f(X1, X2, X3)) → active(f(X1, X2, X3))
mark(g(X)) → active(g(mark(X)))
mark(b) → active(b)
mark(c) → active(c)
f(mark(X1), X2, X3) → f(X1, X2, X3)
f(X1, mark(X2), X3) → f(X1, X2, X3)
f(X1, X2, mark(X3)) → f(X1, X2, X3)
f(active(X1), X2, X3) → f(X1, X2, X3)
f(X1, active(X2), X3) → f(X1, X2, X3)
f(X1, X2, active(X3)) → f(X1, X2, X3)
g(mark(X)) → g(X)
g(active(X)) → g(X)

Q is empty.
We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
We use the reduction pair processor [15].

The following pairs can be oriented strictly and are deleted.

MARK(g(X)) → MARK(X)

The remaining pairs can at least be oriented weakly.

ACTIVE(f(X, g(X), Y)) → MARK(f(Y, Y, Y))
MARK(f(X1, X2, X3)) → ACTIVE(f(X1, X2, X3))

Used ordering: Polynomial interpretation [25]:

POL(ACTIVE(x₁)) = 0
POL(MARK(x₁)) = x₁
POL(active(x₁)) = 0
POL(f(x₁, x₂, x₃)) = 0
POL(g(x₁)) = 1 + x₁
POL(mark(x₁)) = 0

The following usable rules [17] were oriented:

f(X1, X2, active(X3)) → f(X1, X2, X3)
f(mark(X1), X2, X3) → f(X1, X2, X3)
f(active(X1), X2, X3) → f(X1, X2, X3)
f(X1, active(X2), X3) → f(X1, X2, X3)
f(X1, X2, mark(X3)) → f(X1, X2, X3)
f(X1, mark(X2), X3) → f(X1, X2, X3)

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ QDPOrderProof

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ QDPOrderProof

                  ↳ QDP

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

ACTIVE(f(X, g(X), Y)) → MARK(f(Y, Y, Y))
MARK(f(X1, X2, X3)) → ACTIVE(f(X1, X2, X3))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

active(f(X, g(X), Y)) → mark(f(Y, Y, Y))
active(g(b)) → mark(c)
active(b) → mark(c)
mark(f(X1, X2, X3)) → active(f(X1, X2, X3))
mark(g(X)) → active(g(mark(X)))
mark(b) → active(b)
mark(c) → active(c)
f(mark(X1), X2, X3) → f(X1, X2, X3)
f(X1, mark(X2), X3) → f(X1, X2, X3)
f(X1, X2, mark(X3)) → f(X1, X2, X3)
f(active(X1), X2, X3) → f(X1, X2, X3)
f(X1, active(X2), X3) → f(X1, X2, X3)
f(X1, X2, active(X3)) → f(X1, X2, X3)
g(mark(X)) → g(X)
g(active(X)) → g(X)

Q is empty.
We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.