Termination w.r.t. Q proof of /tmp/tmphUaJUT/Ex2_Luc02a

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:

terms(N) → cons(recip(sqr(N)), n__terms(n__s(N)))
sqr(0) → 0
sqr(s(X)) → s(add(sqr(X), dbl(X)))
dbl(0) → 0
dbl(s(X)) → s(s(dbl(X)))
add(0, X) → X
add(s(X), Y) → s(add(X, Y))
first(0, X) → nil
first(s(X), cons(Y, Z)) → cons(Y, n__first(X, activate(Z)))
terms(X) → n__terms(X)
s(X) → n__s(X)
first(X1, X2) → n__first(X1, X2)
activate(n__terms(X)) → terms(activate(X))
activate(n__s(X)) → s(activate(X))
activate(n__first(X1, X2)) → first(activate(X1), activate(X2))
activate(X) → X

Q is empty.

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

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

terms(N) → cons(recip(sqr(N)), n__terms(n__s(N)))
sqr(0) → 0
sqr(s(X)) → s(add(sqr(X), dbl(X)))
dbl(0) → 0
dbl(s(X)) → s(s(dbl(X)))
add(0, X) → X
add(s(X), Y) → s(add(X, Y))
first(0, X) → nil
first(s(X), cons(Y, Z)) → cons(Y, n__first(X, activate(Z)))
terms(X) → n__terms(X)
s(X) → n__s(X)
first(X1, X2) → n__first(X1, X2)
activate(n__terms(X)) → terms(activate(X))
activate(n__s(X)) → s(activate(X))
activate(n__first(X1, X2)) → first(activate(X1), activate(X2))
activate(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:

ADD(s(X), Y) → S(add(X, Y))
ACTIVATE(n__first(X1, X2)) → FIRST(activate(X1), activate(X2))
TERMS(N) → SQR(N)
SQR(s(X)) → ADD(sqr(X), dbl(X))
DBL(s(X)) → S(dbl(X))
ACTIVATE(n__s(X)) → S(activate(X))
SQR(s(X)) → S(add(sqr(X), dbl(X)))
ACTIVATE(n__first(X1, X2)) → ACTIVATE(X1)
ACTIVATE(n__s(X)) → ACTIVATE(X)
ACTIVATE(n__terms(X)) → TERMS(activate(X))
ACTIVATE(n__terms(X)) → ACTIVATE(X)
ACTIVATE(n__first(X1, X2)) → ACTIVATE(X2)
DBL(s(X)) → S(s(dbl(X)))
SQR(s(X)) → SQR(X)
FIRST(s(X), cons(Y, Z)) → ACTIVATE(Z)
DBL(s(X)) → DBL(X)
ADD(s(X), Y) → ADD(X, Y)
SQR(s(X)) → DBL(X)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

terms(N) → cons(recip(sqr(N)), n__terms(n__s(N)))
sqr(0) → 0
sqr(s(X)) → s(add(sqr(X), dbl(X)))
dbl(0) → 0
dbl(s(X)) → s(s(dbl(X)))
add(0, X) → X
add(s(X), Y) → s(add(X, Y))
first(0, X) → nil
first(s(X), cons(Y, Z)) → cons(Y, n__first(X, activate(Z)))
terms(X) → n__terms(X)
s(X) → n__s(X)
first(X1, X2) → n__first(X1, X2)
activate(n__terms(X)) → terms(activate(X))
activate(n__s(X)) → s(activate(X))
activate(n__first(X1, X2)) → first(activate(X1), activate(X2))
activate(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:

ADD(s(X), Y) → S(add(X, Y))
ACTIVATE(n__first(X1, X2)) → FIRST(activate(X1), activate(X2))
TERMS(N) → SQR(N)
SQR(s(X)) → ADD(sqr(X), dbl(X))
DBL(s(X)) → S(dbl(X))
ACTIVATE(n__s(X)) → S(activate(X))
SQR(s(X)) → S(add(sqr(X), dbl(X)))
ACTIVATE(n__first(X1, X2)) → ACTIVATE(X1)
ACTIVATE(n__s(X)) → ACTIVATE(X)
ACTIVATE(n__terms(X)) → TERMS(activate(X))
ACTIVATE(n__terms(X)) → ACTIVATE(X)
ACTIVATE(n__first(X1, X2)) → ACTIVATE(X2)
DBL(s(X)) → S(s(dbl(X)))
SQR(s(X)) → SQR(X)
FIRST(s(X), cons(Y, Z)) → ACTIVATE(Z)
DBL(s(X)) → DBL(X)
ADD(s(X), Y) → ADD(X, Y)
SQR(s(X)) → DBL(X)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

terms(N) → cons(recip(sqr(N)), n__terms(n__s(N)))
sqr(0) → 0
sqr(s(X)) → s(add(sqr(X), dbl(X)))
dbl(0) → 0
dbl(s(X)) → s(s(dbl(X)))
add(0, X) → X
add(s(X), Y) → s(add(X, Y))
first(0, X) → nil
first(s(X), cons(Y, Z)) → cons(Y, n__first(X, activate(Z)))
terms(X) → n__terms(X)
s(X) → n__s(X)
first(X1, X2) → n__first(X1, X2)
activate(n__terms(X)) → terms(activate(X))
activate(n__s(X)) → s(activate(X))
activate(n__first(X1, X2)) → first(activate(X1), activate(X2))
activate(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 4 SCCs with 9 less nodes.

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ UsableRulesProof

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

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

ADD(s(X), Y) → ADD(X, Y)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

terms(N) → cons(recip(sqr(N)), n__terms(n__s(N)))
sqr(0) → 0
sqr(s(X)) → s(add(sqr(X), dbl(X)))
dbl(0) → 0
dbl(s(X)) → s(s(dbl(X)))
add(0, X) → X
add(s(X), Y) → s(add(X, Y))
first(0, X) → nil
first(s(X), cons(Y, Z)) → cons(Y, n__first(X, activate(Z)))
terms(X) → n__terms(X)
s(X) → n__s(X)
first(X1, X2) → n__first(X1, X2)
activate(n__terms(X)) → terms(activate(X))
activate(n__s(X)) → s(activate(X))
activate(n__first(X1, X2)) → first(activate(X1), activate(X2))
activate(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

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

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

ADD(s(X), Y) → ADD(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:

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

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ UsableRulesProof

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

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

DBL(s(X)) → DBL(X)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

terms(N) → cons(recip(sqr(N)), n__terms(n__s(N)))
sqr(0) → 0
sqr(s(X)) → s(add(sqr(X), dbl(X)))
dbl(0) → 0
dbl(s(X)) → s(s(dbl(X)))
add(0, X) → X
add(s(X), Y) → s(add(X, Y))
first(0, X) → nil
first(s(X), cons(Y, Z)) → cons(Y, n__first(X, activate(Z)))
terms(X) → n__terms(X)
s(X) → n__s(X)
first(X1, X2) → n__first(X1, X2)
activate(n__terms(X)) → terms(activate(X))
activate(n__s(X)) → s(activate(X))
activate(n__first(X1, X2)) → first(activate(X1), activate(X2))
activate(X) → X

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ UsableRulesProof

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ QDPSizeChangeProof

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

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

DBL(s(X)) → DBL(X)

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

DBL(s(X)) → DBL(X)
The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ UsableRulesProof

          ↳ QDP

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

SQR(s(X)) → SQR(X)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

terms(N) → cons(recip(sqr(N)), n__terms(n__s(N)))
sqr(0) → 0
sqr(s(X)) → s(add(sqr(X), dbl(X)))
dbl(0) → 0
dbl(s(X)) → s(s(dbl(X)))
add(0, X) → X
add(s(X), Y) → s(add(X, Y))
first(0, X) → nil
first(s(X), cons(Y, Z)) → cons(Y, n__first(X, activate(Z)))
terms(X) → n__terms(X)
s(X) → n__s(X)
first(X1, X2) → n__first(X1, X2)
activate(n__terms(X)) → terms(activate(X))
activate(n__s(X)) → s(activate(X))
activate(n__first(X1, X2)) → first(activate(X1), activate(X2))
activate(X) → X

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ UsableRulesProof

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ QDPSizeChangeProof

          ↳ QDP

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

SQR(s(X)) → SQR(X)

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

SQR(s(X)) → SQR(X)
The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ QDPOrderProof

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

ACTIVATE(n__terms(X)) → ACTIVATE(X)
ACTIVATE(n__first(X1, X2)) → ACTIVATE(X2)
ACTIVATE(n__first(X1, X2)) → FIRST(activate(X1), activate(X2))
FIRST(s(X), cons(Y, Z)) → ACTIVATE(Z)
ACTIVATE(n__first(X1, X2)) → ACTIVATE(X1)
ACTIVATE(n__s(X)) → ACTIVATE(X)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

terms(N) → cons(recip(sqr(N)), n__terms(n__s(N)))
sqr(0) → 0
sqr(s(X)) → s(add(sqr(X), dbl(X)))
dbl(0) → 0
dbl(s(X)) → s(s(dbl(X)))
add(0, X) → X
add(s(X), Y) → s(add(X, Y))
first(0, X) → nil
first(s(X), cons(Y, Z)) → cons(Y, n__first(X, activate(Z)))
terms(X) → n__terms(X)
s(X) → n__s(X)
first(X1, X2) → n__first(X1, X2)
activate(n__terms(X)) → terms(activate(X))
activate(n__s(X)) → s(activate(X))
activate(n__first(X1, X2)) → first(activate(X1), activate(X2))
activate(X) → 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.

ACTIVATE(n__first(X1, X2)) → ACTIVATE(X2)
ACTIVATE(n__first(X1, X2)) → FIRST(activate(X1), activate(X2))
ACTIVATE(n__first(X1, X2)) → ACTIVATE(X1)

The remaining pairs can at least be oriented weakly.

ACTIVATE(n__terms(X)) → ACTIVATE(X)
FIRST(s(X), cons(Y, Z)) → ACTIVATE(Z)
ACTIVATE(n__s(X)) → ACTIVATE(X)

Used ordering: Polynomial interpretation [25]:

POL(0) = 1
POL(ACTIVATE(x₁)) = x₁
POL(FIRST(x₁, x₂)) = x₂
POL(activate(x₁)) = x₁
POL(add(x₁, x₂)) = x₂
POL(cons(x₁, x₂)) = x₂
POL(dbl(x₁)) = 1 + x₁
POL(first(x₁, x₂)) = 1 + x₁ + x₂
POL(n__first(x₁, x₂)) = 1 + x₁ + x₂
POL(n__s(x₁)) = x₁
POL(n__terms(x₁)) = x₁
POL(nil) = 1
POL(recip(x₁)) = 0
POL(s(x₁)) = x₁
POL(sqr(x₁)) = 0
POL(terms(x₁)) = x₁

The following usable rules [17] were oriented:

terms(N) → cons(recip(sqr(N)), n__terms(n__s(N)))
first(0, X) → nil
first(X1, X2) → n__first(X1, X2)
s(X) → n__s(X)
terms(X) → n__terms(X)
first(s(X), cons(Y, Z)) → cons(Y, n__first(X, activate(Z)))
activate(X) → X
activate(n__first(X1, X2)) → first(activate(X1), activate(X2))
activate(n__s(X)) → s(activate(X))
activate(n__terms(X)) → terms(activate(X))

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ QDPOrderProof

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ DependencyGraphProof

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

ACTIVATE(n__terms(X)) → ACTIVATE(X)
FIRST(s(X), cons(Y, Z)) → ACTIVATE(Z)
ACTIVATE(n__s(X)) → ACTIVATE(X)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

terms(N) → cons(recip(sqr(N)), n__terms(n__s(N)))
sqr(0) → 0
sqr(s(X)) → s(add(sqr(X), dbl(X)))
dbl(0) → 0
dbl(s(X)) → s(s(dbl(X)))
add(0, X) → X
add(s(X), Y) → s(add(X, Y))
first(0, X) → nil
first(s(X), cons(Y, Z)) → cons(Y, n__first(X, activate(Z)))
terms(X) → n__terms(X)
s(X) → n__s(X)
first(X1, X2) → n__first(X1, X2)
activate(n__terms(X)) → terms(activate(X))
activate(n__s(X)) → s(activate(X))
activate(n__first(X1, X2)) → first(activate(X1), activate(X2))
activate(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 1 SCC with 1 less node.

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ QDPOrderProof

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ DependencyGraphProof

                  ↳ QDP

                    ↳ UsableRulesProof

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

ACTIVATE(n__terms(X)) → ACTIVATE(X)
ACTIVATE(n__s(X)) → ACTIVATE(X)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

terms(N) → cons(recip(sqr(N)), n__terms(n__s(N)))
sqr(0) → 0
sqr(s(X)) → s(add(sqr(X), dbl(X)))
dbl(0) → 0
dbl(s(X)) → s(s(dbl(X)))
add(0, X) → X
add(s(X), Y) → s(add(X, Y))
first(0, X) → nil
first(s(X), cons(Y, Z)) → cons(Y, n__first(X, activate(Z)))
terms(X) → n__terms(X)
s(X) → n__s(X)
first(X1, X2) → n__first(X1, X2)
activate(n__terms(X)) → terms(activate(X))
activate(n__s(X)) → s(activate(X))
activate(n__first(X1, X2)) → first(activate(X1), activate(X2))
activate(X) → X

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ QDPOrderProof

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ DependencyGraphProof

                  ↳ QDP

                    ↳ UsableRulesProof

                      ↳ QDP

                        ↳ QDPSizeChangeProof

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

ACTIVATE(n__terms(X)) → ACTIVATE(X)
ACTIVATE(n__s(X)) → ACTIVATE(X)

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

ACTIVATE(n__terms(X)) → ACTIVATE(X)
The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1
ACTIVATE(n__s(X)) → ACTIVATE(X)
The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1