Termination w.r.t. Q proof of /tmp/tmpU-WLPH/Ex49_GM04

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:

minus(n__0, Y) → 0
minus(n__s(X), n__s(Y)) → minus(activate(X), activate(Y))
geq(X, n__0) → true
geq(n__0, n__s(Y)) → false
geq(n__s(X), n__s(Y)) → geq(activate(X), activate(Y))
div(0, n__s(Y)) → 0
div(s(X), n__s(Y)) → if(geq(X, activate(Y)), n__s(div(minus(X, activate(Y)), n__s(activate(Y)))), n__0)
if(true, X, Y) → activate(X)
if(false, X, Y) → activate(Y)
0 → n__0
s(X) → n__s(X)
activate(n__0) → 0
activate(n__s(X)) → s(X)
activate(X) → X

Q is empty.

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

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

minus(n__0, Y) → 0
minus(n__s(X), n__s(Y)) → minus(activate(X), activate(Y))
geq(X, n__0) → true
geq(n__0, n__s(Y)) → false
geq(n__s(X), n__s(Y)) → geq(activate(X), activate(Y))
div(0, n__s(Y)) → 0
div(s(X), n__s(Y)) → if(geq(X, activate(Y)), n__s(div(minus(X, activate(Y)), n__s(activate(Y)))), n__0)
if(true, X, Y) → activate(X)
if(false, X, Y) → activate(Y)
0 → n__0
s(X) → n__s(X)
activate(n__0) → 0
activate(n__s(X)) → s(X)
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:

DIV(s(X), n__s(Y)) → GEQ(X, activate(Y))
MINUS(n__s(X), n__s(Y)) → ACTIVATE(Y)
GEQ(n__s(X), n__s(Y)) → ACTIVATE(X)
ACTIVATE(n__s(X)) → S(X)
MINUS(n__0, Y) → 0¹
MINUS(n__s(X), n__s(Y)) → ACTIVATE(X)
IF(true, X, Y) → ACTIVATE(X)
DIV(s(X), n__s(Y)) → MINUS(X, activate(Y))
IF(false, X, Y) → ACTIVATE(Y)
GEQ(n__s(X), n__s(Y)) → ACTIVATE(Y)
ACTIVATE(n__0) → 0¹
DIV(s(X), n__s(Y)) → ACTIVATE(Y)
DIV(s(X), n__s(Y)) → DIV(minus(X, activate(Y)), n__s(activate(Y)))
DIV(s(X), n__s(Y)) → IF(geq(X, activate(Y)), n__s(div(minus(X, activate(Y)), n__s(activate(Y)))), n__0)
GEQ(n__s(X), n__s(Y)) → GEQ(activate(X), activate(Y))
MINUS(n__s(X), n__s(Y)) → MINUS(activate(X), activate(Y))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

minus(n__0, Y) → 0
minus(n__s(X), n__s(Y)) → minus(activate(X), activate(Y))
geq(X, n__0) → true
geq(n__0, n__s(Y)) → false
geq(n__s(X), n__s(Y)) → geq(activate(X), activate(Y))
div(0, n__s(Y)) → 0
div(s(X), n__s(Y)) → if(geq(X, activate(Y)), n__s(div(minus(X, activate(Y)), n__s(activate(Y)))), n__0)
if(true, X, Y) → activate(X)
if(false, X, Y) → activate(Y)
0 → n__0
s(X) → n__s(X)
activate(n__0) → 0
activate(n__s(X)) → s(X)
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:

DIV(s(X), n__s(Y)) → GEQ(X, activate(Y))
MINUS(n__s(X), n__s(Y)) → ACTIVATE(Y)
GEQ(n__s(X), n__s(Y)) → ACTIVATE(X)
ACTIVATE(n__s(X)) → S(X)
MINUS(n__0, Y) → 0¹
MINUS(n__s(X), n__s(Y)) → ACTIVATE(X)
IF(true, X, Y) → ACTIVATE(X)
DIV(s(X), n__s(Y)) → MINUS(X, activate(Y))
IF(false, X, Y) → ACTIVATE(Y)
GEQ(n__s(X), n__s(Y)) → ACTIVATE(Y)
ACTIVATE(n__0) → 0¹
DIV(s(X), n__s(Y)) → ACTIVATE(Y)
DIV(s(X), n__s(Y)) → DIV(minus(X, activate(Y)), n__s(activate(Y)))
DIV(s(X), n__s(Y)) → IF(geq(X, activate(Y)), n__s(div(minus(X, activate(Y)), n__s(activate(Y)))), n__0)
GEQ(n__s(X), n__s(Y)) → GEQ(activate(X), activate(Y))
MINUS(n__s(X), n__s(Y)) → MINUS(activate(X), activate(Y))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

minus(n__0, Y) → 0
minus(n__s(X), n__s(Y)) → minus(activate(X), activate(Y))
geq(X, n__0) → true
geq(n__0, n__s(Y)) → false
geq(n__s(X), n__s(Y)) → geq(activate(X), activate(Y))
div(0, n__s(Y)) → 0
div(s(X), n__s(Y)) → if(geq(X, activate(Y)), n__s(div(minus(X, activate(Y)), n__s(activate(Y)))), n__0)
if(true, X, Y) → activate(X)
if(false, X, Y) → activate(Y)
0 → n__0
s(X) → n__s(X)
activate(n__0) → 0
activate(n__s(X)) → s(X)
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 3 SCCs with 13 less nodes.

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ UsableRulesProof

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

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

GEQ(n__s(X), n__s(Y)) → GEQ(activate(X), activate(Y))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

minus(n__0, Y) → 0
minus(n__s(X), n__s(Y)) → minus(activate(X), activate(Y))
geq(X, n__0) → true
geq(n__0, n__s(Y)) → false
geq(n__s(X), n__s(Y)) → geq(activate(X), activate(Y))
div(0, n__s(Y)) → 0
div(s(X), n__s(Y)) → if(geq(X, activate(Y)), n__s(div(minus(X, activate(Y)), n__s(activate(Y)))), n__0)
if(true, X, Y) → activate(X)
if(false, X, Y) → activate(Y)
0 → n__0
s(X) → n__s(X)
activate(n__0) → 0
activate(n__s(X)) → s(X)
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

                ↳ MNOCProof

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

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

GEQ(n__s(X), n__s(Y)) → GEQ(activate(X), activate(Y))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

activate(n__0) → 0
activate(n__s(X)) → s(X)
activate(X) → X
s(X) → n__s(X)
0 → n__0

Q is empty.
We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
We use the modular non-overlap check [15] to enlarge Q to all left-hand sides of R.

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ UsableRulesProof

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ MNOCProof

                  ↳ QDP

                    ↳ RuleRemovalProof

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

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

GEQ(n__s(X), n__s(Y)) → GEQ(activate(X), activate(Y))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

activate(n__0) → 0
activate(n__s(X)) → s(X)
activate(X) → X
s(X) → n__s(X)
0 → n__0

The set Q consists of the following terms:

activate(x0)
s(x0)
0

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 dependency pairs:

GEQ(n__s(X), n__s(Y)) → GEQ(activate(X), activate(Y))

Strictly oriented rules of the TRS R:

activate(n__s(X)) → s(X)
activate(X) → X
0 → n__0

Used ordering: POLO with Polynomial interpretation [25]:

POL(0) = 1
POL(GEQ(x₁, x₂)) = x₁ + 2·x₂
POL(activate(x₁)) = 1 + 2·x₁
POL(n__0) = 0
POL(n__s(x₁)) = 2 + 2·x₁
POL(s(x₁)) = 2 + 2·x₁

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ UsableRulesProof

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ MNOCProof

                  ↳ QDP

                    ↳ RuleRemovalProof

                      ↳ QDP

                        ↳ PisEmptyProof

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

Q DP problem:
P is empty.
The TRS R consists of the following rules:

activate(n__0) → 0
s(X) → n__s(X)

The set Q consists of the following terms:

activate(x0)
s(x0)
0

We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
The TRS P is empty. Hence, there is no (P,Q,R) chain.

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ UsableRulesProof

          ↳ QDP

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

MINUS(n__s(X), n__s(Y)) → MINUS(activate(X), activate(Y))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

minus(n__0, Y) → 0
minus(n__s(X), n__s(Y)) → minus(activate(X), activate(Y))
geq(X, n__0) → true
geq(n__0, n__s(Y)) → false
geq(n__s(X), n__s(Y)) → geq(activate(X), activate(Y))
div(0, n__s(Y)) → 0
div(s(X), n__s(Y)) → if(geq(X, activate(Y)), n__s(div(minus(X, activate(Y)), n__s(activate(Y)))), n__0)
if(true, X, Y) → activate(X)
if(false, X, Y) → activate(Y)
0 → n__0
s(X) → n__s(X)
activate(n__0) → 0
activate(n__s(X)) → s(X)
activate(X) → X

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ UsableRulesProof

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ MNOCProof

          ↳ QDP

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

MINUS(n__s(X), n__s(Y)) → MINUS(activate(X), activate(Y))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

activate(n__0) → 0
activate(n__s(X)) → s(X)
activate(X) → X
s(X) → n__s(X)
0 → n__0

Q is empty.
We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
We use the modular non-overlap check [15] to enlarge Q to all left-hand sides of R.

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ UsableRulesProof

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ MNOCProof

                  ↳ QDP

                    ↳ RuleRemovalProof

          ↳ QDP

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

MINUS(n__s(X), n__s(Y)) → MINUS(activate(X), activate(Y))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

activate(n__0) → 0
activate(n__s(X)) → s(X)
activate(X) → X
s(X) → n__s(X)
0 → n__0

The set Q consists of the following terms:

activate(x0)
s(x0)
0

MINUS(n__s(X), n__s(Y)) → MINUS(activate(X), activate(Y))

Strictly oriented rules of the TRS R:

activate(n__s(X)) → s(X)
activate(X) → X
0 → n__0

Used ordering: POLO with Polynomial interpretation [25]:

POL(0) = 1
POL(MINUS(x₁, x₂)) = x₁ + 2·x₂
POL(activate(x₁)) = 1 + 2·x₁
POL(n__0) = 0
POL(n__s(x₁)) = 2 + 2·x₁
POL(s(x₁)) = 2 + 2·x₁

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ UsableRulesProof

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ MNOCProof

                  ↳ QDP

                    ↳ RuleRemovalProof

                      ↳ QDP

                        ↳ PisEmptyProof

          ↳ QDP

Q DP problem:
P is empty.
The TRS R consists of the following rules:

activate(n__0) → 0
s(X) → n__s(X)

The set Q consists of the following terms:

activate(x0)
s(x0)
0

We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
The TRS P is empty. Hence, there is no (P,Q,R) chain.

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ QDPOrderProof

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

DIV(s(X), n__s(Y)) → DIV(minus(X, activate(Y)), n__s(activate(Y)))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

minus(n__0, Y) → 0
minus(n__s(X), n__s(Y)) → minus(activate(X), activate(Y))
geq(X, n__0) → true
geq(n__0, n__s(Y)) → false
geq(n__s(X), n__s(Y)) → geq(activate(X), activate(Y))
div(0, n__s(Y)) → 0
div(s(X), n__s(Y)) → if(geq(X, activate(Y)), n__s(div(minus(X, activate(Y)), n__s(activate(Y)))), n__0)
if(true, X, Y) → activate(X)
if(false, X, Y) → activate(Y)
0 → n__0
s(X) → n__s(X)
activate(n__0) → 0
activate(n__s(X)) → s(X)
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.

DIV(s(X), n__s(Y)) → DIV(minus(X, activate(Y)), n__s(activate(Y)))

The remaining pairs can at least be oriented weakly.
none
Used ordering: Polynomial interpretation [25]:

POL(0) = 0
POL(DIV(x₁, x₂)) = x₁
POL(activate(x₁)) = 0
POL(minus(x₁, x₂)) = 0
POL(n__0) = 0
POL(n__s(x₁)) = 0
POL(s(x₁)) = 1 + x₁

The following usable rules [17] were oriented:

minus(n__0, Y) → 0
minus(n__s(X), n__s(Y)) → minus(activate(X), activate(Y))
0 → n__0

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ QDPOrderProof

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ PisEmptyProof

Q DP problem:
P is empty.
The TRS R consists of the following rules:

minus(n__0, Y) → 0
minus(n__s(X), n__s(Y)) → minus(activate(X), activate(Y))
geq(X, n__0) → true
geq(n__0, n__s(Y)) → false
geq(n__s(X), n__s(Y)) → geq(activate(X), activate(Y))
div(0, n__s(Y)) → 0
div(s(X), n__s(Y)) → if(geq(X, activate(Y)), n__s(div(minus(X, activate(Y)), n__s(activate(Y)))), n__0)
if(true, X, Y) → activate(X)
if(false, X, Y) → activate(Y)
0 → n__0
s(X) → n__s(X)
activate(n__0) → 0
activate(n__s(X)) → s(X)
activate(X) → X

Q is empty.
We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
The TRS P is empty. Hence, there is no (P,Q,R) chain.