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:
active(f(0)) → mark(cons(0, f(s(0))))
active(f(s(0))) → mark(f(p(s(0))))
active(p(s(0))) → mark(0)
active(f(X)) → f(active(X))
active(cons(X1, X2)) → cons(active(X1), X2)
active(s(X)) → s(active(X))
active(p(X)) → p(active(X))
f(mark(X)) → mark(f(X))
cons(mark(X1), X2) → mark(cons(X1, X2))
s(mark(X)) → mark(s(X))
p(mark(X)) → mark(p(X))
proper(f(X)) → f(proper(X))
proper(0) → ok(0)
proper(cons(X1, X2)) → cons(proper(X1), proper(X2))
proper(s(X)) → s(proper(X))
proper(p(X)) → p(proper(X))
f(ok(X)) → ok(f(X))
cons(ok(X1), ok(X2)) → ok(cons(X1, X2))
s(ok(X)) → ok(s(X))
p(ok(X)) → ok(p(X))
top(mark(X)) → top(proper(X))
top(ok(X)) → top(active(X))
Q is empty.
↳ QTRS
↳ DependencyPairsProof
Q restricted rewrite system:
The TRS R consists of the following rules:
active(f(0)) → mark(cons(0, f(s(0))))
active(f(s(0))) → mark(f(p(s(0))))
active(p(s(0))) → mark(0)
active(f(X)) → f(active(X))
active(cons(X1, X2)) → cons(active(X1), X2)
active(s(X)) → s(active(X))
active(p(X)) → p(active(X))
f(mark(X)) → mark(f(X))
cons(mark(X1), X2) → mark(cons(X1, X2))
s(mark(X)) → mark(s(X))
p(mark(X)) → mark(p(X))
proper(f(X)) → f(proper(X))
proper(0) → ok(0)
proper(cons(X1, X2)) → cons(proper(X1), proper(X2))
proper(s(X)) → s(proper(X))
proper(p(X)) → p(proper(X))
f(ok(X)) → ok(f(X))
cons(ok(X1), ok(X2)) → ok(cons(X1, X2))
s(ok(X)) → ok(s(X))
p(ok(X)) → ok(p(X))
top(mark(X)) → top(proper(X))
top(ok(X)) → top(active(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:
S(ok(X)) → S(X)
CONS(mark(X1), X2) → CONS(X1, X2)
PROPER(p(X)) → PROPER(X)
TOP(mark(X)) → PROPER(X)
P(mark(X)) → P(X)
ACTIVE(cons(X1, X2)) → CONS(active(X1), X2)
ACTIVE(f(X)) → ACTIVE(X)
TOP(ok(X)) → ACTIVE(X)
ACTIVE(f(0)) → F(s(0))
PROPER(cons(X1, X2)) → PROPER(X1)
PROPER(s(X)) → PROPER(X)
PROPER(cons(X1, X2)) → PROPER(X2)
ACTIVE(cons(X1, X2)) → ACTIVE(X1)
PROPER(f(X)) → PROPER(X)
TOP(ok(X)) → TOP(active(X))
F(mark(X)) → F(X)
ACTIVE(p(X)) → P(active(X))
S(mark(X)) → S(X)
ACTIVE(f(0)) → S(0)
PROPER(cons(X1, X2)) → CONS(proper(X1), proper(X2))
CONS(ok(X1), ok(X2)) → CONS(X1, X2)
PROPER(s(X)) → S(proper(X))
ACTIVE(f(X)) → F(active(X))
P(ok(X)) → P(X)
ACTIVE(f(0)) → CONS(0, f(s(0)))
PROPER(f(X)) → F(proper(X))
PROPER(p(X)) → P(proper(X))
ACTIVE(s(X)) → ACTIVE(X)
TOP(mark(X)) → TOP(proper(X))
F(ok(X)) → F(X)
ACTIVE(f(s(0))) → P(s(0))
ACTIVE(p(X)) → ACTIVE(X)
ACTIVE(s(X)) → S(active(X))
ACTIVE(f(s(0))) → F(p(s(0)))
The TRS R consists of the following rules:
active(f(0)) → mark(cons(0, f(s(0))))
active(f(s(0))) → mark(f(p(s(0))))
active(p(s(0))) → mark(0)
active(f(X)) → f(active(X))
active(cons(X1, X2)) → cons(active(X1), X2)
active(s(X)) → s(active(X))
active(p(X)) → p(active(X))
f(mark(X)) → mark(f(X))
cons(mark(X1), X2) → mark(cons(X1, X2))
s(mark(X)) → mark(s(X))
p(mark(X)) → mark(p(X))
proper(f(X)) → f(proper(X))
proper(0) → ok(0)
proper(cons(X1, X2)) → cons(proper(X1), proper(X2))
proper(s(X)) → s(proper(X))
proper(p(X)) → p(proper(X))
f(ok(X)) → ok(f(X))
cons(ok(X1), ok(X2)) → ok(cons(X1, X2))
s(ok(X)) → ok(s(X))
p(ok(X)) → ok(p(X))
top(mark(X)) → top(proper(X))
top(ok(X)) → top(active(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:
S(ok(X)) → S(X)
CONS(mark(X1), X2) → CONS(X1, X2)
PROPER(p(X)) → PROPER(X)
TOP(mark(X)) → PROPER(X)
P(mark(X)) → P(X)
ACTIVE(cons(X1, X2)) → CONS(active(X1), X2)
ACTIVE(f(X)) → ACTIVE(X)
TOP(ok(X)) → ACTIVE(X)
ACTIVE(f(0)) → F(s(0))
PROPER(cons(X1, X2)) → PROPER(X1)
PROPER(s(X)) → PROPER(X)
PROPER(cons(X1, X2)) → PROPER(X2)
ACTIVE(cons(X1, X2)) → ACTIVE(X1)
PROPER(f(X)) → PROPER(X)
TOP(ok(X)) → TOP(active(X))
F(mark(X)) → F(X)
ACTIVE(p(X)) → P(active(X))
S(mark(X)) → S(X)
ACTIVE(f(0)) → S(0)
PROPER(cons(X1, X2)) → CONS(proper(X1), proper(X2))
CONS(ok(X1), ok(X2)) → CONS(X1, X2)
PROPER(s(X)) → S(proper(X))
ACTIVE(f(X)) → F(active(X))
P(ok(X)) → P(X)
ACTIVE(f(0)) → CONS(0, f(s(0)))
PROPER(f(X)) → F(proper(X))
PROPER(p(X)) → P(proper(X))
ACTIVE(s(X)) → ACTIVE(X)
TOP(mark(X)) → TOP(proper(X))
F(ok(X)) → F(X)
ACTIVE(f(s(0))) → P(s(0))
ACTIVE(p(X)) → ACTIVE(X)
ACTIVE(s(X)) → S(active(X))
ACTIVE(f(s(0))) → F(p(s(0)))
The TRS R consists of the following rules:
active(f(0)) → mark(cons(0, f(s(0))))
active(f(s(0))) → mark(f(p(s(0))))
active(p(s(0))) → mark(0)
active(f(X)) → f(active(X))
active(cons(X1, X2)) → cons(active(X1), X2)
active(s(X)) → s(active(X))
active(p(X)) → p(active(X))
f(mark(X)) → mark(f(X))
cons(mark(X1), X2) → mark(cons(X1, X2))
s(mark(X)) → mark(s(X))
p(mark(X)) → mark(p(X))
proper(f(X)) → f(proper(X))
proper(0) → ok(0)
proper(cons(X1, X2)) → cons(proper(X1), proper(X2))
proper(s(X)) → s(proper(X))
proper(p(X)) → p(proper(X))
f(ok(X)) → ok(f(X))
cons(ok(X1), ok(X2)) → ok(cons(X1, X2))
s(ok(X)) → ok(s(X))
p(ok(X)) → ok(p(X))
top(mark(X)) → top(proper(X))
top(ok(X)) → top(active(X))
Q is empty.
We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
The approximation of the Dependency Graph [15,17,22] contains 7 SCCs with 15 less nodes.
↳ QTRS
↳ DependencyPairsProof
↳ QDP
↳ DependencyGraphProof
↳ AND
↳ QDP
↳ UsableRulesProof
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:
P(mark(X)) → P(X)
P(ok(X)) → P(X)
The TRS R consists of the following rules:
active(f(0)) → mark(cons(0, f(s(0))))
active(f(s(0))) → mark(f(p(s(0))))
active(p(s(0))) → mark(0)
active(f(X)) → f(active(X))
active(cons(X1, X2)) → cons(active(X1), X2)
active(s(X)) → s(active(X))
active(p(X)) → p(active(X))
f(mark(X)) → mark(f(X))
cons(mark(X1), X2) → mark(cons(X1, X2))
s(mark(X)) → mark(s(X))
p(mark(X)) → mark(p(X))
proper(f(X)) → f(proper(X))
proper(0) → ok(0)
proper(cons(X1, X2)) → cons(proper(X1), proper(X2))
proper(s(X)) → s(proper(X))
proper(p(X)) → p(proper(X))
f(ok(X)) → ok(f(X))
cons(ok(X1), ok(X2)) → ok(cons(X1, X2))
s(ok(X)) → ok(s(X))
p(ok(X)) → ok(p(X))
top(mark(X)) → top(proper(X))
top(ok(X)) → top(active(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
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:
P(mark(X)) → P(X)
P(ok(X)) → P(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:
- P(mark(X)) → P(X)
The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1
- P(ok(X)) → P(X)
The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1
↳ QTRS
↳ DependencyPairsProof
↳ QDP
↳ DependencyGraphProof
↳ AND
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ UsableRulesProof
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:
S(ok(X)) → S(X)
S(mark(X)) → S(X)
The TRS R consists of the following rules:
active(f(0)) → mark(cons(0, f(s(0))))
active(f(s(0))) → mark(f(p(s(0))))
active(p(s(0))) → mark(0)
active(f(X)) → f(active(X))
active(cons(X1, X2)) → cons(active(X1), X2)
active(s(X)) → s(active(X))
active(p(X)) → p(active(X))
f(mark(X)) → mark(f(X))
cons(mark(X1), X2) → mark(cons(X1, X2))
s(mark(X)) → mark(s(X))
p(mark(X)) → mark(p(X))
proper(f(X)) → f(proper(X))
proper(0) → ok(0)
proper(cons(X1, X2)) → cons(proper(X1), proper(X2))
proper(s(X)) → s(proper(X))
proper(p(X)) → p(proper(X))
f(ok(X)) → ok(f(X))
cons(ok(X1), ok(X2)) → ok(cons(X1, X2))
s(ok(X)) → ok(s(X))
p(ok(X)) → ok(p(X))
top(mark(X)) → top(proper(X))
top(ok(X)) → top(active(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
↳ QDP
↳ UsableRulesProof
↳ QDP
↳ QDPSizeChangeProof
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:
S(ok(X)) → S(X)
S(mark(X)) → S(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:
- S(ok(X)) → S(X)
The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1
- S(mark(X)) → S(X)
The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1
↳ QTRS
↳ DependencyPairsProof
↳ QDP
↳ DependencyGraphProof
↳ AND
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ UsableRulesProof
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:
CONS(mark(X1), X2) → CONS(X1, X2)
CONS(ok(X1), ok(X2)) → CONS(X1, X2)
The TRS R consists of the following rules:
active(f(0)) → mark(cons(0, f(s(0))))
active(f(s(0))) → mark(f(p(s(0))))
active(p(s(0))) → mark(0)
active(f(X)) → f(active(X))
active(cons(X1, X2)) → cons(active(X1), X2)
active(s(X)) → s(active(X))
active(p(X)) → p(active(X))
f(mark(X)) → mark(f(X))
cons(mark(X1), X2) → mark(cons(X1, X2))
s(mark(X)) → mark(s(X))
p(mark(X)) → mark(p(X))
proper(f(X)) → f(proper(X))
proper(0) → ok(0)
proper(cons(X1, X2)) → cons(proper(X1), proper(X2))
proper(s(X)) → s(proper(X))
proper(p(X)) → p(proper(X))
f(ok(X)) → ok(f(X))
cons(ok(X1), ok(X2)) → ok(cons(X1, X2))
s(ok(X)) → ok(s(X))
p(ok(X)) → ok(p(X))
top(mark(X)) → top(proper(X))
top(ok(X)) → top(active(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
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ UsableRulesProof
↳ QDP
↳ QDPSizeChangeProof
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:
CONS(mark(X1), X2) → CONS(X1, X2)
CONS(ok(X1), ok(X2)) → CONS(X1, X2)
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:
- CONS(mark(X1), X2) → CONS(X1, X2)
The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1, 2 >= 2
- CONS(ok(X1), ok(X2)) → CONS(X1, X2)
The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1, 2 > 2
↳ QTRS
↳ DependencyPairsProof
↳ QDP
↳ DependencyGraphProof
↳ AND
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ UsableRulesProof
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:
F(mark(X)) → F(X)
F(ok(X)) → F(X)
The TRS R consists of the following rules:
active(f(0)) → mark(cons(0, f(s(0))))
active(f(s(0))) → mark(f(p(s(0))))
active(p(s(0))) → mark(0)
active(f(X)) → f(active(X))
active(cons(X1, X2)) → cons(active(X1), X2)
active(s(X)) → s(active(X))
active(p(X)) → p(active(X))
f(mark(X)) → mark(f(X))
cons(mark(X1), X2) → mark(cons(X1, X2))
s(mark(X)) → mark(s(X))
p(mark(X)) → mark(p(X))
proper(f(X)) → f(proper(X))
proper(0) → ok(0)
proper(cons(X1, X2)) → cons(proper(X1), proper(X2))
proper(s(X)) → s(proper(X))
proper(p(X)) → p(proper(X))
f(ok(X)) → ok(f(X))
cons(ok(X1), ok(X2)) → ok(cons(X1, X2))
s(ok(X)) → ok(s(X))
p(ok(X)) → ok(p(X))
top(mark(X)) → top(proper(X))
top(ok(X)) → top(active(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
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ UsableRulesProof
↳ QDP
↳ QDPSizeChangeProof
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:
F(mark(X)) → F(X)
F(ok(X)) → F(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:
- F(mark(X)) → F(X)
The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1
- F(ok(X)) → F(X)
The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1
↳ QTRS
↳ DependencyPairsProof
↳ QDP
↳ DependencyGraphProof
↳ AND
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ UsableRulesProof
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:
PROPER(p(X)) → PROPER(X)
PROPER(s(X)) → PROPER(X)
PROPER(cons(X1, X2)) → PROPER(X1)
PROPER(cons(X1, X2)) → PROPER(X2)
PROPER(f(X)) → PROPER(X)
The TRS R consists of the following rules:
active(f(0)) → mark(cons(0, f(s(0))))
active(f(s(0))) → mark(f(p(s(0))))
active(p(s(0))) → mark(0)
active(f(X)) → f(active(X))
active(cons(X1, X2)) → cons(active(X1), X2)
active(s(X)) → s(active(X))
active(p(X)) → p(active(X))
f(mark(X)) → mark(f(X))
cons(mark(X1), X2) → mark(cons(X1, X2))
s(mark(X)) → mark(s(X))
p(mark(X)) → mark(p(X))
proper(f(X)) → f(proper(X))
proper(0) → ok(0)
proper(cons(X1, X2)) → cons(proper(X1), proper(X2))
proper(s(X)) → s(proper(X))
proper(p(X)) → p(proper(X))
f(ok(X)) → ok(f(X))
cons(ok(X1), ok(X2)) → ok(cons(X1, X2))
s(ok(X)) → ok(s(X))
p(ok(X)) → ok(p(X))
top(mark(X)) → top(proper(X))
top(ok(X)) → top(active(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
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ UsableRulesProof
↳ QDP
↳ QDPSizeChangeProof
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:
PROPER(p(X)) → PROPER(X)
PROPER(cons(X1, X2)) → PROPER(X1)
PROPER(s(X)) → PROPER(X)
PROPER(cons(X1, X2)) → PROPER(X2)
PROPER(f(X)) → PROPER(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:
- PROPER(p(X)) → PROPER(X)
The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1
- PROPER(s(X)) → PROPER(X)
The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1
- PROPER(cons(X1, X2)) → PROPER(X1)
The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1
- PROPER(cons(X1, X2)) → PROPER(X2)
The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1
- PROPER(f(X)) → PROPER(X)
The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1
↳ QTRS
↳ DependencyPairsProof
↳ QDP
↳ DependencyGraphProof
↳ AND
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ UsableRulesProof
↳ QDP
Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:
ACTIVE(s(X)) → ACTIVE(X)
ACTIVE(cons(X1, X2)) → ACTIVE(X1)
ACTIVE(f(X)) → ACTIVE(X)
ACTIVE(p(X)) → ACTIVE(X)
The TRS R consists of the following rules:
active(f(0)) → mark(cons(0, f(s(0))))
active(f(s(0))) → mark(f(p(s(0))))
active(p(s(0))) → mark(0)
active(f(X)) → f(active(X))
active(cons(X1, X2)) → cons(active(X1), X2)
active(s(X)) → s(active(X))
active(p(X)) → p(active(X))
f(mark(X)) → mark(f(X))
cons(mark(X1), X2) → mark(cons(X1, X2))
s(mark(X)) → mark(s(X))
p(mark(X)) → mark(p(X))
proper(f(X)) → f(proper(X))
proper(0) → ok(0)
proper(cons(X1, X2)) → cons(proper(X1), proper(X2))
proper(s(X)) → s(proper(X))
proper(p(X)) → p(proper(X))
f(ok(X)) → ok(f(X))
cons(ok(X1), ok(X2)) → ok(cons(X1, X2))
s(ok(X)) → ok(s(X))
p(ok(X)) → ok(p(X))
top(mark(X)) → top(proper(X))
top(ok(X)) → top(active(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
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ UsableRulesProof
↳ QDP
↳ QDPSizeChangeProof
↳ QDP
Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:
ACTIVE(s(X)) → ACTIVE(X)
ACTIVE(cons(X1, X2)) → ACTIVE(X1)
ACTIVE(f(X)) → ACTIVE(X)
ACTIVE(p(X)) → ACTIVE(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:
- ACTIVE(s(X)) → ACTIVE(X)
The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1
- ACTIVE(cons(X1, X2)) → ACTIVE(X1)
The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1
- ACTIVE(f(X)) → ACTIVE(X)
The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1
- ACTIVE(p(X)) → ACTIVE(X)
The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1
↳ QTRS
↳ DependencyPairsProof
↳ QDP
↳ DependencyGraphProof
↳ AND
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ UsableRulesProof
Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:
TOP(mark(X)) → TOP(proper(X))
TOP(ok(X)) → TOP(active(X))
The TRS R consists of the following rules:
active(f(0)) → mark(cons(0, f(s(0))))
active(f(s(0))) → mark(f(p(s(0))))
active(p(s(0))) → mark(0)
active(f(X)) → f(active(X))
active(cons(X1, X2)) → cons(active(X1), X2)
active(s(X)) → s(active(X))
active(p(X)) → p(active(X))
f(mark(X)) → mark(f(X))
cons(mark(X1), X2) → mark(cons(X1, X2))
s(mark(X)) → mark(s(X))
p(mark(X)) → mark(p(X))
proper(f(X)) → f(proper(X))
proper(0) → ok(0)
proper(cons(X1, X2)) → cons(proper(X1), proper(X2))
proper(s(X)) → s(proper(X))
proper(p(X)) → p(proper(X))
f(ok(X)) → ok(f(X))
cons(ok(X1), ok(X2)) → ok(cons(X1, X2))
s(ok(X)) → ok(s(X))
p(ok(X)) → ok(p(X))
top(mark(X)) → top(proper(X))
top(ok(X)) → top(active(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
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ UsableRulesProof
↳ QDP
↳ QDPOrderProof
Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:
TOP(mark(X)) → TOP(proper(X))
TOP(ok(X)) → TOP(active(X))
The TRS R consists of the following rules:
proper(f(X)) → f(proper(X))
proper(0) → ok(0)
proper(cons(X1, X2)) → cons(proper(X1), proper(X2))
proper(s(X)) → s(proper(X))
proper(p(X)) → p(proper(X))
p(mark(X)) → mark(p(X))
p(ok(X)) → ok(p(X))
s(mark(X)) → mark(s(X))
s(ok(X)) → ok(s(X))
cons(mark(X1), X2) → mark(cons(X1, X2))
cons(ok(X1), ok(X2)) → ok(cons(X1, X2))
f(mark(X)) → mark(f(X))
f(ok(X)) → ok(f(X))
active(f(0)) → mark(cons(0, f(s(0))))
active(f(s(0))) → mark(f(p(s(0))))
active(p(s(0))) → mark(0)
active(f(X)) → f(active(X))
active(cons(X1, X2)) → cons(active(X1), X2)
active(s(X)) → s(active(X))
active(p(X)) → p(active(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.
TOP(mark(X)) → TOP(proper(X))
The remaining pairs can at least be oriented weakly.
TOP(ok(X)) → TOP(active(X))
Used ordering: Matrix interpretation [3]:
Non-tuple symbols:
| M( cons(x1, x2) ) = | | + | | · | x1 | + | | · | x2 |
Tuple symbols:
Matrix type:
We used a basic matrix type which is not further parametrizeable.
As matrix orders are CE-compatible, we used usable rules w.r.t. argument filtering in the order.
The following usable rules [17] were oriented:
proper(p(X)) → p(proper(X))
p(mark(X)) → mark(p(X))
proper(cons(X1, X2)) → cons(proper(X1), proper(X2))
proper(s(X)) → s(proper(X))
proper(f(X)) → f(proper(X))
proper(0) → ok(0)
active(f(0)) → mark(cons(0, f(s(0))))
f(ok(X)) → ok(f(X))
f(mark(X)) → mark(f(X))
cons(ok(X1), ok(X2)) → ok(cons(X1, X2))
cons(mark(X1), X2) → mark(cons(X1, X2))
s(ok(X)) → ok(s(X))
s(mark(X)) → mark(s(X))
p(ok(X)) → ok(p(X))
active(p(X)) → p(active(X))
active(s(X)) → s(active(X))
active(cons(X1, X2)) → cons(active(X1), X2)
active(f(X)) → f(active(X))
active(p(s(0))) → mark(0)
active(f(s(0))) → mark(f(p(s(0))))
↳ QTRS
↳ DependencyPairsProof
↳ QDP
↳ DependencyGraphProof
↳ AND
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ UsableRulesProof
↳ QDP
↳ QDPOrderProof
↳ QDP
↳ UsableRulesProof
Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:
TOP(ok(X)) → TOP(active(X))
The TRS R consists of the following rules:
proper(f(X)) → f(proper(X))
proper(0) → ok(0)
proper(cons(X1, X2)) → cons(proper(X1), proper(X2))
proper(s(X)) → s(proper(X))
proper(p(X)) → p(proper(X))
p(mark(X)) → mark(p(X))
p(ok(X)) → ok(p(X))
s(mark(X)) → mark(s(X))
s(ok(X)) → ok(s(X))
cons(mark(X1), X2) → mark(cons(X1, X2))
cons(ok(X1), ok(X2)) → ok(cons(X1, X2))
f(mark(X)) → mark(f(X))
f(ok(X)) → ok(f(X))
active(f(0)) → mark(cons(0, f(s(0))))
active(f(s(0))) → mark(f(p(s(0))))
active(p(s(0))) → mark(0)
active(f(X)) → f(active(X))
active(cons(X1, X2)) → cons(active(X1), X2)
active(s(X)) → s(active(X))
active(p(X)) → p(active(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
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ UsableRulesProof
↳ QDP
↳ QDPOrderProof
↳ QDP
↳ UsableRulesProof
↳ QDP
↳ RuleRemovalProof
Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:
TOP(ok(X)) → TOP(active(X))
The TRS R consists of the following rules:
active(f(0)) → mark(cons(0, f(s(0))))
active(f(s(0))) → mark(f(p(s(0))))
active(p(s(0))) → mark(0)
active(f(X)) → f(active(X))
active(cons(X1, X2)) → cons(active(X1), X2)
active(s(X)) → s(active(X))
active(p(X)) → p(active(X))
p(mark(X)) → mark(p(X))
p(ok(X)) → ok(p(X))
s(mark(X)) → mark(s(X))
s(ok(X)) → ok(s(X))
cons(mark(X1), X2) → mark(cons(X1, X2))
cons(ok(X1), ok(X2)) → ok(cons(X1, X2))
f(mark(X)) → mark(f(X))
f(ok(X)) → ok(f(X))
Q is empty.
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:
TOP(ok(X)) → TOP(active(X))
Strictly oriented rules of the TRS R:
active(f(s(0))) → mark(f(p(s(0))))
cons(ok(X1), ok(X2)) → ok(cons(X1, X2))
f(mark(X)) → mark(f(X))
f(ok(X)) → ok(f(X))
Used ordering: POLO with Polynomial interpretation [25]:
POL(0) = 1
POL(TOP(x1)) = x1
POL(active(x1)) = 2·x1
POL(cons(x1, x2)) = x1 + x2
POL(f(x1)) = 2·x1
POL(mark(x1)) = 1 + x1
POL(ok(x1)) = 1 + 2·x1
POL(p(x1)) = x1
POL(s(x1)) = x1
↳ QTRS
↳ DependencyPairsProof
↳ QDP
↳ DependencyGraphProof
↳ AND
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ QDP
↳ UsableRulesProof
↳ QDP
↳ QDPOrderProof
↳ QDP
↳ UsableRulesProof
↳ QDP
↳ RuleRemovalProof
↳ QDP
↳ PisEmptyProof
Q DP problem:
P is empty.
The TRS R consists of the following rules:
active(f(0)) → mark(cons(0, f(s(0))))
active(p(s(0))) → mark(0)
active(f(X)) → f(active(X))
active(cons(X1, X2)) → cons(active(X1), X2)
active(s(X)) → s(active(X))
active(p(X)) → p(active(X))
p(mark(X)) → mark(p(X))
p(ok(X)) → ok(p(X))
s(mark(X)) → mark(s(X))
s(ok(X)) → ok(s(X))
cons(mark(X1), X2) → mark(cons(X1, X2))
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.