Termination w.r.t. Q proof of /tmp/tmpXufmcl/Ex7_BLR02

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:

from(X) → cons(X, n__from(n__s(X)))
head(cons(X, XS)) → X
2nd(cons(X, XS)) → head(activate(XS))
take(0, XS) → nil
take(s(N), cons(X, XS)) → cons(X, n__take(N, activate(XS)))
sel(0, cons(X, XS)) → X
sel(s(N), cons(X, XS)) → sel(N, activate(XS))
from(X) → n__from(X)
s(X) → n__s(X)
take(X1, X2) → n__take(X1, X2)
activate(n__from(X)) → from(activate(X))
activate(n__s(X)) → s(activate(X))
activate(n__take(X1, X2)) → take(activate(X1), activate(X2))
activate(X) → X

Q is empty.

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

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

from(X) → cons(X, n__from(n__s(X)))
head(cons(X, XS)) → X
2nd(cons(X, XS)) → head(activate(XS))
take(0, XS) → nil
take(s(N), cons(X, XS)) → cons(X, n__take(N, activate(XS)))
sel(0, cons(X, XS)) → X
sel(s(N), cons(X, XS)) → sel(N, activate(XS))
from(X) → n__from(X)
s(X) → n__s(X)
take(X1, X2) → n__take(X1, X2)
activate(n__from(X)) → from(activate(X))
activate(n__s(X)) → s(activate(X))
activate(n__take(X1, X2)) → take(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:

ACTIVATE(n__from(X)) → ACTIVATE(X)
2ND(cons(X, XS)) → HEAD(activate(XS))
ACTIVATE(n__take(X1, X2)) → TAKE(activate(X1), activate(X2))
SEL(s(N), cons(X, XS)) → ACTIVATE(XS)
2ND(cons(X, XS)) → ACTIVATE(XS)
ACTIVATE(n__take(X1, X2)) → ACTIVATE(X1)
ACTIVATE(n__s(X)) → S(activate(X))
ACTIVATE(n__from(X)) → FROM(activate(X))
SEL(s(N), cons(X, XS)) → SEL(N, activate(XS))
ACTIVATE(n__take(X1, X2)) → ACTIVATE(X2)
ACTIVATE(n__s(X)) → ACTIVATE(X)
TAKE(s(N), cons(X, XS)) → ACTIVATE(XS)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

from(X) → cons(X, n__from(n__s(X)))
head(cons(X, XS)) → X
2nd(cons(X, XS)) → head(activate(XS))
take(0, XS) → nil
take(s(N), cons(X, XS)) → cons(X, n__take(N, activate(XS)))
sel(0, cons(X, XS)) → X
sel(s(N), cons(X, XS)) → sel(N, activate(XS))
from(X) → n__from(X)
s(X) → n__s(X)
take(X1, X2) → n__take(X1, X2)
activate(n__from(X)) → from(activate(X))
activate(n__s(X)) → s(activate(X))
activate(n__take(X1, X2)) → take(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:

ACTIVATE(n__from(X)) → ACTIVATE(X)
2ND(cons(X, XS)) → HEAD(activate(XS))
ACTIVATE(n__take(X1, X2)) → TAKE(activate(X1), activate(X2))
SEL(s(N), cons(X, XS)) → ACTIVATE(XS)
2ND(cons(X, XS)) → ACTIVATE(XS)
ACTIVATE(n__take(X1, X2)) → ACTIVATE(X1)
ACTIVATE(n__s(X)) → S(activate(X))
ACTIVATE(n__from(X)) → FROM(activate(X))
SEL(s(N), cons(X, XS)) → SEL(N, activate(XS))
ACTIVATE(n__take(X1, X2)) → ACTIVATE(X2)
ACTIVATE(n__s(X)) → ACTIVATE(X)
TAKE(s(N), cons(X, XS)) → ACTIVATE(XS)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

from(X) → cons(X, n__from(n__s(X)))
head(cons(X, XS)) → X
2nd(cons(X, XS)) → head(activate(XS))
take(0, XS) → nil
take(s(N), cons(X, XS)) → cons(X, n__take(N, activate(XS)))
sel(0, cons(X, XS)) → X
sel(s(N), cons(X, XS)) → sel(N, activate(XS))
from(X) → n__from(X)
s(X) → n__s(X)
take(X1, X2) → n__take(X1, X2)
activate(n__from(X)) → from(activate(X))
activate(n__s(X)) → s(activate(X))
activate(n__take(X1, X2)) → take(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 2 SCCs with 5 less nodes.

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ QDPOrderProof

          ↳ QDP

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

ACTIVATE(n__from(X)) → ACTIVATE(X)
ACTIVATE(n__take(X1, X2)) → TAKE(activate(X1), activate(X2))
ACTIVATE(n__take(X1, X2)) → ACTIVATE(X1)
ACTIVATE(n__take(X1, X2)) → ACTIVATE(X2)
ACTIVATE(n__s(X)) → ACTIVATE(X)
TAKE(s(N), cons(X, XS)) → ACTIVATE(XS)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

from(X) → cons(X, n__from(n__s(X)))
head(cons(X, XS)) → X
2nd(cons(X, XS)) → head(activate(XS))
take(0, XS) → nil
take(s(N), cons(X, XS)) → cons(X, n__take(N, activate(XS)))
sel(0, cons(X, XS)) → X
sel(s(N), cons(X, XS)) → sel(N, activate(XS))
from(X) → n__from(X)
s(X) → n__s(X)
take(X1, X2) → n__take(X1, X2)
activate(n__from(X)) → from(activate(X))
activate(n__s(X)) → s(activate(X))
activate(n__take(X1, X2)) → take(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__from(X)) → ACTIVATE(X)
ACTIVATE(n__take(X1, X2)) → TAKE(activate(X1), activate(X2))
ACTIVATE(n__take(X1, X2)) → ACTIVATE(X1)
ACTIVATE(n__take(X1, X2)) → ACTIVATE(X2)

The remaining pairs can at least be oriented weakly.

ACTIVATE(n__s(X)) → ACTIVATE(X)
TAKE(s(N), cons(X, XS)) → ACTIVATE(XS)

Used ordering: Polynomial interpretation [25]:

POL(0) = 1
POL(ACTIVATE(x₁)) = 1 + x₁
POL(TAKE(x₁, x₂)) = 1 + x₂
POL(activate(x₁)) = x₁
POL(cons(x₁, x₂)) = x₂
POL(from(x₁)) = 1 + x₁
POL(n__from(x₁)) = 1 + x₁
POL(n__s(x₁)) = x₁
POL(n__take(x₁, x₂)) = 1 + x₁ + x₂
POL(nil) = 1
POL(s(x₁)) = x₁
POL(take(x₁, x₂)) = 1 + x₁ + x₂

The following usable rules [17] were oriented:

activate(X) → X
activate(n__take(X1, X2)) → take(activate(X1), activate(X2))
activate(n__s(X)) → s(activate(X))
from(X) → cons(X, n__from(n__s(X)))
take(0, XS) → nil
take(s(N), cons(X, XS)) → cons(X, n__take(N, activate(XS)))
take(X1, X2) → n__take(X1, X2)
activate(n__from(X)) → from(activate(X))
from(X) → n__from(X)
s(X) → n__s(X)

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ QDPOrderProof

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ DependencyGraphProof

          ↳ QDP

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

ACTIVATE(n__s(X)) → ACTIVATE(X)
TAKE(s(N), cons(X, XS)) → ACTIVATE(XS)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

from(X) → cons(X, n__from(n__s(X)))
head(cons(X, XS)) → X
2nd(cons(X, XS)) → head(activate(XS))
take(0, XS) → nil
take(s(N), cons(X, XS)) → cons(X, n__take(N, activate(XS)))
sel(0, cons(X, XS)) → X
sel(s(N), cons(X, XS)) → sel(N, activate(XS))
from(X) → n__from(X)
s(X) → n__s(X)
take(X1, X2) → n__take(X1, X2)
activate(n__from(X)) → from(activate(X))
activate(n__s(X)) → s(activate(X))
activate(n__take(X1, X2)) → take(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

            ↳ QDPOrderProof

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ DependencyGraphProof

                  ↳ QDP

                    ↳ UsableRulesProof

          ↳ QDP

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

ACTIVATE(n__s(X)) → ACTIVATE(X)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

from(X) → cons(X, n__from(n__s(X)))
head(cons(X, XS)) → X
2nd(cons(X, XS)) → head(activate(XS))
take(0, XS) → nil
take(s(N), cons(X, XS)) → cons(X, n__take(N, activate(XS)))
sel(0, cons(X, XS)) → X
sel(s(N), cons(X, XS)) → sel(N, activate(XS))
from(X) → n__from(X)
s(X) → n__s(X)
take(X1, X2) → n__take(X1, X2)
activate(n__from(X)) → from(activate(X))
activate(n__s(X)) → s(activate(X))
activate(n__take(X1, X2)) → take(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

            ↳ QDPOrderProof

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ DependencyGraphProof

                  ↳ QDP

                    ↳ UsableRulesProof

                      ↳ QDP

                        ↳ QDPSizeChangeProof

          ↳ QDP

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

ACTIVATE(n__s(X)) → ACTIVATE(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:

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

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ QDPSizeChangeProof

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

SEL(s(N), cons(X, XS)) → SEL(N, activate(XS))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

from(X) → cons(X, n__from(n__s(X)))
head(cons(X, XS)) → X
2nd(cons(X, XS)) → head(activate(XS))
take(0, XS) → nil
take(s(N), cons(X, XS)) → cons(X, n__take(N, activate(XS)))
sel(0, cons(X, XS)) → X
sel(s(N), cons(X, XS)) → sel(N, activate(XS))
from(X) → n__from(X)
s(X) → n__s(X)
take(X1, X2) → n__take(X1, X2)
activate(n__from(X)) → from(activate(X))
activate(n__s(X)) → s(activate(X))
activate(n__take(X1, X2)) → take(activate(X1), activate(X2))
activate(X) → X

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:

SEL(s(N), cons(X, XS)) → SEL(N, activate(XS))
The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1