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(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)
take(X1, X2) → n__take(X1, X2)
activate(n__from(X)) → from(X)
activate(n__take(X1, X2)) → take(X1, 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(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)
take(X1, X2) → n__take(X1, X2)
activate(n__from(X)) → from(X)
activate(n__take(X1, X2)) → take(X1, 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:

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

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

from(X) → cons(X, n__from(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)
take(X1, X2) → n__take(X1, X2)
activate(n__from(X)) → from(X)
activate(n__take(X1, X2)) → take(X1, 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:

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

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

from(X) → cons(X, n__from(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)
take(X1, X2) → n__take(X1, X2)
activate(n__from(X)) → from(X)
activate(n__take(X1, X2)) → take(X1, 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 4 less nodes.

↳ QTRS
  ↳ DependencyPairsProof
    ↳ QDP
      ↳ DependencyGraphProof
        ↳ AND
          ↳ QDP
            ↳ UsableRulesProof
          ↳ QDP

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

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

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

from(X) → cons(X, n__from(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)
take(X1, X2) → n__take(X1, X2)
activate(n__from(X)) → from(X)
activate(n__take(X1, X2)) → take(X1, 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

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

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

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: 



↳ 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(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)
take(X1, X2) → n__take(X1, X2)
activate(n__from(X)) → from(X)
activate(n__take(X1, X2)) → take(X1, 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: