Termination w.r.t. Q proof of /tmp/tmpklI0OG/ExAppendixB_AEL03

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)))
2ndspos(0, Z) → rnil
2ndspos(s(N), cons(X, Z)) → 2ndspos(s(N), cons2(X, activate(Z)))
2ndspos(s(N), cons2(X, cons(Y, Z))) → rcons(posrecip(Y), 2ndsneg(N, activate(Z)))
2ndsneg(0, Z) → rnil
2ndsneg(s(N), cons(X, Z)) → 2ndsneg(s(N), cons2(X, activate(Z)))
2ndsneg(s(N), cons2(X, cons(Y, Z))) → rcons(negrecip(Y), 2ndspos(N, activate(Z)))
pi(X) → 2ndspos(X, from(0))
plus(0, Y) → Y
plus(s(X), Y) → s(plus(X, Y))
times(0, Y) → 0
times(s(X), Y) → plus(Y, times(X, Y))
square(X) → times(X, X)
from(X) → n__from(X)
activate(n__from(X)) → from(X)
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)))
2ndspos(0, Z) → rnil
2ndspos(s(N), cons(X, Z)) → 2ndspos(s(N), cons2(X, activate(Z)))
2ndspos(s(N), cons2(X, cons(Y, Z))) → rcons(posrecip(Y), 2ndsneg(N, activate(Z)))
2ndsneg(0, Z) → rnil
2ndsneg(s(N), cons(X, Z)) → 2ndsneg(s(N), cons2(X, activate(Z)))
2ndsneg(s(N), cons2(X, cons(Y, Z))) → rcons(negrecip(Y), 2ndspos(N, activate(Z)))
pi(X) → 2ndspos(X, from(0))
plus(0, Y) → Y
plus(s(X), Y) → s(plus(X, Y))
times(0, Y) → 0
times(s(X), Y) → plus(Y, times(X, Y))
square(X) → times(X, X)
from(X) → n__from(X)
activate(n__from(X)) → from(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:

2NDSNEG(s(N), cons2(X, cons(Y, Z))) → ACTIVATE(Z)
SQUARE(X) → TIMES(X, X)
2NDSPOS(s(N), cons(X, Z)) → ACTIVATE(Z)
2NDSNEG(s(N), cons(X, Z)) → 2NDSNEG(s(N), cons2(X, activate(Z)))
2NDSNEG(s(N), cons(X, Z)) → ACTIVATE(Z)
TIMES(s(X), Y) → PLUS(Y, times(X, Y))
2NDSNEG(s(N), cons2(X, cons(Y, Z))) → 2NDSPOS(N, activate(Z))
PI(X) → 2NDSPOS(X, from(0))
PI(X) → FROM(0)
2NDSPOS(s(N), cons2(X, cons(Y, Z))) → 2NDSNEG(N, activate(Z))
2NDSPOS(s(N), cons2(X, cons(Y, Z))) → ACTIVATE(Z)
TIMES(s(X), Y) → TIMES(X, Y)
ACTIVATE(n__from(X)) → FROM(X)
2NDSPOS(s(N), cons(X, Z)) → 2NDSPOS(s(N), cons2(X, activate(Z)))
PLUS(s(X), Y) → PLUS(X, Y)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

from(X) → cons(X, n__from(s(X)))
2ndspos(0, Z) → rnil
2ndspos(s(N), cons(X, Z)) → 2ndspos(s(N), cons2(X, activate(Z)))
2ndspos(s(N), cons2(X, cons(Y, Z))) → rcons(posrecip(Y), 2ndsneg(N, activate(Z)))
2ndsneg(0, Z) → rnil
2ndsneg(s(N), cons(X, Z)) → 2ndsneg(s(N), cons2(X, activate(Z)))
2ndsneg(s(N), cons2(X, cons(Y, Z))) → rcons(negrecip(Y), 2ndspos(N, activate(Z)))
pi(X) → 2ndspos(X, from(0))
plus(0, Y) → Y
plus(s(X), Y) → s(plus(X, Y))
times(0, Y) → 0
times(s(X), Y) → plus(Y, times(X, Y))
square(X) → times(X, X)
from(X) → n__from(X)
activate(n__from(X)) → from(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:

2NDSNEG(s(N), cons2(X, cons(Y, Z))) → ACTIVATE(Z)
SQUARE(X) → TIMES(X, X)
2NDSPOS(s(N), cons(X, Z)) → ACTIVATE(Z)
2NDSNEG(s(N), cons(X, Z)) → 2NDSNEG(s(N), cons2(X, activate(Z)))
2NDSNEG(s(N), cons(X, Z)) → ACTIVATE(Z)
TIMES(s(X), Y) → PLUS(Y, times(X, Y))
2NDSNEG(s(N), cons2(X, cons(Y, Z))) → 2NDSPOS(N, activate(Z))
PI(X) → 2NDSPOS(X, from(0))
PI(X) → FROM(0)
2NDSPOS(s(N), cons2(X, cons(Y, Z))) → 2NDSNEG(N, activate(Z))
2NDSPOS(s(N), cons2(X, cons(Y, Z))) → ACTIVATE(Z)
TIMES(s(X), Y) → TIMES(X, Y)
ACTIVATE(n__from(X)) → FROM(X)
2NDSPOS(s(N), cons(X, Z)) → 2NDSPOS(s(N), cons2(X, activate(Z)))
PLUS(s(X), Y) → PLUS(X, Y)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

from(X) → cons(X, n__from(s(X)))
2ndspos(0, Z) → rnil
2ndspos(s(N), cons(X, Z)) → 2ndspos(s(N), cons2(X, activate(Z)))
2ndspos(s(N), cons2(X, cons(Y, Z))) → rcons(posrecip(Y), 2ndsneg(N, activate(Z)))
2ndsneg(0, Z) → rnil
2ndsneg(s(N), cons(X, Z)) → 2ndsneg(s(N), cons2(X, activate(Z)))
2ndsneg(s(N), cons2(X, cons(Y, Z))) → rcons(negrecip(Y), 2ndspos(N, activate(Z)))
pi(X) → 2ndspos(X, from(0))
plus(0, Y) → Y
plus(s(X), Y) → s(plus(X, Y))
times(0, Y) → 0
times(s(X), Y) → plus(Y, times(X, Y))
square(X) → times(X, X)
from(X) → n__from(X)
activate(n__from(X)) → from(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 9 less nodes.

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ UsableRulesProof

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

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

PLUS(s(X), Y) → PLUS(X, Y)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

from(X) → cons(X, n__from(s(X)))
2ndspos(0, Z) → rnil
2ndspos(s(N), cons(X, Z)) → 2ndspos(s(N), cons2(X, activate(Z)))
2ndspos(s(N), cons2(X, cons(Y, Z))) → rcons(posrecip(Y), 2ndsneg(N, activate(Z)))
2ndsneg(0, Z) → rnil
2ndsneg(s(N), cons(X, Z)) → 2ndsneg(s(N), cons2(X, activate(Z)))
2ndsneg(s(N), cons2(X, cons(Y, Z))) → rcons(negrecip(Y), 2ndspos(N, activate(Z)))
pi(X) → 2ndspos(X, from(0))
plus(0, Y) → Y
plus(s(X), Y) → s(plus(X, Y))
times(0, Y) → 0
times(s(X), Y) → plus(Y, times(X, Y))
square(X) → times(X, X)
from(X) → n__from(X)
activate(n__from(X)) → from(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

                ↳ QDPSizeChangeProof

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

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

PLUS(s(X), Y) → PLUS(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:

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

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ UsableRulesProof

          ↳ QDP

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

TIMES(s(X), Y) → TIMES(X, Y)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

from(X) → cons(X, n__from(s(X)))
2ndspos(0, Z) → rnil
2ndspos(s(N), cons(X, Z)) → 2ndspos(s(N), cons2(X, activate(Z)))
2ndspos(s(N), cons2(X, cons(Y, Z))) → rcons(posrecip(Y), 2ndsneg(N, activate(Z)))
2ndsneg(0, Z) → rnil
2ndsneg(s(N), cons(X, Z)) → 2ndsneg(s(N), cons2(X, activate(Z)))
2ndsneg(s(N), cons2(X, cons(Y, Z))) → rcons(negrecip(Y), 2ndspos(N, activate(Z)))
pi(X) → 2ndspos(X, from(0))
plus(0, Y) → Y
plus(s(X), Y) → s(plus(X, Y))
times(0, Y) → 0
times(s(X), Y) → plus(Y, times(X, Y))
square(X) → times(X, X)
from(X) → n__from(X)
activate(n__from(X)) → from(X)
activate(X) → X

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ UsableRulesProof

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ QDPSizeChangeProof

          ↳ QDP

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

TIMES(s(X), Y) → TIMES(X, Y)

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

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

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ QDPSizeChangeProof

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

2NDSNEG(s(N), cons2(X, cons(Y, Z))) → 2NDSPOS(N, activate(Z))
2NDSPOS(s(N), cons2(X, cons(Y, Z))) → 2NDSNEG(N, activate(Z))
2NDSPOS(s(N), cons(X, Z)) → 2NDSPOS(s(N), cons2(X, activate(Z)))
2NDSNEG(s(N), cons(X, Z)) → 2NDSNEG(s(N), cons2(X, activate(Z)))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

from(X) → cons(X, n__from(s(X)))
2ndspos(0, Z) → rnil
2ndspos(s(N), cons(X, Z)) → 2ndspos(s(N), cons2(X, activate(Z)))
2ndspos(s(N), cons2(X, cons(Y, Z))) → rcons(posrecip(Y), 2ndsneg(N, activate(Z)))
2ndsneg(0, Z) → rnil
2ndsneg(s(N), cons(X, Z)) → 2ndsneg(s(N), cons2(X, activate(Z)))
2ndsneg(s(N), cons2(X, cons(Y, Z))) → rcons(negrecip(Y), 2ndspos(N, activate(Z)))
pi(X) → 2ndspos(X, from(0))
plus(0, Y) → Y
plus(s(X), Y) → s(plus(X, Y))
times(0, Y) → 0
times(s(X), Y) → plus(Y, times(X, Y))
square(X) → times(X, X)
from(X) → n__from(X)
activate(n__from(X)) → from(X)
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:

2NDSNEG(s(N), cons2(X, cons(Y, Z))) → 2NDSPOS(N, activate(Z))
The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1
2NDSNEG(s(N), cons(X, Z)) → 2NDSNEG(s(N), cons2(X, activate(Z)))
The graph contains the following edges 1 >= 1
2NDSPOS(s(N), cons(X, Z)) → 2NDSPOS(s(N), cons2(X, activate(Z)))
The graph contains the following edges 1 >= 1
2NDSPOS(s(N), cons2(X, cons(Y, Z))) → 2NDSNEG(N, activate(Z))
The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1