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(incr(nil)) → mark(nil)
active(incr(cons(X, L))) → mark(cons(s(X), incr(L)))
active(adx(nil)) → mark(nil)
active(adx(cons(X, L))) → mark(incr(cons(X, adx(L))))
active(nats) → mark(adx(zeros))
active(zeros) → mark(cons(0, zeros))
active(head(cons(X, L))) → mark(X)
active(tail(cons(X, L))) → mark(L)
active(incr(X)) → incr(active(X))
active(cons(X1, X2)) → cons(active(X1), X2)
active(s(X)) → s(active(X))
active(adx(X)) → adx(active(X))
active(head(X)) → head(active(X))
active(tail(X)) → tail(active(X))
incr(mark(X)) → mark(incr(X))
cons(mark(X1), X2) → mark(cons(X1, X2))
s(mark(X)) → mark(s(X))
adx(mark(X)) → mark(adx(X))
head(mark(X)) → mark(head(X))
tail(mark(X)) → mark(tail(X))
proper(incr(X)) → incr(proper(X))
proper(nil) → ok(nil)
proper(cons(X1, X2)) → cons(proper(X1), proper(X2))
proper(s(X)) → s(proper(X))
proper(adx(X)) → adx(proper(X))
proper(nats) → ok(nats)
proper(zeros) → ok(zeros)
proper(0) → ok(0)
proper(head(X)) → head(proper(X))
proper(tail(X)) → tail(proper(X))
incr(ok(X)) → ok(incr(X))
cons(ok(X1), ok(X2)) → ok(cons(X1, X2))
s(ok(X)) → ok(s(X))
adx(ok(X)) → ok(adx(X))
head(ok(X)) → ok(head(X))
tail(ok(X)) → ok(tail(X))
top(mark(X)) → top(proper(X))
top(ok(X)) → top(active(X))

Q is empty.


QTRS
  ↳ RRRPoloQTRSProof

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

active(incr(nil)) → mark(nil)
active(incr(cons(X, L))) → mark(cons(s(X), incr(L)))
active(adx(nil)) → mark(nil)
active(adx(cons(X, L))) → mark(incr(cons(X, adx(L))))
active(nats) → mark(adx(zeros))
active(zeros) → mark(cons(0, zeros))
active(head(cons(X, L))) → mark(X)
active(tail(cons(X, L))) → mark(L)
active(incr(X)) → incr(active(X))
active(cons(X1, X2)) → cons(active(X1), X2)
active(s(X)) → s(active(X))
active(adx(X)) → adx(active(X))
active(head(X)) → head(active(X))
active(tail(X)) → tail(active(X))
incr(mark(X)) → mark(incr(X))
cons(mark(X1), X2) → mark(cons(X1, X2))
s(mark(X)) → mark(s(X))
adx(mark(X)) → mark(adx(X))
head(mark(X)) → mark(head(X))
tail(mark(X)) → mark(tail(X))
proper(incr(X)) → incr(proper(X))
proper(nil) → ok(nil)
proper(cons(X1, X2)) → cons(proper(X1), proper(X2))
proper(s(X)) → s(proper(X))
proper(adx(X)) → adx(proper(X))
proper(nats) → ok(nats)
proper(zeros) → ok(zeros)
proper(0) → ok(0)
proper(head(X)) → head(proper(X))
proper(tail(X)) → tail(proper(X))
incr(ok(X)) → ok(incr(X))
cons(ok(X1), ok(X2)) → ok(cons(X1, X2))
s(ok(X)) → ok(s(X))
adx(ok(X)) → ok(adx(X))
head(ok(X)) → ok(head(X))
tail(ok(X)) → ok(tail(X))
top(mark(X)) → top(proper(X))
top(ok(X)) → top(active(X))

Q is empty.

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

active(incr(nil)) → mark(nil)
active(incr(cons(X, L))) → mark(cons(s(X), incr(L)))
active(adx(nil)) → mark(nil)
active(adx(cons(X, L))) → mark(incr(cons(X, adx(L))))
active(nats) → mark(adx(zeros))
active(zeros) → mark(cons(0, zeros))
active(head(cons(X, L))) → mark(X)
active(tail(cons(X, L))) → mark(L)
active(incr(X)) → incr(active(X))
active(cons(X1, X2)) → cons(active(X1), X2)
active(s(X)) → s(active(X))
active(adx(X)) → adx(active(X))
active(head(X)) → head(active(X))
active(tail(X)) → tail(active(X))
incr(mark(X)) → mark(incr(X))
cons(mark(X1), X2) → mark(cons(X1, X2))
s(mark(X)) → mark(s(X))
adx(mark(X)) → mark(adx(X))
head(mark(X)) → mark(head(X))
tail(mark(X)) → mark(tail(X))
proper(incr(X)) → incr(proper(X))
proper(nil) → ok(nil)
proper(cons(X1, X2)) → cons(proper(X1), proper(X2))
proper(s(X)) → s(proper(X))
proper(adx(X)) → adx(proper(X))
proper(nats) → ok(nats)
proper(zeros) → ok(zeros)
proper(0) → ok(0)
proper(head(X)) → head(proper(X))
proper(tail(X)) → tail(proper(X))
incr(ok(X)) → ok(incr(X))
cons(ok(X1), ok(X2)) → ok(cons(X1, X2))
s(ok(X)) → ok(s(X))
adx(ok(X)) → ok(adx(X))
head(ok(X)) → ok(head(X))
tail(ok(X)) → ok(tail(X))
top(mark(X)) → top(proper(X))
top(ok(X)) → top(active(X))

Q is empty.
The following rules can be removed by the rule removal processor [15] because they are oriented strictly by a polynomial ordering:

active(head(cons(X, L))) → mark(X)
Used ordering:
Polynomial interpretation [25]:

POL(0) = 0   
POL(active(x1)) = x1   
POL(adx(x1)) = 2·x1   
POL(cons(x1, x2)) = 2·x1 + 2·x2   
POL(head(x1)) = 1 + x1   
POL(incr(x1)) = x1   
POL(mark(x1)) = x1   
POL(nats) = 0   
POL(nil) = 0   
POL(ok(x1)) = x1   
POL(proper(x1)) = x1   
POL(s(x1)) = x1   
POL(tail(x1)) = x1   
POL(top(x1)) = x1   
POL(zeros) = 0   




↳ QTRS
  ↳ RRRPoloQTRSProof
QTRS
      ↳ RRRPoloQTRSProof

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

active(incr(nil)) → mark(nil)
active(incr(cons(X, L))) → mark(cons(s(X), incr(L)))
active(adx(nil)) → mark(nil)
active(adx(cons(X, L))) → mark(incr(cons(X, adx(L))))
active(nats) → mark(adx(zeros))
active(zeros) → mark(cons(0, zeros))
active(tail(cons(X, L))) → mark(L)
active(incr(X)) → incr(active(X))
active(cons(X1, X2)) → cons(active(X1), X2)
active(s(X)) → s(active(X))
active(adx(X)) → adx(active(X))
active(head(X)) → head(active(X))
active(tail(X)) → tail(active(X))
incr(mark(X)) → mark(incr(X))
cons(mark(X1), X2) → mark(cons(X1, X2))
s(mark(X)) → mark(s(X))
adx(mark(X)) → mark(adx(X))
head(mark(X)) → mark(head(X))
tail(mark(X)) → mark(tail(X))
proper(incr(X)) → incr(proper(X))
proper(nil) → ok(nil)
proper(cons(X1, X2)) → cons(proper(X1), proper(X2))
proper(s(X)) → s(proper(X))
proper(adx(X)) → adx(proper(X))
proper(nats) → ok(nats)
proper(zeros) → ok(zeros)
proper(0) → ok(0)
proper(head(X)) → head(proper(X))
proper(tail(X)) → tail(proper(X))
incr(ok(X)) → ok(incr(X))
cons(ok(X1), ok(X2)) → ok(cons(X1, X2))
s(ok(X)) → ok(s(X))
adx(ok(X)) → ok(adx(X))
head(ok(X)) → ok(head(X))
tail(ok(X)) → ok(tail(X))
top(mark(X)) → top(proper(X))
top(ok(X)) → top(active(X))

Q is empty.

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

active(incr(nil)) → mark(nil)
active(incr(cons(X, L))) → mark(cons(s(X), incr(L)))
active(adx(nil)) → mark(nil)
active(adx(cons(X, L))) → mark(incr(cons(X, adx(L))))
active(nats) → mark(adx(zeros))
active(zeros) → mark(cons(0, zeros))
active(tail(cons(X, L))) → mark(L)
active(incr(X)) → incr(active(X))
active(cons(X1, X2)) → cons(active(X1), X2)
active(s(X)) → s(active(X))
active(adx(X)) → adx(active(X))
active(head(X)) → head(active(X))
active(tail(X)) → tail(active(X))
incr(mark(X)) → mark(incr(X))
cons(mark(X1), X2) → mark(cons(X1, X2))
s(mark(X)) → mark(s(X))
adx(mark(X)) → mark(adx(X))
head(mark(X)) → mark(head(X))
tail(mark(X)) → mark(tail(X))
proper(incr(X)) → incr(proper(X))
proper(nil) → ok(nil)
proper(cons(X1, X2)) → cons(proper(X1), proper(X2))
proper(s(X)) → s(proper(X))
proper(adx(X)) → adx(proper(X))
proper(nats) → ok(nats)
proper(zeros) → ok(zeros)
proper(0) → ok(0)
proper(head(X)) → head(proper(X))
proper(tail(X)) → tail(proper(X))
incr(ok(X)) → ok(incr(X))
cons(ok(X1), ok(X2)) → ok(cons(X1, X2))
s(ok(X)) → ok(s(X))
adx(ok(X)) → ok(adx(X))
head(ok(X)) → ok(head(X))
tail(ok(X)) → ok(tail(X))
top(mark(X)) → top(proper(X))
top(ok(X)) → top(active(X))

Q is empty.
The following rules can be removed by the rule removal processor [15] because they are oriented strictly by a polynomial ordering:

active(nats) → mark(adx(zeros))
Used ordering:
Polynomial interpretation [25]:

POL(0) = 0   
POL(active(x1)) = x1   
POL(adx(x1)) = x1   
POL(cons(x1, x2)) = 2·x1 + x2   
POL(head(x1)) = 2·x1   
POL(incr(x1)) = x1   
POL(mark(x1)) = x1   
POL(nats) = 2   
POL(nil) = 0   
POL(ok(x1)) = x1   
POL(proper(x1)) = x1   
POL(s(x1)) = x1   
POL(tail(x1)) = x1   
POL(top(x1)) = 2·x1   
POL(zeros) = 0   




↳ QTRS
  ↳ RRRPoloQTRSProof
    ↳ QTRS
      ↳ RRRPoloQTRSProof
QTRS
          ↳ RRRPoloQTRSProof

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

active(incr(nil)) → mark(nil)
active(incr(cons(X, L))) → mark(cons(s(X), incr(L)))
active(adx(nil)) → mark(nil)
active(adx(cons(X, L))) → mark(incr(cons(X, adx(L))))
active(zeros) → mark(cons(0, zeros))
active(tail(cons(X, L))) → mark(L)
active(incr(X)) → incr(active(X))
active(cons(X1, X2)) → cons(active(X1), X2)
active(s(X)) → s(active(X))
active(adx(X)) → adx(active(X))
active(head(X)) → head(active(X))
active(tail(X)) → tail(active(X))
incr(mark(X)) → mark(incr(X))
cons(mark(X1), X2) → mark(cons(X1, X2))
s(mark(X)) → mark(s(X))
adx(mark(X)) → mark(adx(X))
head(mark(X)) → mark(head(X))
tail(mark(X)) → mark(tail(X))
proper(incr(X)) → incr(proper(X))
proper(nil) → ok(nil)
proper(cons(X1, X2)) → cons(proper(X1), proper(X2))
proper(s(X)) → s(proper(X))
proper(adx(X)) → adx(proper(X))
proper(nats) → ok(nats)
proper(zeros) → ok(zeros)
proper(0) → ok(0)
proper(head(X)) → head(proper(X))
proper(tail(X)) → tail(proper(X))
incr(ok(X)) → ok(incr(X))
cons(ok(X1), ok(X2)) → ok(cons(X1, X2))
s(ok(X)) → ok(s(X))
adx(ok(X)) → ok(adx(X))
head(ok(X)) → ok(head(X))
tail(ok(X)) → ok(tail(X))
top(mark(X)) → top(proper(X))
top(ok(X)) → top(active(X))

Q is empty.

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

active(incr(nil)) → mark(nil)
active(incr(cons(X, L))) → mark(cons(s(X), incr(L)))
active(adx(nil)) → mark(nil)
active(adx(cons(X, L))) → mark(incr(cons(X, adx(L))))
active(zeros) → mark(cons(0, zeros))
active(tail(cons(X, L))) → mark(L)
active(incr(X)) → incr(active(X))
active(cons(X1, X2)) → cons(active(X1), X2)
active(s(X)) → s(active(X))
active(adx(X)) → adx(active(X))
active(head(X)) → head(active(X))
active(tail(X)) → tail(active(X))
incr(mark(X)) → mark(incr(X))
cons(mark(X1), X2) → mark(cons(X1, X2))
s(mark(X)) → mark(s(X))
adx(mark(X)) → mark(adx(X))
head(mark(X)) → mark(head(X))
tail(mark(X)) → mark(tail(X))
proper(incr(X)) → incr(proper(X))
proper(nil) → ok(nil)
proper(cons(X1, X2)) → cons(proper(X1), proper(X2))
proper(s(X)) → s(proper(X))
proper(adx(X)) → adx(proper(X))
proper(nats) → ok(nats)
proper(zeros) → ok(zeros)
proper(0) → ok(0)
proper(head(X)) → head(proper(X))
proper(tail(X)) → tail(proper(X))
incr(ok(X)) → ok(incr(X))
cons(ok(X1), ok(X2)) → ok(cons(X1, X2))
s(ok(X)) → ok(s(X))
adx(ok(X)) → ok(adx(X))
head(ok(X)) → ok(head(X))
tail(ok(X)) → ok(tail(X))
top(mark(X)) → top(proper(X))
top(ok(X)) → top(active(X))

Q is empty.
The following rules can be removed by the rule removal processor [15] because they are oriented strictly by a polynomial ordering:

active(adx(nil)) → mark(nil)
Used ordering:
Polynomial interpretation [25]:

POL(0) = 0   
POL(active(x1)) = x1   
POL(adx(x1)) = 2·x1   
POL(cons(x1, x2)) = 2·x1 + x2   
POL(head(x1)) = 2·x1   
POL(incr(x1)) = x1   
POL(mark(x1)) = x1   
POL(nats) = 0   
POL(nil) = 1   
POL(ok(x1)) = x1   
POL(proper(x1)) = x1   
POL(s(x1)) = x1   
POL(tail(x1)) = x1   
POL(top(x1)) = 2·x1   
POL(zeros) = 0   




↳ QTRS
  ↳ RRRPoloQTRSProof
    ↳ QTRS
      ↳ RRRPoloQTRSProof
        ↳ QTRS
          ↳ RRRPoloQTRSProof
QTRS
              ↳ RRRPoloQTRSProof

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

active(incr(nil)) → mark(nil)
active(incr(cons(X, L))) → mark(cons(s(X), incr(L)))
active(adx(cons(X, L))) → mark(incr(cons(X, adx(L))))
active(zeros) → mark(cons(0, zeros))
active(tail(cons(X, L))) → mark(L)
active(incr(X)) → incr(active(X))
active(cons(X1, X2)) → cons(active(X1), X2)
active(s(X)) → s(active(X))
active(adx(X)) → adx(active(X))
active(head(X)) → head(active(X))
active(tail(X)) → tail(active(X))
incr(mark(X)) → mark(incr(X))
cons(mark(X1), X2) → mark(cons(X1, X2))
s(mark(X)) → mark(s(X))
adx(mark(X)) → mark(adx(X))
head(mark(X)) → mark(head(X))
tail(mark(X)) → mark(tail(X))
proper(incr(X)) → incr(proper(X))
proper(nil) → ok(nil)
proper(cons(X1, X2)) → cons(proper(X1), proper(X2))
proper(s(X)) → s(proper(X))
proper(adx(X)) → adx(proper(X))
proper(nats) → ok(nats)
proper(zeros) → ok(zeros)
proper(0) → ok(0)
proper(head(X)) → head(proper(X))
proper(tail(X)) → tail(proper(X))
incr(ok(X)) → ok(incr(X))
cons(ok(X1), ok(X2)) → ok(cons(X1, X2))
s(ok(X)) → ok(s(X))
adx(ok(X)) → ok(adx(X))
head(ok(X)) → ok(head(X))
tail(ok(X)) → ok(tail(X))
top(mark(X)) → top(proper(X))
top(ok(X)) → top(active(X))

Q is empty.

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

active(incr(nil)) → mark(nil)
active(incr(cons(X, L))) → mark(cons(s(X), incr(L)))
active(adx(cons(X, L))) → mark(incr(cons(X, adx(L))))
active(zeros) → mark(cons(0, zeros))
active(tail(cons(X, L))) → mark(L)
active(incr(X)) → incr(active(X))
active(cons(X1, X2)) → cons(active(X1), X2)
active(s(X)) → s(active(X))
active(adx(X)) → adx(active(X))
active(head(X)) → head(active(X))
active(tail(X)) → tail(active(X))
incr(mark(X)) → mark(incr(X))
cons(mark(X1), X2) → mark(cons(X1, X2))
s(mark(X)) → mark(s(X))
adx(mark(X)) → mark(adx(X))
head(mark(X)) → mark(head(X))
tail(mark(X)) → mark(tail(X))
proper(incr(X)) → incr(proper(X))
proper(nil) → ok(nil)
proper(cons(X1, X2)) → cons(proper(X1), proper(X2))
proper(s(X)) → s(proper(X))
proper(adx(X)) → adx(proper(X))
proper(nats) → ok(nats)
proper(zeros) → ok(zeros)
proper(0) → ok(0)
proper(head(X)) → head(proper(X))
proper(tail(X)) → tail(proper(X))
incr(ok(X)) → ok(incr(X))
cons(ok(X1), ok(X2)) → ok(cons(X1, X2))
s(ok(X)) → ok(s(X))
adx(ok(X)) → ok(adx(X))
head(ok(X)) → ok(head(X))
tail(ok(X)) → ok(tail(X))
top(mark(X)) → top(proper(X))
top(ok(X)) → top(active(X))

Q is empty.
The following rules can be removed by the rule removal processor [15] because they are oriented strictly by a polynomial ordering:

active(tail(cons(X, L))) → mark(L)
Used ordering:
Polynomial interpretation [25]:

POL(0) = 0   
POL(active(x1)) = x1   
POL(adx(x1)) = x1   
POL(cons(x1, x2)) = 2·x1 + 2·x2   
POL(head(x1)) = x1   
POL(incr(x1)) = x1   
POL(mark(x1)) = x1   
POL(nats) = 0   
POL(nil) = 0   
POL(ok(x1)) = x1   
POL(proper(x1)) = x1   
POL(s(x1)) = x1   
POL(tail(x1)) = 1 + 2·x1   
POL(top(x1)) = x1   
POL(zeros) = 0   




↳ QTRS
  ↳ RRRPoloQTRSProof
    ↳ QTRS
      ↳ RRRPoloQTRSProof
        ↳ QTRS
          ↳ RRRPoloQTRSProof
            ↳ QTRS
              ↳ RRRPoloQTRSProof
QTRS
                  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

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

active(incr(nil)) → mark(nil)
active(incr(cons(X, L))) → mark(cons(s(X), incr(L)))
active(adx(cons(X, L))) → mark(incr(cons(X, adx(L))))
active(zeros) → mark(cons(0, zeros))
active(incr(X)) → incr(active(X))
active(cons(X1, X2)) → cons(active(X1), X2)
active(s(X)) → s(active(X))
active(adx(X)) → adx(active(X))
active(head(X)) → head(active(X))
active(tail(X)) → tail(active(X))
incr(mark(X)) → mark(incr(X))
cons(mark(X1), X2) → mark(cons(X1, X2))
s(mark(X)) → mark(s(X))
adx(mark(X)) → mark(adx(X))
head(mark(X)) → mark(head(X))
tail(mark(X)) → mark(tail(X))
proper(incr(X)) → incr(proper(X))
proper(nil) → ok(nil)
proper(cons(X1, X2)) → cons(proper(X1), proper(X2))
proper(s(X)) → s(proper(X))
proper(adx(X)) → adx(proper(X))
proper(nats) → ok(nats)
proper(zeros) → ok(zeros)
proper(0) → ok(0)
proper(head(X)) → head(proper(X))
proper(tail(X)) → tail(proper(X))
incr(ok(X)) → ok(incr(X))
cons(ok(X1), ok(X2)) → ok(cons(X1, X2))
s(ok(X)) → ok(s(X))
adx(ok(X)) → ok(adx(X))
head(ok(X)) → ok(head(X))
tail(ok(X)) → ok(tail(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)
TOP(mark(X)) → PROPER(X)
ACTIVE(cons(X1, X2)) → CONS(active(X1), X2)
INCR(ok(X)) → INCR(X)
PROPER(head(X)) → PROPER(X)
TOP(ok(X)) → ACTIVE(X)
ACTIVE(incr(X)) → ACTIVE(X)
HEAD(mark(X)) → HEAD(X)
PROPER(incr(X)) → INCR(proper(X))
ACTIVE(adx(cons(X, L))) → ADX(L)
PROPER(s(X)) → PROPER(X)
PROPER(cons(X1, X2)) → PROPER(X1)
PROPER(adx(X)) → ADX(proper(X))
PROPER(tail(X)) → PROPER(X)
ACTIVE(zeros) → CONS(0, zeros)
TAIL(ok(X)) → TAIL(X)
PROPER(cons(X1, X2)) → PROPER(X2)
ACTIVE(cons(X1, X2)) → ACTIVE(X1)
ACTIVE(tail(X)) → TAIL(active(X))
ADX(mark(X)) → ADX(X)
TOP(ok(X)) → TOP(active(X))
ACTIVE(incr(cons(X, L))) → S(X)
ADX(ok(X)) → ADX(X)
ACTIVE(incr(cons(X, L))) → INCR(L)
PROPER(incr(X)) → PROPER(X)
ACTIVE(incr(X)) → INCR(active(X))
ACTIVE(adx(cons(X, L))) → INCR(cons(X, adx(L)))
INCR(mark(X)) → INCR(X)
S(mark(X)) → S(X)
PROPER(cons(X1, X2)) → CONS(proper(X1), proper(X2))
CONS(ok(X1), ok(X2)) → CONS(X1, X2)
PROPER(head(X)) → HEAD(proper(X))
PROPER(s(X)) → S(proper(X))
PROPER(tail(X)) → TAIL(proper(X))
TAIL(mark(X)) → TAIL(X)
ACTIVE(incr(cons(X, L))) → CONS(s(X), incr(L))
ACTIVE(head(X)) → HEAD(active(X))
ACTIVE(s(X)) → ACTIVE(X)
ACTIVE(adx(cons(X, L))) → CONS(X, adx(L))
ACTIVE(adx(X)) → ACTIVE(X)
ACTIVE(head(X)) → ACTIVE(X)
TOP(mark(X)) → TOP(proper(X))
ACTIVE(tail(X)) → ACTIVE(X)
HEAD(ok(X)) → HEAD(X)
PROPER(adx(X)) → PROPER(X)
ACTIVE(adx(X)) → ADX(active(X))
ACTIVE(s(X)) → S(active(X))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

active(incr(nil)) → mark(nil)
active(incr(cons(X, L))) → mark(cons(s(X), incr(L)))
active(adx(cons(X, L))) → mark(incr(cons(X, adx(L))))
active(zeros) → mark(cons(0, zeros))
active(incr(X)) → incr(active(X))
active(cons(X1, X2)) → cons(active(X1), X2)
active(s(X)) → s(active(X))
active(adx(X)) → adx(active(X))
active(head(X)) → head(active(X))
active(tail(X)) → tail(active(X))
incr(mark(X)) → mark(incr(X))
cons(mark(X1), X2) → mark(cons(X1, X2))
s(mark(X)) → mark(s(X))
adx(mark(X)) → mark(adx(X))
head(mark(X)) → mark(head(X))
tail(mark(X)) → mark(tail(X))
proper(incr(X)) → incr(proper(X))
proper(nil) → ok(nil)
proper(cons(X1, X2)) → cons(proper(X1), proper(X2))
proper(s(X)) → s(proper(X))
proper(adx(X)) → adx(proper(X))
proper(nats) → ok(nats)
proper(zeros) → ok(zeros)
proper(0) → ok(0)
proper(head(X)) → head(proper(X))
proper(tail(X)) → tail(proper(X))
incr(ok(X)) → ok(incr(X))
cons(ok(X1), ok(X2)) → ok(cons(X1, X2))
s(ok(X)) → ok(s(X))
adx(ok(X)) → ok(adx(X))
head(ok(X)) → ok(head(X))
tail(ok(X)) → ok(tail(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
  ↳ RRRPoloQTRSProof
    ↳ QTRS
      ↳ RRRPoloQTRSProof
        ↳ QTRS
          ↳ RRRPoloQTRSProof
            ↳ QTRS
              ↳ RRRPoloQTRSProof
                ↳ 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)
TOP(mark(X)) → PROPER(X)
ACTIVE(cons(X1, X2)) → CONS(active(X1), X2)
INCR(ok(X)) → INCR(X)
PROPER(head(X)) → PROPER(X)
TOP(ok(X)) → ACTIVE(X)
ACTIVE(incr(X)) → ACTIVE(X)
HEAD(mark(X)) → HEAD(X)
PROPER(incr(X)) → INCR(proper(X))
ACTIVE(adx(cons(X, L))) → ADX(L)
PROPER(s(X)) → PROPER(X)
PROPER(cons(X1, X2)) → PROPER(X1)
PROPER(adx(X)) → ADX(proper(X))
PROPER(tail(X)) → PROPER(X)
ACTIVE(zeros) → CONS(0, zeros)
TAIL(ok(X)) → TAIL(X)
PROPER(cons(X1, X2)) → PROPER(X2)
ACTIVE(cons(X1, X2)) → ACTIVE(X1)
ACTIVE(tail(X)) → TAIL(active(X))
ADX(mark(X)) → ADX(X)
TOP(ok(X)) → TOP(active(X))
ACTIVE(incr(cons(X, L))) → S(X)
ADX(ok(X)) → ADX(X)
ACTIVE(incr(cons(X, L))) → INCR(L)
PROPER(incr(X)) → PROPER(X)
ACTIVE(incr(X)) → INCR(active(X))
ACTIVE(adx(cons(X, L))) → INCR(cons(X, adx(L)))
INCR(mark(X)) → INCR(X)
S(mark(X)) → S(X)
PROPER(cons(X1, X2)) → CONS(proper(X1), proper(X2))
CONS(ok(X1), ok(X2)) → CONS(X1, X2)
PROPER(head(X)) → HEAD(proper(X))
PROPER(s(X)) → S(proper(X))
PROPER(tail(X)) → TAIL(proper(X))
TAIL(mark(X)) → TAIL(X)
ACTIVE(incr(cons(X, L))) → CONS(s(X), incr(L))
ACTIVE(head(X)) → HEAD(active(X))
ACTIVE(s(X)) → ACTIVE(X)
ACTIVE(adx(cons(X, L))) → CONS(X, adx(L))
ACTIVE(adx(X)) → ACTIVE(X)
ACTIVE(head(X)) → ACTIVE(X)
TOP(mark(X)) → TOP(proper(X))
ACTIVE(tail(X)) → ACTIVE(X)
HEAD(ok(X)) → HEAD(X)
PROPER(adx(X)) → PROPER(X)
ACTIVE(adx(X)) → ADX(active(X))
ACTIVE(s(X)) → S(active(X))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

active(incr(nil)) → mark(nil)
active(incr(cons(X, L))) → mark(cons(s(X), incr(L)))
active(adx(cons(X, L))) → mark(incr(cons(X, adx(L))))
active(zeros) → mark(cons(0, zeros))
active(incr(X)) → incr(active(X))
active(cons(X1, X2)) → cons(active(X1), X2)
active(s(X)) → s(active(X))
active(adx(X)) → adx(active(X))
active(head(X)) → head(active(X))
active(tail(X)) → tail(active(X))
incr(mark(X)) → mark(incr(X))
cons(mark(X1), X2) → mark(cons(X1, X2))
s(mark(X)) → mark(s(X))
adx(mark(X)) → mark(adx(X))
head(mark(X)) → mark(head(X))
tail(mark(X)) → mark(tail(X))
proper(incr(X)) → incr(proper(X))
proper(nil) → ok(nil)
proper(cons(X1, X2)) → cons(proper(X1), proper(X2))
proper(s(X)) → s(proper(X))
proper(adx(X)) → adx(proper(X))
proper(nats) → ok(nats)
proper(zeros) → ok(zeros)
proper(0) → ok(0)
proper(head(X)) → head(proper(X))
proper(tail(X)) → tail(proper(X))
incr(ok(X)) → ok(incr(X))
cons(ok(X1), ok(X2)) → ok(cons(X1, X2))
s(ok(X)) → ok(s(X))
adx(ok(X)) → ok(adx(X))
head(ok(X)) → ok(head(X))
tail(ok(X)) → ok(tail(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 9 SCCs with 21 less nodes.

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

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

TAIL(ok(X)) → TAIL(X)
TAIL(mark(X)) → TAIL(X)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

active(incr(nil)) → mark(nil)
active(incr(cons(X, L))) → mark(cons(s(X), incr(L)))
active(adx(cons(X, L))) → mark(incr(cons(X, adx(L))))
active(zeros) → mark(cons(0, zeros))
active(incr(X)) → incr(active(X))
active(cons(X1, X2)) → cons(active(X1), X2)
active(s(X)) → s(active(X))
active(adx(X)) → adx(active(X))
active(head(X)) → head(active(X))
active(tail(X)) → tail(active(X))
incr(mark(X)) → mark(incr(X))
cons(mark(X1), X2) → mark(cons(X1, X2))
s(mark(X)) → mark(s(X))
adx(mark(X)) → mark(adx(X))
head(mark(X)) → mark(head(X))
tail(mark(X)) → mark(tail(X))
proper(incr(X)) → incr(proper(X))
proper(nil) → ok(nil)
proper(cons(X1, X2)) → cons(proper(X1), proper(X2))
proper(s(X)) → s(proper(X))
proper(adx(X)) → adx(proper(X))
proper(nats) → ok(nats)
proper(zeros) → ok(zeros)
proper(0) → ok(0)
proper(head(X)) → head(proper(X))
proper(tail(X)) → tail(proper(X))
incr(ok(X)) → ok(incr(X))
cons(ok(X1), ok(X2)) → ok(cons(X1, X2))
s(ok(X)) → ok(s(X))
adx(ok(X)) → ok(adx(X))
head(ok(X)) → ok(head(X))
tail(ok(X)) → ok(tail(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
  ↳ RRRPoloQTRSProof
    ↳ QTRS
      ↳ RRRPoloQTRSProof
        ↳ QTRS
          ↳ RRRPoloQTRSProof
            ↳ QTRS
              ↳ RRRPoloQTRSProof
                ↳ QTRS
                  ↳ DependencyPairsProof
                    ↳ QDP
                      ↳ DependencyGraphProof
                        ↳ AND
                          ↳ QDP
                            ↳ UsableRulesProof
QDP
                                ↳ QDPSizeChangeProof
                          ↳ QDP
                          ↳ QDP
                          ↳ QDP
                          ↳ QDP
                          ↳ QDP
                          ↳ QDP
                          ↳ QDP
                          ↳ QDP

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

TAIL(ok(X)) → TAIL(X)
TAIL(mark(X)) → TAIL(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:



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

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

HEAD(mark(X)) → HEAD(X)
HEAD(ok(X)) → HEAD(X)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

active(incr(nil)) → mark(nil)
active(incr(cons(X, L))) → mark(cons(s(X), incr(L)))
active(adx(cons(X, L))) → mark(incr(cons(X, adx(L))))
active(zeros) → mark(cons(0, zeros))
active(incr(X)) → incr(active(X))
active(cons(X1, X2)) → cons(active(X1), X2)
active(s(X)) → s(active(X))
active(adx(X)) → adx(active(X))
active(head(X)) → head(active(X))
active(tail(X)) → tail(active(X))
incr(mark(X)) → mark(incr(X))
cons(mark(X1), X2) → mark(cons(X1, X2))
s(mark(X)) → mark(s(X))
adx(mark(X)) → mark(adx(X))
head(mark(X)) → mark(head(X))
tail(mark(X)) → mark(tail(X))
proper(incr(X)) → incr(proper(X))
proper(nil) → ok(nil)
proper(cons(X1, X2)) → cons(proper(X1), proper(X2))
proper(s(X)) → s(proper(X))
proper(adx(X)) → adx(proper(X))
proper(nats) → ok(nats)
proper(zeros) → ok(zeros)
proper(0) → ok(0)
proper(head(X)) → head(proper(X))
proper(tail(X)) → tail(proper(X))
incr(ok(X)) → ok(incr(X))
cons(ok(X1), ok(X2)) → ok(cons(X1, X2))
s(ok(X)) → ok(s(X))
adx(ok(X)) → ok(adx(X))
head(ok(X)) → ok(head(X))
tail(ok(X)) → ok(tail(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
  ↳ RRRPoloQTRSProof
    ↳ QTRS
      ↳ RRRPoloQTRSProof
        ↳ QTRS
          ↳ RRRPoloQTRSProof
            ↳ QTRS
              ↳ RRRPoloQTRSProof
                ↳ QTRS
                  ↳ DependencyPairsProof
                    ↳ QDP
                      ↳ DependencyGraphProof
                        ↳ AND
                          ↳ QDP
                          ↳ QDP
                            ↳ UsableRulesProof
QDP
                                ↳ QDPSizeChangeProof
                          ↳ QDP
                          ↳ QDP
                          ↳ QDP
                          ↳ QDP
                          ↳ QDP
                          ↳ QDP
                          ↳ QDP

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

HEAD(mark(X)) → HEAD(X)
HEAD(ok(X)) → HEAD(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:



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

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

ADX(mark(X)) → ADX(X)
ADX(ok(X)) → ADX(X)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

active(incr(nil)) → mark(nil)
active(incr(cons(X, L))) → mark(cons(s(X), incr(L)))
active(adx(cons(X, L))) → mark(incr(cons(X, adx(L))))
active(zeros) → mark(cons(0, zeros))
active(incr(X)) → incr(active(X))
active(cons(X1, X2)) → cons(active(X1), X2)
active(s(X)) → s(active(X))
active(adx(X)) → adx(active(X))
active(head(X)) → head(active(X))
active(tail(X)) → tail(active(X))
incr(mark(X)) → mark(incr(X))
cons(mark(X1), X2) → mark(cons(X1, X2))
s(mark(X)) → mark(s(X))
adx(mark(X)) → mark(adx(X))
head(mark(X)) → mark(head(X))
tail(mark(X)) → mark(tail(X))
proper(incr(X)) → incr(proper(X))
proper(nil) → ok(nil)
proper(cons(X1, X2)) → cons(proper(X1), proper(X2))
proper(s(X)) → s(proper(X))
proper(adx(X)) → adx(proper(X))
proper(nats) → ok(nats)
proper(zeros) → ok(zeros)
proper(0) → ok(0)
proper(head(X)) → head(proper(X))
proper(tail(X)) → tail(proper(X))
incr(ok(X)) → ok(incr(X))
cons(ok(X1), ok(X2)) → ok(cons(X1, X2))
s(ok(X)) → ok(s(X))
adx(ok(X)) → ok(adx(X))
head(ok(X)) → ok(head(X))
tail(ok(X)) → ok(tail(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
  ↳ RRRPoloQTRSProof
    ↳ QTRS
      ↳ RRRPoloQTRSProof
        ↳ QTRS
          ↳ RRRPoloQTRSProof
            ↳ QTRS
              ↳ RRRPoloQTRSProof
                ↳ QTRS
                  ↳ DependencyPairsProof
                    ↳ QDP
                      ↳ DependencyGraphProof
                        ↳ AND
                          ↳ QDP
                          ↳ QDP
                          ↳ QDP
                            ↳ UsableRulesProof
QDP
                                ↳ QDPSizeChangeProof
                          ↳ QDP
                          ↳ QDP
                          ↳ QDP
                          ↳ QDP
                          ↳ QDP
                          ↳ QDP

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

ADX(mark(X)) → ADX(X)
ADX(ok(X)) → ADX(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:



↳ QTRS
  ↳ RRRPoloQTRSProof
    ↳ QTRS
      ↳ RRRPoloQTRSProof
        ↳ QTRS
          ↳ RRRPoloQTRSProof
            ↳ QTRS
              ↳ RRRPoloQTRSProof
                ↳ QTRS
                  ↳ DependencyPairsProof
                    ↳ QDP
                      ↳ DependencyGraphProof
                        ↳ AND
                          ↳ QDP
                          ↳ QDP
                          ↳ 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(incr(nil)) → mark(nil)
active(incr(cons(X, L))) → mark(cons(s(X), incr(L)))
active(adx(cons(X, L))) → mark(incr(cons(X, adx(L))))
active(zeros) → mark(cons(0, zeros))
active(incr(X)) → incr(active(X))
active(cons(X1, X2)) → cons(active(X1), X2)
active(s(X)) → s(active(X))
active(adx(X)) → adx(active(X))
active(head(X)) → head(active(X))
active(tail(X)) → tail(active(X))
incr(mark(X)) → mark(incr(X))
cons(mark(X1), X2) → mark(cons(X1, X2))
s(mark(X)) → mark(s(X))
adx(mark(X)) → mark(adx(X))
head(mark(X)) → mark(head(X))
tail(mark(X)) → mark(tail(X))
proper(incr(X)) → incr(proper(X))
proper(nil) → ok(nil)
proper(cons(X1, X2)) → cons(proper(X1), proper(X2))
proper(s(X)) → s(proper(X))
proper(adx(X)) → adx(proper(X))
proper(nats) → ok(nats)
proper(zeros) → ok(zeros)
proper(0) → ok(0)
proper(head(X)) → head(proper(X))
proper(tail(X)) → tail(proper(X))
incr(ok(X)) → ok(incr(X))
cons(ok(X1), ok(X2)) → ok(cons(X1, X2))
s(ok(X)) → ok(s(X))
adx(ok(X)) → ok(adx(X))
head(ok(X)) → ok(head(X))
tail(ok(X)) → ok(tail(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
  ↳ RRRPoloQTRSProof
    ↳ QTRS
      ↳ RRRPoloQTRSProof
        ↳ QTRS
          ↳ RRRPoloQTRSProof
            ↳ QTRS
              ↳ RRRPoloQTRSProof
                ↳ QTRS
                  ↳ DependencyPairsProof
                    ↳ QDP
                      ↳ DependencyGraphProof
                        ↳ AND
                          ↳ QDP
                          ↳ QDP
                          ↳ 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:



↳ QTRS
  ↳ RRRPoloQTRSProof
    ↳ QTRS
      ↳ RRRPoloQTRSProof
        ↳ QTRS
          ↳ RRRPoloQTRSProof
            ↳ QTRS
              ↳ RRRPoloQTRSProof
                ↳ QTRS
                  ↳ DependencyPairsProof
                    ↳ QDP
                      ↳ DependencyGraphProof
                        ↳ AND
                          ↳ QDP
                          ↳ QDP
                          ↳ 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(incr(nil)) → mark(nil)
active(incr(cons(X, L))) → mark(cons(s(X), incr(L)))
active(adx(cons(X, L))) → mark(incr(cons(X, adx(L))))
active(zeros) → mark(cons(0, zeros))
active(incr(X)) → incr(active(X))
active(cons(X1, X2)) → cons(active(X1), X2)
active(s(X)) → s(active(X))
active(adx(X)) → adx(active(X))
active(head(X)) → head(active(X))
active(tail(X)) → tail(active(X))
incr(mark(X)) → mark(incr(X))
cons(mark(X1), X2) → mark(cons(X1, X2))
s(mark(X)) → mark(s(X))
adx(mark(X)) → mark(adx(X))
head(mark(X)) → mark(head(X))
tail(mark(X)) → mark(tail(X))
proper(incr(X)) → incr(proper(X))
proper(nil) → ok(nil)
proper(cons(X1, X2)) → cons(proper(X1), proper(X2))
proper(s(X)) → s(proper(X))
proper(adx(X)) → adx(proper(X))
proper(nats) → ok(nats)
proper(zeros) → ok(zeros)
proper(0) → ok(0)
proper(head(X)) → head(proper(X))
proper(tail(X)) → tail(proper(X))
incr(ok(X)) → ok(incr(X))
cons(ok(X1), ok(X2)) → ok(cons(X1, X2))
s(ok(X)) → ok(s(X))
adx(ok(X)) → ok(adx(X))
head(ok(X)) → ok(head(X))
tail(ok(X)) → ok(tail(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
  ↳ RRRPoloQTRSProof
    ↳ QTRS
      ↳ RRRPoloQTRSProof
        ↳ QTRS
          ↳ RRRPoloQTRSProof
            ↳ QTRS
              ↳ RRRPoloQTRSProof
                ↳ QTRS
                  ↳ DependencyPairsProof
                    ↳ QDP
                      ↳ DependencyGraphProof
                        ↳ AND
                          ↳ QDP
                          ↳ QDP
                          ↳ 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:



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

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

INCR(mark(X)) → INCR(X)
INCR(ok(X)) → INCR(X)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

active(incr(nil)) → mark(nil)
active(incr(cons(X, L))) → mark(cons(s(X), incr(L)))
active(adx(cons(X, L))) → mark(incr(cons(X, adx(L))))
active(zeros) → mark(cons(0, zeros))
active(incr(X)) → incr(active(X))
active(cons(X1, X2)) → cons(active(X1), X2)
active(s(X)) → s(active(X))
active(adx(X)) → adx(active(X))
active(head(X)) → head(active(X))
active(tail(X)) → tail(active(X))
incr(mark(X)) → mark(incr(X))
cons(mark(X1), X2) → mark(cons(X1, X2))
s(mark(X)) → mark(s(X))
adx(mark(X)) → mark(adx(X))
head(mark(X)) → mark(head(X))
tail(mark(X)) → mark(tail(X))
proper(incr(X)) → incr(proper(X))
proper(nil) → ok(nil)
proper(cons(X1, X2)) → cons(proper(X1), proper(X2))
proper(s(X)) → s(proper(X))
proper(adx(X)) → adx(proper(X))
proper(nats) → ok(nats)
proper(zeros) → ok(zeros)
proper(0) → ok(0)
proper(head(X)) → head(proper(X))
proper(tail(X)) → tail(proper(X))
incr(ok(X)) → ok(incr(X))
cons(ok(X1), ok(X2)) → ok(cons(X1, X2))
s(ok(X)) → ok(s(X))
adx(ok(X)) → ok(adx(X))
head(ok(X)) → ok(head(X))
tail(ok(X)) → ok(tail(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
  ↳ RRRPoloQTRSProof
    ↳ QTRS
      ↳ RRRPoloQTRSProof
        ↳ QTRS
          ↳ RRRPoloQTRSProof
            ↳ QTRS
              ↳ RRRPoloQTRSProof
                ↳ QTRS
                  ↳ DependencyPairsProof
                    ↳ QDP
                      ↳ DependencyGraphProof
                        ↳ AND
                          ↳ QDP
                          ↳ QDP
                          ↳ QDP
                          ↳ QDP
                          ↳ QDP
                          ↳ QDP
                            ↳ UsableRulesProof
QDP
                                ↳ QDPSizeChangeProof
                          ↳ QDP
                          ↳ QDP
                          ↳ QDP

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

INCR(mark(X)) → INCR(X)
INCR(ok(X)) → INCR(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:



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

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

PROPER(incr(X)) → PROPER(X)
PROPER(s(X)) → PROPER(X)
PROPER(cons(X1, X2)) → PROPER(X1)
PROPER(tail(X)) → PROPER(X)
PROPER(cons(X1, X2)) → PROPER(X2)
PROPER(adx(X)) → PROPER(X)
PROPER(head(X)) → PROPER(X)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

active(incr(nil)) → mark(nil)
active(incr(cons(X, L))) → mark(cons(s(X), incr(L)))
active(adx(cons(X, L))) → mark(incr(cons(X, adx(L))))
active(zeros) → mark(cons(0, zeros))
active(incr(X)) → incr(active(X))
active(cons(X1, X2)) → cons(active(X1), X2)
active(s(X)) → s(active(X))
active(adx(X)) → adx(active(X))
active(head(X)) → head(active(X))
active(tail(X)) → tail(active(X))
incr(mark(X)) → mark(incr(X))
cons(mark(X1), X2) → mark(cons(X1, X2))
s(mark(X)) → mark(s(X))
adx(mark(X)) → mark(adx(X))
head(mark(X)) → mark(head(X))
tail(mark(X)) → mark(tail(X))
proper(incr(X)) → incr(proper(X))
proper(nil) → ok(nil)
proper(cons(X1, X2)) → cons(proper(X1), proper(X2))
proper(s(X)) → s(proper(X))
proper(adx(X)) → adx(proper(X))
proper(nats) → ok(nats)
proper(zeros) → ok(zeros)
proper(0) → ok(0)
proper(head(X)) → head(proper(X))
proper(tail(X)) → tail(proper(X))
incr(ok(X)) → ok(incr(X))
cons(ok(X1), ok(X2)) → ok(cons(X1, X2))
s(ok(X)) → ok(s(X))
adx(ok(X)) → ok(adx(X))
head(ok(X)) → ok(head(X))
tail(ok(X)) → ok(tail(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
  ↳ RRRPoloQTRSProof
    ↳ QTRS
      ↳ RRRPoloQTRSProof
        ↳ QTRS
          ↳ RRRPoloQTRSProof
            ↳ QTRS
              ↳ RRRPoloQTRSProof
                ↳ QTRS
                  ↳ DependencyPairsProof
                    ↳ QDP
                      ↳ DependencyGraphProof
                        ↳ AND
                          ↳ QDP
                          ↳ QDP
                          ↳ QDP
                          ↳ QDP
                          ↳ QDP
                          ↳ QDP
                          ↳ QDP
                            ↳ UsableRulesProof
QDP
                                ↳ QDPSizeChangeProof
                          ↳ QDP
                          ↳ QDP

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

PROPER(incr(X)) → PROPER(X)
PROPER(cons(X1, X2)) → PROPER(X1)
PROPER(s(X)) → PROPER(X)
PROPER(tail(X)) → PROPER(X)
PROPER(cons(X1, X2)) → PROPER(X2)
PROPER(adx(X)) → PROPER(X)
PROPER(head(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:



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

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

ACTIVE(incr(X)) → ACTIVE(X)
ACTIVE(s(X)) → ACTIVE(X)
ACTIVE(adx(X)) → ACTIVE(X)
ACTIVE(head(X)) → ACTIVE(X)
ACTIVE(cons(X1, X2)) → ACTIVE(X1)
ACTIVE(tail(X)) → ACTIVE(X)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

active(incr(nil)) → mark(nil)
active(incr(cons(X, L))) → mark(cons(s(X), incr(L)))
active(adx(cons(X, L))) → mark(incr(cons(X, adx(L))))
active(zeros) → mark(cons(0, zeros))
active(incr(X)) → incr(active(X))
active(cons(X1, X2)) → cons(active(X1), X2)
active(s(X)) → s(active(X))
active(adx(X)) → adx(active(X))
active(head(X)) → head(active(X))
active(tail(X)) → tail(active(X))
incr(mark(X)) → mark(incr(X))
cons(mark(X1), X2) → mark(cons(X1, X2))
s(mark(X)) → mark(s(X))
adx(mark(X)) → mark(adx(X))
head(mark(X)) → mark(head(X))
tail(mark(X)) → mark(tail(X))
proper(incr(X)) → incr(proper(X))
proper(nil) → ok(nil)
proper(cons(X1, X2)) → cons(proper(X1), proper(X2))
proper(s(X)) → s(proper(X))
proper(adx(X)) → adx(proper(X))
proper(nats) → ok(nats)
proper(zeros) → ok(zeros)
proper(0) → ok(0)
proper(head(X)) → head(proper(X))
proper(tail(X)) → tail(proper(X))
incr(ok(X)) → ok(incr(X))
cons(ok(X1), ok(X2)) → ok(cons(X1, X2))
s(ok(X)) → ok(s(X))
adx(ok(X)) → ok(adx(X))
head(ok(X)) → ok(head(X))
tail(ok(X)) → ok(tail(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
  ↳ RRRPoloQTRSProof
    ↳ QTRS
      ↳ RRRPoloQTRSProof
        ↳ QTRS
          ↳ RRRPoloQTRSProof
            ↳ QTRS
              ↳ RRRPoloQTRSProof
                ↳ QTRS
                  ↳ DependencyPairsProof
                    ↳ QDP
                      ↳ DependencyGraphProof
                        ↳ AND
                          ↳ QDP
                          ↳ QDP
                          ↳ QDP
                          ↳ QDP
                          ↳ QDP
                          ↳ QDP
                          ↳ QDP
                          ↳ QDP
                            ↳ UsableRulesProof
QDP
                                ↳ QDPSizeChangeProof
                          ↳ QDP

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

ACTIVE(incr(X)) → ACTIVE(X)
ACTIVE(s(X)) → ACTIVE(X)
ACTIVE(adx(X)) → ACTIVE(X)
ACTIVE(head(X)) → ACTIVE(X)
ACTIVE(cons(X1, X2)) → ACTIVE(X1)
ACTIVE(tail(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:



↳ QTRS
  ↳ RRRPoloQTRSProof
    ↳ QTRS
      ↳ RRRPoloQTRSProof
        ↳ QTRS
          ↳ RRRPoloQTRSProof
            ↳ QTRS
              ↳ RRRPoloQTRSProof
                ↳ QTRS
                  ↳ DependencyPairsProof
                    ↳ QDP
                      ↳ DependencyGraphProof
                        ↳ AND
                          ↳ QDP
                          ↳ QDP
                          ↳ 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(incr(nil)) → mark(nil)
active(incr(cons(X, L))) → mark(cons(s(X), incr(L)))
active(adx(cons(X, L))) → mark(incr(cons(X, adx(L))))
active(zeros) → mark(cons(0, zeros))
active(incr(X)) → incr(active(X))
active(cons(X1, X2)) → cons(active(X1), X2)
active(s(X)) → s(active(X))
active(adx(X)) → adx(active(X))
active(head(X)) → head(active(X))
active(tail(X)) → tail(active(X))
incr(mark(X)) → mark(incr(X))
cons(mark(X1), X2) → mark(cons(X1, X2))
s(mark(X)) → mark(s(X))
adx(mark(X)) → mark(adx(X))
head(mark(X)) → mark(head(X))
tail(mark(X)) → mark(tail(X))
proper(incr(X)) → incr(proper(X))
proper(nil) → ok(nil)
proper(cons(X1, X2)) → cons(proper(X1), proper(X2))
proper(s(X)) → s(proper(X))
proper(adx(X)) → adx(proper(X))
proper(nats) → ok(nats)
proper(zeros) → ok(zeros)
proper(0) → ok(0)
proper(head(X)) → head(proper(X))
proper(tail(X)) → tail(proper(X))
incr(ok(X)) → ok(incr(X))
cons(ok(X1), ok(X2)) → ok(cons(X1, X2))
s(ok(X)) → ok(s(X))
adx(ok(X)) → ok(adx(X))
head(ok(X)) → ok(head(X))
tail(ok(X)) → ok(tail(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
  ↳ RRRPoloQTRSProof
    ↳ QTRS
      ↳ RRRPoloQTRSProof
        ↳ QTRS
          ↳ RRRPoloQTRSProof
            ↳ QTRS
              ↳ RRRPoloQTRSProof
                ↳ QTRS
                  ↳ DependencyPairsProof
                    ↳ QDP
                      ↳ DependencyGraphProof
                        ↳ AND
                          ↳ QDP
                          ↳ QDP
                          ↳ 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:

active(incr(nil)) → mark(nil)
active(incr(cons(X, L))) → mark(cons(s(X), incr(L)))
active(adx(cons(X, L))) → mark(incr(cons(X, adx(L))))
active(zeros) → mark(cons(0, zeros))
active(incr(X)) → incr(active(X))
active(cons(X1, X2)) → cons(active(X1), X2)
active(s(X)) → s(active(X))
active(adx(X)) → adx(active(X))
active(head(X)) → head(active(X))
active(tail(X)) → tail(active(X))
tail(mark(X)) → mark(tail(X))
tail(ok(X)) → ok(tail(X))
head(mark(X)) → mark(head(X))
head(ok(X)) → ok(head(X))
adx(mark(X)) → mark(adx(X))
adx(ok(X)) → ok(adx(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))
incr(mark(X)) → mark(incr(X))
incr(ok(X)) → ok(incr(X))
proper(incr(X)) → incr(proper(X))
proper(nil) → ok(nil)
proper(cons(X1, X2)) → cons(proper(X1), proper(X2))
proper(s(X)) → s(proper(X))
proper(adx(X)) → adx(proper(X))
proper(nats) → ok(nats)
proper(zeros) → ok(zeros)
proper(0) → ok(0)
proper(head(X)) → head(proper(X))
proper(tail(X)) → tail(proper(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: Combined order from the following AFS and order.
TOP(x1)  =  TOP(x1)
mark(x1)  =  mark(x1)
proper(x1)  =  x1
ok(x1)  =  x1
active(x1)  =  x1
tail(x1)  =  x1
head(x1)  =  head(x1)
s(x1)  =  s(x1)
adx(x1)  =  adx(x1)
cons(x1, x2)  =  cons(x1)
incr(x1)  =  incr(x1)
zeros  =  zeros
0  =  0
nil  =  nil
nats  =  nats

Recursive path order with status [2].
Quasi-Precedence:
head1 > mark1
adx1 > [incr1, nil] > s1 > mark1
adx1 > [incr1, nil] > cons1 > mark1
zeros > cons1 > mark1
zeros > 0

Status:
cons1: [1]
adx1: [1]
incr1: [1]
zeros: multiset
head1: multiset
mark1: [1]
TOP1: [1]
s1: [1]
nats: multiset
0: multiset
nil: multiset


The following usable rules [17] were oriented:

tail(mark(X)) → mark(tail(X))
tail(ok(X)) → ok(tail(X))
head(mark(X)) → mark(head(X))
head(ok(X)) → ok(head(X))
active(s(X)) → s(active(X))
active(adx(X)) → adx(active(X))
active(head(X)) → head(active(X))
active(tail(X)) → tail(active(X))
active(adx(cons(X, L))) → mark(incr(cons(X, adx(L))))
active(zeros) → mark(cons(0, zeros))
active(incr(X)) → incr(active(X))
active(cons(X1, X2)) → cons(active(X1), X2)
active(incr(nil)) → mark(nil)
active(incr(cons(X, L))) → mark(cons(s(X), incr(L)))
proper(0) → ok(0)
proper(zeros) → ok(zeros)
proper(nats) → ok(nats)
proper(adx(X)) → adx(proper(X))
proper(s(X)) → s(proper(X))
proper(cons(X1, X2)) → cons(proper(X1), proper(X2))
proper(nil) → ok(nil)
proper(incr(X)) → incr(proper(X))
incr(ok(X)) → ok(incr(X))
incr(mark(X)) → mark(incr(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))
adx(ok(X)) → ok(adx(X))
adx(mark(X)) → mark(adx(X))
proper(head(X)) → head(proper(X))
proper(tail(X)) → tail(proper(X))



↳ QTRS
  ↳ RRRPoloQTRSProof
    ↳ QTRS
      ↳ RRRPoloQTRSProof
        ↳ QTRS
          ↳ RRRPoloQTRSProof
            ↳ QTRS
              ↳ RRRPoloQTRSProof
                ↳ QTRS
                  ↳ DependencyPairsProof
                    ↳ QDP
                      ↳ DependencyGraphProof
                        ↳ AND
                          ↳ QDP
                          ↳ QDP
                          ↳ 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:

active(incr(nil)) → mark(nil)
active(incr(cons(X, L))) → mark(cons(s(X), incr(L)))
active(adx(cons(X, L))) → mark(incr(cons(X, adx(L))))
active(zeros) → mark(cons(0, zeros))
active(incr(X)) → incr(active(X))
active(cons(X1, X2)) → cons(active(X1), X2)
active(s(X)) → s(active(X))
active(adx(X)) → adx(active(X))
active(head(X)) → head(active(X))
active(tail(X)) → tail(active(X))
tail(mark(X)) → mark(tail(X))
tail(ok(X)) → ok(tail(X))
head(mark(X)) → mark(head(X))
head(ok(X)) → ok(head(X))
adx(mark(X)) → mark(adx(X))
adx(ok(X)) → ok(adx(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))
incr(mark(X)) → mark(incr(X))
incr(ok(X)) → ok(incr(X))
proper(incr(X)) → incr(proper(X))
proper(nil) → ok(nil)
proper(cons(X1, X2)) → cons(proper(X1), proper(X2))
proper(s(X)) → s(proper(X))
proper(adx(X)) → adx(proper(X))
proper(nats) → ok(nats)
proper(zeros) → ok(zeros)
proper(0) → ok(0)
proper(head(X)) → head(proper(X))
proper(tail(X)) → tail(proper(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
  ↳ RRRPoloQTRSProof
    ↳ QTRS
      ↳ RRRPoloQTRSProof
        ↳ QTRS
          ↳ RRRPoloQTRSProof
            ↳ QTRS
              ↳ RRRPoloQTRSProof
                ↳ QTRS
                  ↳ DependencyPairsProof
                    ↳ QDP
                      ↳ DependencyGraphProof
                        ↳ AND
                          ↳ QDP
                          ↳ QDP
                          ↳ 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(incr(nil)) → mark(nil)
active(incr(cons(X, L))) → mark(cons(s(X), incr(L)))
active(adx(cons(X, L))) → mark(incr(cons(X, adx(L))))
active(zeros) → mark(cons(0, zeros))
active(incr(X)) → incr(active(X))
active(cons(X1, X2)) → cons(active(X1), X2)
active(s(X)) → s(active(X))
active(adx(X)) → adx(active(X))
active(head(X)) → head(active(X))
active(tail(X)) → tail(active(X))
tail(mark(X)) → mark(tail(X))
tail(ok(X)) → ok(tail(X))
head(mark(X)) → mark(head(X))
head(ok(X)) → ok(head(X))
adx(mark(X)) → mark(adx(X))
adx(ok(X)) → ok(adx(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))
incr(mark(X)) → mark(incr(X))
incr(ok(X)) → ok(incr(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(tail(X)) → tail(active(X))
tail(ok(X)) → ok(tail(X))
head(ok(X)) → ok(head(X))
adx(ok(X)) → ok(adx(X))
s(ok(X)) → ok(s(X))
cons(ok(X1), ok(X2)) → ok(cons(X1, X2))

Used ordering: POLO with Polynomial interpretation [25]:

POL(0) = 0   
POL(TOP(x1)) = x1   
POL(active(x1)) = 2·x1   
POL(adx(x1)) = 2·x1   
POL(cons(x1, x2)) = 2·x1 + x2   
POL(head(x1)) = 2·x1   
POL(incr(x1)) = x1   
POL(mark(x1)) = x1   
POL(nil) = 0   
POL(ok(x1)) = 2 + 2·x1   
POL(s(x1)) = 2·x1   
POL(tail(x1)) = 1 + 2·x1   
POL(zeros) = 0   



↳ QTRS
  ↳ RRRPoloQTRSProof
    ↳ QTRS
      ↳ RRRPoloQTRSProof
        ↳ QTRS
          ↳ RRRPoloQTRSProof
            ↳ QTRS
              ↳ RRRPoloQTRSProof
                ↳ QTRS
                  ↳ DependencyPairsProof
                    ↳ QDP
                      ↳ DependencyGraphProof
                        ↳ AND
                          ↳ QDP
                          ↳ QDP
                          ↳ 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(incr(nil)) → mark(nil)
active(incr(cons(X, L))) → mark(cons(s(X), incr(L)))
active(adx(cons(X, L))) → mark(incr(cons(X, adx(L))))
active(zeros) → mark(cons(0, zeros))
active(incr(X)) → incr(active(X))
active(cons(X1, X2)) → cons(active(X1), X2)
active(s(X)) → s(active(X))
active(adx(X)) → adx(active(X))
active(head(X)) → head(active(X))
tail(mark(X)) → mark(tail(X))
head(mark(X)) → mark(head(X))
adx(mark(X)) → mark(adx(X))
s(mark(X)) → mark(s(X))
cons(mark(X1), X2) → mark(cons(X1, X2))
incr(mark(X)) → mark(incr(X))
incr(ok(X)) → ok(incr(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.