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:

natsFrom(N) → cons(N, n__natsFrom(s(N)))
fst(pair(XS, YS)) → XS
snd(pair(XS, YS)) → YS
splitAt(0, XS) → pair(nil, XS)
splitAt(s(N), cons(X, XS)) → u(splitAt(N, activate(XS)), N, X, activate(XS))
u(pair(YS, ZS), N, X, XS) → pair(cons(activate(X), YS), ZS)
head(cons(N, XS)) → N
tail(cons(N, XS)) → activate(XS)
sel(N, XS) → head(afterNth(N, XS))
take(N, XS) → fst(splitAt(N, XS))
afterNth(N, XS) → snd(splitAt(N, XS))
natsFrom(X) → n__natsFrom(X)
activate(n__natsFrom(X)) → natsFrom(X)
activate(X) → X

Q is empty.


↳ QTRS
  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

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

natsFrom(N) → cons(N, n__natsFrom(s(N)))
fst(pair(XS, YS)) → XS
snd(pair(XS, YS)) → YS
splitAt(0, XS) → pair(nil, XS)
splitAt(s(N), cons(X, XS)) → u(splitAt(N, activate(XS)), N, X, activate(XS))
u(pair(YS, ZS), N, X, XS) → pair(cons(activate(X), YS), ZS)
head(cons(N, XS)) → N
tail(cons(N, XS)) → activate(XS)
sel(N, XS) → head(afterNth(N, XS))
take(N, XS) → fst(splitAt(N, XS))
afterNth(N, XS) → snd(splitAt(N, XS))
natsFrom(X) → n__natsFrom(X)
activate(n__natsFrom(X)) → natsFrom(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:

TAKE(N, XS) → SPLITAT(N, XS)
AFTERNTH(N, XS) → SPLITAT(N, XS)
SPLITAT(s(N), cons(X, XS)) → U(splitAt(N, activate(XS)), N, X, activate(XS))
AFTERNTH(N, XS) → SND(splitAt(N, XS))
SEL(N, XS) → AFTERNTH(N, XS)
SPLITAT(s(N), cons(X, XS)) → SPLITAT(N, activate(XS))
ACTIVATE(n__natsFrom(X)) → NATSFROM(X)
U(pair(YS, ZS), N, X, XS) → ACTIVATE(X)
SPLITAT(s(N), cons(X, XS)) → ACTIVATE(XS)
TAKE(N, XS) → FST(splitAt(N, XS))
SEL(N, XS) → HEAD(afterNth(N, XS))
TAIL(cons(N, XS)) → ACTIVATE(XS)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

natsFrom(N) → cons(N, n__natsFrom(s(N)))
fst(pair(XS, YS)) → XS
snd(pair(XS, YS)) → YS
splitAt(0, XS) → pair(nil, XS)
splitAt(s(N), cons(X, XS)) → u(splitAt(N, activate(XS)), N, X, activate(XS))
u(pair(YS, ZS), N, X, XS) → pair(cons(activate(X), YS), ZS)
head(cons(N, XS)) → N
tail(cons(N, XS)) → activate(XS)
sel(N, XS) → head(afterNth(N, XS))
take(N, XS) → fst(splitAt(N, XS))
afterNth(N, XS) → snd(splitAt(N, XS))
natsFrom(X) → n__natsFrom(X)
activate(n__natsFrom(X)) → natsFrom(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:

TAKE(N, XS) → SPLITAT(N, XS)
AFTERNTH(N, XS) → SPLITAT(N, XS)
SPLITAT(s(N), cons(X, XS)) → U(splitAt(N, activate(XS)), N, X, activate(XS))
AFTERNTH(N, XS) → SND(splitAt(N, XS))
SEL(N, XS) → AFTERNTH(N, XS)
SPLITAT(s(N), cons(X, XS)) → SPLITAT(N, activate(XS))
ACTIVATE(n__natsFrom(X)) → NATSFROM(X)
U(pair(YS, ZS), N, X, XS) → ACTIVATE(X)
SPLITAT(s(N), cons(X, XS)) → ACTIVATE(XS)
TAKE(N, XS) → FST(splitAt(N, XS))
SEL(N, XS) → HEAD(afterNth(N, XS))
TAIL(cons(N, XS)) → ACTIVATE(XS)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

natsFrom(N) → cons(N, n__natsFrom(s(N)))
fst(pair(XS, YS)) → XS
snd(pair(XS, YS)) → YS
splitAt(0, XS) → pair(nil, XS)
splitAt(s(N), cons(X, XS)) → u(splitAt(N, activate(XS)), N, X, activate(XS))
u(pair(YS, ZS), N, X, XS) → pair(cons(activate(X), YS), ZS)
head(cons(N, XS)) → N
tail(cons(N, XS)) → activate(XS)
sel(N, XS) → head(afterNth(N, XS))
take(N, XS) → fst(splitAt(N, XS))
afterNth(N, XS) → snd(splitAt(N, XS))
natsFrom(X) → n__natsFrom(X)
activate(n__natsFrom(X)) → natsFrom(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 1 SCC with 11 less nodes.

↳ QTRS
  ↳ DependencyPairsProof
    ↳ QDP
      ↳ DependencyGraphProof
        ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDPSizeChangeProof

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

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

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

natsFrom(N) → cons(N, n__natsFrom(s(N)))
fst(pair(XS, YS)) → XS
snd(pair(XS, YS)) → YS
splitAt(0, XS) → pair(nil, XS)
splitAt(s(N), cons(X, XS)) → u(splitAt(N, activate(XS)), N, X, activate(XS))
u(pair(YS, ZS), N, X, XS) → pair(cons(activate(X), YS), ZS)
head(cons(N, XS)) → N
tail(cons(N, XS)) → activate(XS)
sel(N, XS) → head(afterNth(N, XS))
take(N, XS) → fst(splitAt(N, XS))
afterNth(N, XS) → snd(splitAt(N, XS))
natsFrom(X) → n__natsFrom(X)
activate(n__natsFrom(X)) → natsFrom(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: