Termination w.r.t. Q of the following Term Rewriting System could not be shown:

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

ge(0, 0) → true
ge(s(x), 0) → ge(x, 0)
ge(0, s(0)) → false
ge(0, s(s(x))) → ge(0, s(x))
ge(s(x), s(y)) → ge(x, y)
minus(0, 0) → 0
minus(0, s(x)) → minus(0, x)
minus(s(x), 0) → s(minus(x, 0))
minus(s(x), s(y)) → minus(x, y)
plus(0, 0) → 0
plus(0, s(x)) → s(plus(0, x))
plus(s(x), y) → s(plus(x, y))
div(x, y) → ify(ge(y, s(0)), x, y)
ify(false, x, y) → divByZeroError
ify(true, x, y) → if(ge(x, y), x, y)
if(false, x, y) → 0
if(true, x, y) → s(div(minus(x, y), y))
div(plus(x, y), z) → plus(div(x, z), div(y, z))

Q is empty.


QTRS
  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

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

ge(0, 0) → true
ge(s(x), 0) → ge(x, 0)
ge(0, s(0)) → false
ge(0, s(s(x))) → ge(0, s(x))
ge(s(x), s(y)) → ge(x, y)
minus(0, 0) → 0
minus(0, s(x)) → minus(0, x)
minus(s(x), 0) → s(minus(x, 0))
minus(s(x), s(y)) → minus(x, y)
plus(0, 0) → 0
plus(0, s(x)) → s(plus(0, x))
plus(s(x), y) → s(plus(x, y))
div(x, y) → ify(ge(y, s(0)), x, y)
ify(false, x, y) → divByZeroError
ify(true, x, y) → if(ge(x, y), x, y)
if(false, x, y) → 0
if(true, x, y) → s(div(minus(x, y), y))
div(plus(x, y), z) → plus(div(x, z), div(y, z))

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:

DIV(plus(x, y), z) → DIV(x, z)
DIV(plus(x, y), z) → PLUS(div(x, z), div(y, z))
PLUS(0, s(x)) → PLUS(0, x)
IFY(true, x, y) → IF(ge(x, y), x, y)
DIV(x, y) → GE(y, s(0))
MINUS(s(x), s(y)) → MINUS(x, y)
DIV(plus(x, y), z) → DIV(y, z)
IF(true, x, y) → DIV(minus(x, y), y)
MINUS(0, s(x)) → MINUS(0, x)
MINUS(s(x), 0) → MINUS(x, 0)
IF(true, x, y) → MINUS(x, y)
DIV(x, y) → IFY(ge(y, s(0)), x, y)
GE(s(x), s(y)) → GE(x, y)
GE(s(x), 0) → GE(x, 0)
GE(0, s(s(x))) → GE(0, s(x))
PLUS(s(x), y) → PLUS(x, y)
IFY(true, x, y) → GE(x, y)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

ge(0, 0) → true
ge(s(x), 0) → ge(x, 0)
ge(0, s(0)) → false
ge(0, s(s(x))) → ge(0, s(x))
ge(s(x), s(y)) → ge(x, y)
minus(0, 0) → 0
minus(0, s(x)) → minus(0, x)
minus(s(x), 0) → s(minus(x, 0))
minus(s(x), s(y)) → minus(x, y)
plus(0, 0) → 0
plus(0, s(x)) → s(plus(0, x))
plus(s(x), y) → s(plus(x, y))
div(x, y) → ify(ge(y, s(0)), x, y)
ify(false, x, y) → divByZeroError
ify(true, x, y) → if(ge(x, y), x, y)
if(false, x, y) → 0
if(true, x, y) → s(div(minus(x, y), y))
div(plus(x, y), z) → plus(div(x, z), div(y, z))

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:

DIV(plus(x, y), z) → DIV(x, z)
DIV(plus(x, y), z) → PLUS(div(x, z), div(y, z))
PLUS(0, s(x)) → PLUS(0, x)
IFY(true, x, y) → IF(ge(x, y), x, y)
DIV(x, y) → GE(y, s(0))
MINUS(s(x), s(y)) → MINUS(x, y)
DIV(plus(x, y), z) → DIV(y, z)
IF(true, x, y) → DIV(minus(x, y), y)
MINUS(0, s(x)) → MINUS(0, x)
MINUS(s(x), 0) → MINUS(x, 0)
IF(true, x, y) → MINUS(x, y)
DIV(x, y) → IFY(ge(y, s(0)), x, y)
GE(s(x), s(y)) → GE(x, y)
GE(s(x), 0) → GE(x, 0)
GE(0, s(s(x))) → GE(0, s(x))
PLUS(s(x), y) → PLUS(x, y)
IFY(true, x, y) → GE(x, y)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

ge(0, 0) → true
ge(s(x), 0) → ge(x, 0)
ge(0, s(0)) → false
ge(0, s(s(x))) → ge(0, s(x))
ge(s(x), s(y)) → ge(x, y)
minus(0, 0) → 0
minus(0, s(x)) → minus(0, x)
minus(s(x), 0) → s(minus(x, 0))
minus(s(x), s(y)) → minus(x, y)
plus(0, 0) → 0
plus(0, s(x)) → s(plus(0, x))
plus(s(x), y) → s(plus(x, y))
div(x, y) → ify(ge(y, s(0)), x, y)
ify(false, x, y) → divByZeroError
ify(true, x, y) → if(ge(x, y), x, y)
if(false, x, y) → 0
if(true, x, y) → s(div(minus(x, y), y))
div(plus(x, y), z) → plus(div(x, z), div(y, z))

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 4 less nodes.

↳ 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:

PLUS(0, s(x)) → PLUS(0, x)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

ge(0, 0) → true
ge(s(x), 0) → ge(x, 0)
ge(0, s(0)) → false
ge(0, s(s(x))) → ge(0, s(x))
ge(s(x), s(y)) → ge(x, y)
minus(0, 0) → 0
minus(0, s(x)) → minus(0, x)
minus(s(x), 0) → s(minus(x, 0))
minus(s(x), s(y)) → minus(x, y)
plus(0, 0) → 0
plus(0, s(x)) → s(plus(0, x))
plus(s(x), y) → s(plus(x, y))
div(x, y) → ify(ge(y, s(0)), x, y)
ify(false, x, y) → divByZeroError
ify(true, x, y) → if(ge(x, y), x, y)
if(false, x, y) → 0
if(true, x, y) → s(div(minus(x, y), y))
div(plus(x, y), z) → plus(div(x, z), div(y, z))

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
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP

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

PLUS(0, s(x)) → PLUS(0, 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
  ↳ 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:

PLUS(s(x), y) → PLUS(x, y)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

ge(0, 0) → true
ge(s(x), 0) → ge(x, 0)
ge(0, s(0)) → false
ge(0, s(s(x))) → ge(0, s(x))
ge(s(x), s(y)) → ge(x, y)
minus(0, 0) → 0
minus(0, s(x)) → minus(0, x)
minus(s(x), 0) → s(minus(x, 0))
minus(s(x), s(y)) → minus(x, y)
plus(0, 0) → 0
plus(0, s(x)) → s(plus(0, x))
plus(s(x), y) → s(plus(x, y))
div(x, y) → ify(ge(y, s(0)), x, y)
ify(false, x, y) → divByZeroError
ify(true, x, y) → if(ge(x, y), x, y)
if(false, x, y) → 0
if(true, x, y) → s(div(minus(x, y), y))
div(plus(x, y), z) → plus(div(x, z), div(y, z))

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
          ↳ QDP
            ↳ UsableRulesProof
QDP
                ↳ QDPSizeChangeProof
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ 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:



↳ 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:

MINUS(s(x), 0) → MINUS(x, 0)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

ge(0, 0) → true
ge(s(x), 0) → ge(x, 0)
ge(0, s(0)) → false
ge(0, s(s(x))) → ge(0, s(x))
ge(s(x), s(y)) → ge(x, y)
minus(0, 0) → 0
minus(0, s(x)) → minus(0, x)
minus(s(x), 0) → s(minus(x, 0))
minus(s(x), s(y)) → minus(x, y)
plus(0, 0) → 0
plus(0, s(x)) → s(plus(0, x))
plus(s(x), y) → s(plus(x, y))
div(x, y) → ify(ge(y, s(0)), x, y)
ify(false, x, y) → divByZeroError
ify(true, x, y) → if(ge(x, y), x, y)
if(false, x, y) → 0
if(true, x, y) → s(div(minus(x, y), y))
div(plus(x, y), z) → plus(div(x, z), div(y, z))

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
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP
            ↳ UsableRulesProof
QDP
                ↳ QDPSizeChangeProof
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP

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

MINUS(s(x), 0) → MINUS(x, 0)

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
          ↳ QDP
QDP
            ↳ UsableRulesProof
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP

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

MINUS(0, s(x)) → MINUS(0, x)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

ge(0, 0) → true
ge(s(x), 0) → ge(x, 0)
ge(0, s(0)) → false
ge(0, s(s(x))) → ge(0, s(x))
ge(s(x), s(y)) → ge(x, y)
minus(0, 0) → 0
minus(0, s(x)) → minus(0, x)
minus(s(x), 0) → s(minus(x, 0))
minus(s(x), s(y)) → minus(x, y)
plus(0, 0) → 0
plus(0, s(x)) → s(plus(0, x))
plus(s(x), y) → s(plus(x, y))
div(x, y) → ify(ge(y, s(0)), x, y)
ify(false, x, y) → divByZeroError
ify(true, x, y) → if(ge(x, y), x, y)
if(false, x, y) → 0
if(true, x, y) → s(div(minus(x, y), y))
div(plus(x, y), z) → plus(div(x, z), div(y, z))

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
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP
            ↳ UsableRulesProof
QDP
                ↳ QDPSizeChangeProof
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP

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

MINUS(0, s(x)) → MINUS(0, 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
  ↳ 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:

MINUS(s(x), s(y)) → MINUS(x, y)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

ge(0, 0) → true
ge(s(x), 0) → ge(x, 0)
ge(0, s(0)) → false
ge(0, s(s(x))) → ge(0, s(x))
ge(s(x), s(y)) → ge(x, y)
minus(0, 0) → 0
minus(0, s(x)) → minus(0, x)
minus(s(x), 0) → s(minus(x, 0))
minus(s(x), s(y)) → minus(x, y)
plus(0, 0) → 0
plus(0, s(x)) → s(plus(0, x))
plus(s(x), y) → s(plus(x, y))
div(x, y) → ify(ge(y, s(0)), x, y)
ify(false, x, y) → divByZeroError
ify(true, x, y) → if(ge(x, y), x, y)
if(false, x, y) → 0
if(true, x, y) → s(div(minus(x, y), y))
div(plus(x, y), z) → plus(div(x, z), div(y, z))

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
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP
            ↳ UsableRulesProof
QDP
                ↳ QDPSizeChangeProof
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP

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

MINUS(s(x), s(y)) → MINUS(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:



↳ 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:

GE(0, s(s(x))) → GE(0, s(x))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

ge(0, 0) → true
ge(s(x), 0) → ge(x, 0)
ge(0, s(0)) → false
ge(0, s(s(x))) → ge(0, s(x))
ge(s(x), s(y)) → ge(x, y)
minus(0, 0) → 0
minus(0, s(x)) → minus(0, x)
minus(s(x), 0) → s(minus(x, 0))
minus(s(x), s(y)) → minus(x, y)
plus(0, 0) → 0
plus(0, s(x)) → s(plus(0, x))
plus(s(x), y) → s(plus(x, y))
div(x, y) → ify(ge(y, s(0)), x, y)
ify(false, x, y) → divByZeroError
ify(true, x, y) → if(ge(x, y), x, y)
if(false, x, y) → 0
if(true, x, y) → s(div(minus(x, y), y))
div(plus(x, y), z) → plus(div(x, z), div(y, z))

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
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP
            ↳ UsableRulesProof
QDP
                ↳ QDPSizeChangeProof
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP

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

GE(0, s(s(x))) → GE(0, 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
  ↳ 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:

GE(s(x), 0) → GE(x, 0)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

ge(0, 0) → true
ge(s(x), 0) → ge(x, 0)
ge(0, s(0)) → false
ge(0, s(s(x))) → ge(0, s(x))
ge(s(x), s(y)) → ge(x, y)
minus(0, 0) → 0
minus(0, s(x)) → minus(0, x)
minus(s(x), 0) → s(minus(x, 0))
minus(s(x), s(y)) → minus(x, y)
plus(0, 0) → 0
plus(0, s(x)) → s(plus(0, x))
plus(s(x), y) → s(plus(x, y))
div(x, y) → ify(ge(y, s(0)), x, y)
ify(false, x, y) → divByZeroError
ify(true, x, y) → if(ge(x, y), x, y)
if(false, x, y) → 0
if(true, x, y) → s(div(minus(x, y), y))
div(plus(x, y), z) → plus(div(x, z), div(y, z))

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
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP
            ↳ UsableRulesProof
QDP
                ↳ QDPSizeChangeProof
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP

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

GE(s(x), 0) → GE(x, 0)

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
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP
QDP
            ↳ UsableRulesProof
          ↳ QDP

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

GE(s(x), s(y)) → GE(x, y)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

ge(0, 0) → true
ge(s(x), 0) → ge(x, 0)
ge(0, s(0)) → false
ge(0, s(s(x))) → ge(0, s(x))
ge(s(x), s(y)) → ge(x, y)
minus(0, 0) → 0
minus(0, s(x)) → minus(0, x)
minus(s(x), 0) → s(minus(x, 0))
minus(s(x), s(y)) → minus(x, y)
plus(0, 0) → 0
plus(0, s(x)) → s(plus(0, x))
plus(s(x), y) → s(plus(x, y))
div(x, y) → ify(ge(y, s(0)), x, y)
ify(false, x, y) → divByZeroError
ify(true, x, y) → if(ge(x, y), x, y)
if(false, x, y) → 0
if(true, x, y) → s(div(minus(x, y), y))
div(plus(x, y), z) → plus(div(x, z), div(y, z))

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
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP
            ↳ UsableRulesProof
QDP
                ↳ QDPSizeChangeProof
          ↳ QDP

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

GE(s(x), s(y)) → GE(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:



↳ QTRS
  ↳ DependencyPairsProof
    ↳ QDP
      ↳ DependencyGraphProof
        ↳ AND
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP
QDP
            ↳ QDPOrderProof

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

DIV(plus(x, y), z) → DIV(x, z)
DIV(plus(x, y), z) → DIV(y, z)
IF(true, x, y) → DIV(minus(x, y), y)
DIV(x, y) → IFY(ge(y, s(0)), x, y)
IFY(true, x, y) → IF(ge(x, y), x, y)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

ge(0, 0) → true
ge(s(x), 0) → ge(x, 0)
ge(0, s(0)) → false
ge(0, s(s(x))) → ge(0, s(x))
ge(s(x), s(y)) → ge(x, y)
minus(0, 0) → 0
minus(0, s(x)) → minus(0, x)
minus(s(x), 0) → s(minus(x, 0))
minus(s(x), s(y)) → minus(x, y)
plus(0, 0) → 0
plus(0, s(x)) → s(plus(0, x))
plus(s(x), y) → s(plus(x, y))
div(x, y) → ify(ge(y, s(0)), x, y)
ify(false, x, y) → divByZeroError
ify(true, x, y) → if(ge(x, y), x, y)
if(false, x, y) → 0
if(true, x, y) → s(div(minus(x, y), y))
div(plus(x, y), z) → plus(div(x, z), div(y, z))

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.


DIV(plus(x, y), z) → DIV(x, z)
DIV(plus(x, y), z) → DIV(y, z)
The remaining pairs can at least be oriented weakly.

IF(true, x, y) → DIV(minus(x, y), y)
DIV(x, y) → IFY(ge(y, s(0)), x, y)
IFY(true, x, y) → IF(ge(x, y), x, y)
Used ordering: Polynomial interpretation [25]:

POL(0) = 0   
POL(DIV(x1, x2)) = x1   
POL(IF(x1, x2, x3)) = 0   
POL(IFY(x1, x2, x3)) = x2   
POL(false) = 0   
POL(ge(x1, x2)) = 0   
POL(minus(x1, x2)) = 0   
POL(plus(x1, x2)) = 1 + x1 + x2   
POL(s(x1)) = 0   
POL(true) = 0   

The following usable rules [17] were oriented:

minus(0, s(x)) → minus(0, x)
minus(s(x), 0) → s(minus(x, 0))
minus(0, 0) → 0
minus(s(x), s(y)) → minus(x, y)



↳ QTRS
  ↳ DependencyPairsProof
    ↳ QDP
      ↳ DependencyGraphProof
        ↳ AND
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP
            ↳ QDPOrderProof
QDP

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

IF(true, x, y) → DIV(minus(x, y), y)
DIV(x, y) → IFY(ge(y, s(0)), x, y)
IFY(true, x, y) → IF(ge(x, y), x, y)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

ge(0, 0) → true
ge(s(x), 0) → ge(x, 0)
ge(0, s(0)) → false
ge(0, s(s(x))) → ge(0, s(x))
ge(s(x), s(y)) → ge(x, y)
minus(0, 0) → 0
minus(0, s(x)) → minus(0, x)
minus(s(x), 0) → s(minus(x, 0))
minus(s(x), s(y)) → minus(x, y)
plus(0, 0) → 0
plus(0, s(x)) → s(plus(0, x))
plus(s(x), y) → s(plus(x, y))
div(x, y) → ify(ge(y, s(0)), x, y)
ify(false, x, y) → divByZeroError
ify(true, x, y) → if(ge(x, y), x, y)
if(false, x, y) → 0
if(true, x, y) → s(div(minus(x, y), y))
div(plus(x, y), z) → plus(div(x, z), div(y, z))

Q is empty.
We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.