Termination w.r.t. Q proof of /tmp/tmpEqKHMx/17.trs

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:

app(app(., 1), x) → x
app(app(., x), 1) → x
app(app(., app(i, x)), x) → 1
app(app(., x), app(i, x)) → 1
app(app(., app(i, y)), app(app(., y), z)) → z
app(app(., y), app(app(., app(i, y)), z)) → z
app(app(., app(app(., x), y)), z) → app(app(., x), app(app(., y), z))
app(i, 1) → 1
app(i, app(i, x)) → x
app(i, app(app(., x), y)) → app(app(., app(i, y)), app(i, x))
app(app(map, f), nil) → nil
app(app(map, f), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → app(app(cons, app(f, x)), app(app(map, f), xs))
app(app(filter, f), nil) → nil
app(app(filter, f), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → app(app(app(app(filter2, app(f, x)), f), x), xs)
app(app(app(app(filter2, true), f), x), xs) → app(app(cons, x), app(app(filter, f), xs))
app(app(app(app(filter2, false), f), x), xs) → app(app(filter, f), xs)

Q is empty.

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

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

app(app(., 1), x) → x
app(app(., x), 1) → x
app(app(., app(i, x)), x) → 1
app(app(., x), app(i, x)) → 1
app(app(., app(i, y)), app(app(., y), z)) → z
app(app(., y), app(app(., app(i, y)), z)) → z
app(app(., app(app(., x), y)), z) → app(app(., x), app(app(., y), z))
app(i, 1) → 1
app(i, app(i, x)) → x
app(i, app(app(., x), y)) → app(app(., app(i, y)), app(i, x))
app(app(map, f), nil) → nil
app(app(map, f), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → app(app(cons, app(f, x)), app(app(map, f), xs))
app(app(filter, f), nil) → nil
app(app(filter, f), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → app(app(app(app(filter2, app(f, x)), f), x), xs)
app(app(app(app(filter2, true), f), x), xs) → app(app(cons, x), app(app(filter, f), xs))
app(app(app(app(filter2, false), f), x), xs) → app(app(filter, f), xs)

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:

APP(app(app(app(filter2, false), f), x), xs) → APP(filter, f)
APP(i, app(app(., x), y)) → APP(i, y)
APP(app(filter, f), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → APP(app(filter2, app(f, x)), f)
APP(app(filter, f), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → APP(f, x)
APP(app(., app(app(., x), y)), z) → APP(., y)
APP(app(., app(app(., x), y)), z) → APP(app(., y), z)
APP(app(filter, f), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → APP(app(app(filter2, app(f, x)), f), x)
APP(app(filter, f), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → APP(app(app(app(filter2, app(f, x)), f), x), xs)
APP(app(map, f), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → APP(f, x)
APP(app(., app(app(., x), y)), z) → APP(app(., x), app(app(., y), z))
APP(app(map, f), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → APP(app(map, f), xs)
APP(i, app(app(., x), y)) → APP(app(., app(i, y)), app(i, x))
APP(i, app(app(., x), y)) → APP(., app(i, y))
APP(app(app(app(filter2, true), f), x), xs) → APP(cons, x)
APP(app(filter, f), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → APP(filter2, app(f, x))
APP(app(app(app(filter2, false), f), x), xs) → APP(app(filter, f), xs)
APP(app(app(app(filter2, true), f), x), xs) → APP(app(filter, f), xs)
APP(app(map, f), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → APP(cons, app(f, x))
APP(app(app(app(filter2, true), f), x), xs) → APP(filter, f)
APP(i, app(app(., x), y)) → APP(i, x)
APP(app(app(app(filter2, true), f), x), xs) → APP(app(cons, x), app(app(filter, f), xs))
APP(app(map, f), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → APP(app(cons, app(f, x)), app(app(map, f), xs))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

app(app(., 1), x) → x
app(app(., x), 1) → x
app(app(., app(i, x)), x) → 1
app(app(., x), app(i, x)) → 1
app(app(., app(i, y)), app(app(., y), z)) → z
app(app(., y), app(app(., app(i, y)), z)) → z
app(app(., app(app(., x), y)), z) → app(app(., x), app(app(., y), z))
app(i, 1) → 1
app(i, app(i, x)) → x
app(i, app(app(., x), y)) → app(app(., app(i, y)), app(i, x))
app(app(map, f), nil) → nil
app(app(map, f), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → app(app(cons, app(f, x)), app(app(map, f), xs))
app(app(filter, f), nil) → nil
app(app(filter, f), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → app(app(app(app(filter2, app(f, x)), f), x), xs)
app(app(app(app(filter2, true), f), x), xs) → app(app(cons, x), app(app(filter, f), xs))
app(app(app(app(filter2, false), f), x), xs) → app(app(filter, f), xs)

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:

APP(app(app(app(filter2, false), f), x), xs) → APP(filter, f)
APP(i, app(app(., x), y)) → APP(i, y)
APP(app(filter, f), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → APP(app(filter2, app(f, x)), f)
APP(app(filter, f), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → APP(f, x)
APP(app(., app(app(., x), y)), z) → APP(., y)
APP(app(., app(app(., x), y)), z) → APP(app(., y), z)
APP(app(filter, f), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → APP(app(app(filter2, app(f, x)), f), x)
APP(app(filter, f), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → APP(app(app(app(filter2, app(f, x)), f), x), xs)
APP(app(map, f), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → APP(f, x)
APP(app(., app(app(., x), y)), z) → APP(app(., x), app(app(., y), z))
APP(app(map, f), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → APP(app(map, f), xs)
APP(i, app(app(., x), y)) → APP(app(., app(i, y)), app(i, x))
APP(i, app(app(., x), y)) → APP(., app(i, y))
APP(app(app(app(filter2, true), f), x), xs) → APP(cons, x)
APP(app(filter, f), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → APP(filter2, app(f, x))
APP(app(app(app(filter2, false), f), x), xs) → APP(app(filter, f), xs)
APP(app(app(app(filter2, true), f), x), xs) → APP(app(filter, f), xs)
APP(app(map, f), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → APP(cons, app(f, x))
APP(app(app(app(filter2, true), f), x), xs) → APP(filter, f)
APP(i, app(app(., x), y)) → APP(i, x)
APP(app(app(app(filter2, true), f), x), xs) → APP(app(cons, x), app(app(filter, f), xs))
APP(app(map, f), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → APP(app(cons, app(f, x)), app(app(map, f), xs))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

app(app(., 1), x) → x
app(app(., x), 1) → x
app(app(., app(i, x)), x) → 1
app(app(., x), app(i, x)) → 1
app(app(., app(i, y)), app(app(., y), z)) → z
app(app(., y), app(app(., app(i, y)), z)) → z
app(app(., app(app(., x), y)), z) → app(app(., x), app(app(., y), z))
app(i, 1) → 1
app(i, app(i, x)) → x
app(i, app(app(., x), y)) → app(app(., app(i, y)), app(i, x))
app(app(map, f), nil) → nil
app(app(map, f), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → app(app(cons, app(f, x)), app(app(map, f), xs))
app(app(filter, f), nil) → nil
app(app(filter, f), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → app(app(app(app(filter2, app(f, x)), f), x), xs)
app(app(app(app(filter2, true), f), x), xs) → app(app(cons, x), app(app(filter, f), xs))
app(app(app(app(filter2, false), f), x), xs) → app(app(filter, f), xs)

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 12 less nodes.

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ UsableRulesProof

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

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

APP(app(., app(app(., x), y)), z) → APP(app(., y), z)
APP(app(., app(app(., x), y)), z) → APP(app(., x), app(app(., y), z))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

app(app(., 1), x) → x
app(app(., x), 1) → x
app(app(., app(i, x)), x) → 1
app(app(., x), app(i, x)) → 1
app(app(., app(i, y)), app(app(., y), z)) → z
app(app(., y), app(app(., app(i, y)), z)) → z
app(app(., app(app(., x), y)), z) → app(app(., x), app(app(., y), z))
app(i, 1) → 1
app(i, app(i, x)) → x
app(i, app(app(., x), y)) → app(app(., app(i, y)), app(i, x))
app(app(map, f), nil) → nil
app(app(map, f), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → app(app(cons, app(f, x)), app(app(map, f), xs))
app(app(filter, f), nil) → nil
app(app(filter, f), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → app(app(app(app(filter2, app(f, x)), f), x), xs)
app(app(app(app(filter2, true), f), x), xs) → app(app(cons, x), app(app(filter, f), xs))
app(app(app(app(filter2, false), f), x), xs) → app(app(filter, f), xs)

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

                ↳ UsableRulesReductionPairsProof

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

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

APP(app(., app(app(., x), y)), z) → APP(app(., y), z)
APP(app(., app(app(., x), y)), z) → APP(app(., x), app(app(., y), z))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

app(app(., 1), x) → x
app(app(., x), 1) → x
app(app(., app(i, x)), x) → 1
app(app(., x), app(i, x)) → 1
app(app(., app(i, y)), app(app(., y), z)) → z
app(app(., y), app(app(., app(i, y)), z)) → z
app(app(., app(app(., x), y)), z) → app(app(., x), app(app(., y), z))

Q is empty.
We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
First, we A-transformed [17] the QDP-Problem. Then we obtain the following A-transformed DP problem.
The pairs P are:

.1(.(x, y), z) → .1(y, z)
.1(.(x, y), z) → .1(x, .(y, z))

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

.(1, x) → x
.(x, 1) → x
.(i(x), x) → 1
.(x, i(x)) → 1
.(i(y), .(y, z)) → z
.(y, .(i(y), z)) → z
.(.(x, y), z) → .(x, .(y, z))

Q is empty.

By using the usable rules with reduction pair processor [15] with a polynomial ordering [25], all dependency pairs and the corresponding usable rules [17] can be oriented non-strictly. All non-usable rules are removed, and those dependency pairs and usable rules that have been oriented strictly or contain non-usable symbols in their left-hand side are removed as well.

No dependency pairs are removed.

The following rules are removed from R:

.(i(x), x) → 1
.(x, i(x)) → 1
.(i(y), .(y, z)) → z
.(y, .(i(y), z)) → z

Used ordering: POLO with Polynomial interpretation [25]:

POL(.(x₁, x₂)) = x₁ + x₂
POL(.1(x₁, x₂)) = 2·x₁ + 2·x₂
POL(1) = 0
POL(i(x₁)) = x₁

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ UsableRulesProof

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ UsableRulesReductionPairsProof

                  ↳ QDP

                    ↳ QDPSizeChangeProof

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

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

.1(.(x, y), z) → .1(x, .(y, z))
.1(.(x, y), z) → .1(y, z)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

.(1, x) → x
.(x, 1) → x
.(.(x, y), z) → .(x, .(y, z))

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:

.1(.(x, y), z) → .1(y, z)
The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1, 2 >= 2
.1(.(x, y), z) → .1(x, .(y, z))
The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ UsableRulesProof

          ↳ QDP

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

APP(i, app(app(., x), y)) → APP(i, y)
APP(i, app(app(., x), y)) → APP(i, x)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

app(app(., 1), x) → x
app(app(., x), 1) → x
app(app(., app(i, x)), x) → 1
app(app(., x), app(i, x)) → 1
app(app(., app(i, y)), app(app(., y), z)) → z
app(app(., y), app(app(., app(i, y)), z)) → z
app(app(., app(app(., x), y)), z) → app(app(., x), app(app(., y), z))
app(i, 1) → 1
app(i, app(i, x)) → x
app(i, app(app(., x), y)) → app(app(., app(i, y)), app(i, x))
app(app(map, f), nil) → nil
app(app(map, f), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → app(app(cons, app(f, x)), app(app(map, f), xs))
app(app(filter, f), nil) → nil
app(app(filter, f), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → app(app(app(app(filter2, app(f, x)), f), x), xs)
app(app(app(app(filter2, true), f), x), xs) → app(app(cons, x), app(app(filter, f), xs))
app(app(app(app(filter2, false), f), x), xs) → app(app(filter, f), xs)

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ UsableRulesProof

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ ATransformationProof

          ↳ QDP

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

APP(i, app(app(., x), y)) → APP(i, y)
APP(i, app(app(., x), y)) → APP(i, x)

R is empty.
Q is empty.
We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
We have applied the A-Transformation [17] to get from an applicative problem to a standard problem.

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ UsableRulesProof

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ ATransformationProof

                  ↳ QDP

                    ↳ QDPSizeChangeProof

          ↳ QDP

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

i(.(x, y)) → i(x)
i(.(x, y)) → i(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:

i(.(x, y)) → i(y)
The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1
i(.(x, y)) → i(x)
The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ QDPSizeChangeProof

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

APP(app(filter, f), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → APP(f, x)
APP(app(app(app(filter2, false), f), x), xs) → APP(app(filter, f), xs)
APP(app(app(app(filter2, true), f), x), xs) → APP(app(filter, f), xs)
APP(app(filter, f), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → APP(app(app(app(filter2, app(f, x)), f), x), xs)
APP(app(map, f), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → APP(f, x)
APP(app(map, f), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → APP(app(map, f), xs)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

app(app(., 1), x) → x
app(app(., x), 1) → x
app(app(., app(i, x)), x) → 1
app(app(., x), app(i, x)) → 1
app(app(., app(i, y)), app(app(., y), z)) → z
app(app(., y), app(app(., app(i, y)), z)) → z
app(app(., app(app(., x), y)), z) → app(app(., x), app(app(., y), z))
app(i, 1) → 1
app(i, app(i, x)) → x
app(i, app(app(., x), y)) → app(app(., app(i, y)), app(i, x))
app(app(map, f), nil) → nil
app(app(map, f), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → app(app(cons, app(f, x)), app(app(map, f), xs))
app(app(filter, f), nil) → nil
app(app(filter, f), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → app(app(app(app(filter2, app(f, x)), f), x), xs)
app(app(app(app(filter2, true), f), x), xs) → app(app(cons, x), app(app(filter, f), xs))
app(app(app(app(filter2, false), f), x), xs) → app(app(filter, f), xs)

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

APP(app(filter, f), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → APP(f, x)
The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1, 2 > 2
APP(app(map, f), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → APP(f, x)
The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1, 2 > 2
APP(app(map, f), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → APP(app(map, f), xs)
The graph contains the following edges 1 >= 1, 2 > 2
APP(app(filter, f), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → APP(app(app(app(filter2, app(f, x)), f), x), xs)
The graph contains the following edges 2 > 2
APP(app(app(app(filter2, true), f), x), xs) → APP(app(filter, f), xs)
The graph contains the following edges 2 >= 2
APP(app(app(app(filter2, false), f), x), xs) → APP(app(filter, f), xs)
The graph contains the following edges 2 >= 2