Termination w.r.t. Q proof of /tmp/tmp5fu46J/21.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(p, app(s, x)) → x
app(fact, 0) → app(s, 0)
app(fact, app(s, x)) → app(app(*, app(s, x)), app(fact, app(p, app(s, x))))
app(app(*, 0), y) → 0
app(app(*, app(s, x)), y) → app(app(+, app(app(*, x), y)), y)
app(app(+, x), 0) → x
app(app(+, x), app(s, y)) → app(s, app(app(+, x), y))
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

  ↳ Overlay + Local Confluence

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

app(p, app(s, x)) → x
app(fact, 0) → app(s, 0)
app(fact, app(s, x)) → app(app(*, app(s, x)), app(fact, app(p, app(s, x))))
app(app(*, 0), y) → 0
app(app(*, app(s, x)), y) → app(app(+, app(app(*, x), y)), y)
app(app(+, x), 0) → x
app(app(+, x), app(s, y)) → app(s, app(app(+, x), y))
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.

The TRS is overlay and locally confluent. By [19] we can switch to innermost.

↳ QTRS

  ↳ Overlay + Local Confluence

    ↳ QTRS

      ↳ DependencyPairsProof

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

app(p, app(s, x)) → x
app(fact, 0) → app(s, 0)
app(fact, app(s, x)) → app(app(*, app(s, x)), app(fact, app(p, app(s, x))))
app(app(*, 0), y) → 0
app(app(*, app(s, x)), y) → app(app(+, app(app(*, x), y)), y)
app(app(+, x), 0) → x
app(app(+, x), app(s, y)) → app(s, app(app(+, x), y))
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)

The set Q consists of the following terms:

app(p, app(s, x0))
app(fact, 0)
app(fact, app(s, x0))
app(app(*, 0), x0)
app(app(*, app(s, x0)), x1)
app(app(+, x0), 0)
app(app(+, x0), app(s, x1))
app(app(map, x0), nil)
app(app(map, x0), app(app(cons, x1), x2))
app(app(filter, x0), nil)
app(app(filter, x0), app(app(cons, x1), x2))
app(app(app(app(filter2, true), x0), x1), x2)
app(app(app(app(filter2, false), x0), x1), x2)

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(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(filter, f), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → APP(app(app(app(filter2, app(f, x)), f), x), xs)
APP(app(+, x), app(s, y)) → APP(s, app(app(+, x), y))
APP(app(map, f), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → APP(app(map, f), xs)
APP(app(*, app(s, x)), y) → APP(app(*, x), y)
APP(fact, app(s, x)) → APP(p, app(s, x))
APP(app(+, x), app(s, y)) → APP(app(+, x), y)
APP(fact, app(s, x)) → APP(app(*, app(s, x)), app(fact, app(p, app(s, x))))
APP(fact, 0) → APP(s, 0)
APP(app(*, app(s, x)), y) → APP(+, app(app(*, x), y))
APP(app(app(app(filter2, true), f), x), xs) → APP(app(filter, f), xs)
APP(app(app(app(filter2, false), f), x), xs) → APP(app(filter, f), xs)
APP(fact, app(s, x)) → APP(*, app(s, x))
APP(app(*, app(s, x)), y) → APP(*, x)
APP(app(*, app(s, x)), y) → APP(app(+, app(app(*, x), y)), y)
APP(app(app(app(filter2, false), f), x), xs) → APP(filter, f)
APP(app(filter, f), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → APP(app(app(filter2, app(f, x)), f), x)
APP(fact, app(s, x)) → APP(fact, app(p, app(s, x)))
APP(app(map, f), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → APP(f, x)
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(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(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(p, app(s, x)) → x
app(fact, 0) → app(s, 0)
app(fact, app(s, x)) → app(app(*, app(s, x)), app(fact, app(p, app(s, x))))
app(app(*, 0), y) → 0
app(app(*, app(s, x)), y) → app(app(+, app(app(*, x), y)), y)
app(app(+, x), 0) → x
app(app(+, x), app(s, y)) → app(s, app(app(+, x), y))
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)

The set Q consists of the following terms:

app(p, app(s, x0))
app(fact, 0)
app(fact, app(s, x0))
app(app(*, 0), x0)
app(app(*, app(s, x0)), x1)
app(app(+, x0), 0)
app(app(+, x0), app(s, x1))
app(app(map, x0), nil)
app(app(map, x0), app(app(cons, x1), x2))
app(app(filter, x0), nil)
app(app(filter, x0), app(app(cons, x1), x2))
app(app(app(app(filter2, true), x0), x1), x2)
app(app(app(app(filter2, false), x0), x1), x2)

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

↳ QTRS

  ↳ Overlay + Local Confluence

    ↳ QTRS

      ↳ DependencyPairsProof

        ↳ QDP

          ↳ DependencyGraphProof

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

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(filter, f), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → APP(app(app(app(filter2, app(f, x)), f), x), xs)
APP(app(+, x), app(s, y)) → APP(s, app(app(+, x), y))
APP(app(map, f), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → APP(app(map, f), xs)
APP(app(*, app(s, x)), y) → APP(app(*, x), y)
APP(fact, app(s, x)) → APP(p, app(s, x))
APP(app(+, x), app(s, y)) → APP(app(+, x), y)
APP(fact, app(s, x)) → APP(app(*, app(s, x)), app(fact, app(p, app(s, x))))
APP(fact, 0) → APP(s, 0)
APP(app(*, app(s, x)), y) → APP(+, app(app(*, x), y))
APP(app(app(app(filter2, true), f), x), xs) → APP(app(filter, f), xs)
APP(app(app(app(filter2, false), f), x), xs) → APP(app(filter, f), xs)
APP(fact, app(s, x)) → APP(*, app(s, x))
APP(app(*, app(s, x)), y) → APP(*, x)
APP(app(*, app(s, x)), y) → APP(app(+, app(app(*, x), y)), y)
APP(app(app(app(filter2, false), f), x), xs) → APP(filter, f)
APP(app(filter, f), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → APP(app(app(filter2, app(f, x)), f), x)
APP(fact, app(s, x)) → APP(fact, app(p, app(s, x)))
APP(app(map, f), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → APP(f, x)
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(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(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(p, app(s, x)) → x
app(fact, 0) → app(s, 0)
app(fact, app(s, x)) → app(app(*, app(s, x)), app(fact, app(p, app(s, x))))
app(app(*, 0), y) → 0
app(app(*, app(s, x)), y) → app(app(+, app(app(*, x), y)), y)
app(app(+, x), 0) → x
app(app(+, x), app(s, y)) → app(s, app(app(+, x), y))
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)

The set Q consists of the following terms:

app(p, app(s, x0))
app(fact, 0)
app(fact, app(s, x0))
app(app(*, 0), x0)
app(app(*, app(s, x0)), x1)
app(app(+, x0), 0)
app(app(+, x0), app(s, x1))
app(app(map, x0), nil)
app(app(map, x0), app(app(cons, x1), x2))
app(app(filter, x0), nil)
app(app(filter, x0), app(app(cons, x1), x2))
app(app(app(app(filter2, true), x0), x1), x2)
app(app(app(app(filter2, false), x0), x1), x2)

We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
The approximation of the Dependency Graph [15,17,22] contains 4 SCCs with 17 less nodes.

↳ QTRS

  ↳ Overlay + Local Confluence

    ↳ QTRS

      ↳ DependencyPairsProof

        ↳ QDP

          ↳ DependencyGraphProof

            ↳ AND

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ UsableRulesProof

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

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

APP(app(+, x), app(s, y)) → APP(app(+, x), y)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

app(p, app(s, x)) → x
app(fact, 0) → app(s, 0)
app(fact, app(s, x)) → app(app(*, app(s, x)), app(fact, app(p, app(s, x))))
app(app(*, 0), y) → 0
app(app(*, app(s, x)), y) → app(app(+, app(app(*, x), y)), y)
app(app(+, x), 0) → x
app(app(+, x), app(s, y)) → app(s, app(app(+, x), y))
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)

The set Q consists of the following terms:

app(p, app(s, x0))
app(fact, 0)
app(fact, app(s, x0))
app(app(*, 0), x0)
app(app(*, app(s, x0)), x1)
app(app(+, x0), 0)
app(app(+, x0), app(s, x1))
app(app(map, x0), nil)
app(app(map, x0), app(app(cons, x1), x2))
app(app(filter, x0), nil)
app(app(filter, x0), app(app(cons, x1), x2))
app(app(app(app(filter2, true), x0), x1), x2)
app(app(app(app(filter2, false), x0), x1), x2)

We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
As all Q-normal forms are R-normal forms we are in the innermost case. Hence, by the usable rules processor [15] we can delete all non-usable rules [17] from R.

↳ QTRS

  ↳ Overlay + Local Confluence

    ↳ QTRS

      ↳ DependencyPairsProof

        ↳ QDP

          ↳ DependencyGraphProof

            ↳ AND

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ UsableRulesProof

                  ↳ QDP

                    ↳ ATransformationProof

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

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

APP(app(+, x), app(s, y)) → APP(app(+, x), y)

R is empty.
The set Q consists of the following terms:

app(p, app(s, x0))
app(fact, 0)
app(fact, app(s, x0))
app(app(*, 0), x0)
app(app(*, app(s, x0)), x1)
app(app(+, x0), 0)
app(app(+, x0), app(s, x1))
app(app(map, x0), nil)
app(app(map, x0), app(app(cons, x1), x2))
app(app(filter, x0), nil)
app(app(filter, x0), app(app(cons, x1), x2))
app(app(app(app(filter2, true), x0), x1), x2)
app(app(app(app(filter2, false), x0), x1), x2)

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

  ↳ Overlay + Local Confluence

    ↳ QTRS

      ↳ DependencyPairsProof

        ↳ QDP

          ↳ DependencyGraphProof

            ↳ AND

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ UsableRulesProof

                  ↳ QDP

                    ↳ ATransformationProof

                      ↳ QDP

                        ↳ QReductionProof

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

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

+1(x, s(y)) → +1(x, y)

R is empty.
The set Q consists of the following terms:

p(s(x0))
fact(0)
fact(s(x0))
*(0, x0)
*(s(x0), x1)
+(x0, 0)
+(x0, s(x1))
map(x0, nil)
map(x0, cons(x1, x2))
filter(x0, nil)
filter(x0, cons(x1, x2))
filter2(true, x0, x1, x2)
filter2(false, x0, x1, x2)

We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
We deleted the following terms from Q as each root-symbol of these terms does neither occur in P nor in R.

p(s(x0))
fact(0)
fact(s(x0))
*(0, x0)
*(s(x0), x1)
+(x0, 0)
+(x0, s(x1))
map(x0, nil)
map(x0, cons(x1, x2))
filter(x0, nil)
filter(x0, cons(x1, x2))
filter2(true, x0, x1, x2)
filter2(false, x0, x1, x2)

↳ QTRS

  ↳ Overlay + Local Confluence

    ↳ QTRS

      ↳ DependencyPairsProof

        ↳ QDP

          ↳ DependencyGraphProof

            ↳ AND

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ UsableRulesProof

                  ↳ QDP

                    ↳ ATransformationProof

                      ↳ QDP

                        ↳ QReductionProof

                          ↳ QDP

                            ↳ QDPSizeChangeProof

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

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

+1(x, s(y)) → +1(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:

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

↳ QTRS

  ↳ Overlay + Local Confluence

    ↳ QTRS

      ↳ DependencyPairsProof

        ↳ QDP

          ↳ DependencyGraphProof

            ↳ AND

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ UsableRulesProof

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

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

APP(app(*, app(s, x)), y) → APP(app(*, x), y)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

app(p, app(s, x)) → x
app(fact, 0) → app(s, 0)
app(fact, app(s, x)) → app(app(*, app(s, x)), app(fact, app(p, app(s, x))))
app(app(*, 0), y) → 0
app(app(*, app(s, x)), y) → app(app(+, app(app(*, x), y)), y)
app(app(+, x), 0) → x
app(app(+, x), app(s, y)) → app(s, app(app(+, x), y))
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)

The set Q consists of the following terms:

app(p, app(s, x0))
app(fact, 0)
app(fact, app(s, x0))
app(app(*, 0), x0)
app(app(*, app(s, x0)), x1)
app(app(+, x0), 0)
app(app(+, x0), app(s, x1))
app(app(map, x0), nil)
app(app(map, x0), app(app(cons, x1), x2))
app(app(filter, x0), nil)
app(app(filter, x0), app(app(cons, x1), x2))
app(app(app(app(filter2, true), x0), x1), x2)
app(app(app(app(filter2, false), x0), x1), x2)

↳ QTRS

  ↳ Overlay + Local Confluence

    ↳ QTRS

      ↳ DependencyPairsProof

        ↳ QDP

          ↳ DependencyGraphProof

            ↳ AND

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ UsableRulesProof

                  ↳ QDP

                    ↳ ATransformationProof

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

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

APP(app(*, app(s, x)), y) → APP(app(*, x), y)

R is empty.
The set Q consists of the following terms:

app(p, app(s, x0))
app(fact, 0)
app(fact, app(s, x0))
app(app(*, 0), x0)
app(app(*, app(s, x0)), x1)
app(app(+, x0), 0)
app(app(+, x0), app(s, x1))
app(app(map, x0), nil)
app(app(map, x0), app(app(cons, x1), x2))
app(app(filter, x0), nil)
app(app(filter, x0), app(app(cons, x1), x2))
app(app(app(app(filter2, true), x0), x1), x2)
app(app(app(app(filter2, false), x0), x1), x2)

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

  ↳ Overlay + Local Confluence

    ↳ QTRS

      ↳ DependencyPairsProof

        ↳ QDP

          ↳ DependencyGraphProof

            ↳ AND

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ UsableRulesProof

                  ↳ QDP

                    ↳ ATransformationProof

                      ↳ QDP

                        ↳ QReductionProof

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

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

*1(s(x), y) → *1(x, y)

R is empty.
The set Q consists of the following terms:

p(s(x0))
fact(0)
fact(s(x0))
*(0, x0)
*(s(x0), x1)
+(x0, 0)
+(x0, s(x1))
map(x0, nil)
map(x0, cons(x1, x2))
filter(x0, nil)
filter(x0, cons(x1, x2))
filter2(true, x0, x1, x2)
filter2(false, x0, x1, x2)

We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
We deleted the following terms from Q as each root-symbol of these terms does neither occur in P nor in R.

p(s(x0))
fact(0)
fact(s(x0))
*(0, x0)
*(s(x0), x1)
+(x0, 0)
+(x0, s(x1))
map(x0, nil)
map(x0, cons(x1, x2))
filter(x0, nil)
filter(x0, cons(x1, x2))
filter2(true, x0, x1, x2)
filter2(false, x0, x1, x2)

↳ QTRS

  ↳ Overlay + Local Confluence

    ↳ QTRS

      ↳ DependencyPairsProof

        ↳ QDP

          ↳ DependencyGraphProof

            ↳ AND

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ UsableRulesProof

                  ↳ QDP

                    ↳ ATransformationProof

                      ↳ QDP

                        ↳ QReductionProof

                          ↳ QDP

                            ↳ QDPSizeChangeProof

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

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

*1(s(x), y) → *1(x, y)

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

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

↳ QTRS

  ↳ Overlay + Local Confluence

    ↳ QTRS

      ↳ DependencyPairsProof

        ↳ QDP

          ↳ DependencyGraphProof

            ↳ AND

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ UsableRulesProof

              ↳ QDP

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

APP(fact, app(s, x)) → APP(fact, app(p, app(s, x)))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

app(p, app(s, x)) → x
app(fact, 0) → app(s, 0)
app(fact, app(s, x)) → app(app(*, app(s, x)), app(fact, app(p, app(s, x))))
app(app(*, 0), y) → 0
app(app(*, app(s, x)), y) → app(app(+, app(app(*, x), y)), y)
app(app(+, x), 0) → x
app(app(+, x), app(s, y)) → app(s, app(app(+, x), y))
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)

The set Q consists of the following terms:

app(p, app(s, x0))
app(fact, 0)
app(fact, app(s, x0))
app(app(*, 0), x0)
app(app(*, app(s, x0)), x1)
app(app(+, x0), 0)
app(app(+, x0), app(s, x1))
app(app(map, x0), nil)
app(app(map, x0), app(app(cons, x1), x2))
app(app(filter, x0), nil)
app(app(filter, x0), app(app(cons, x1), x2))
app(app(app(app(filter2, true), x0), x1), x2)
app(app(app(app(filter2, false), x0), x1), x2)

↳ QTRS

  ↳ Overlay + Local Confluence

    ↳ QTRS

      ↳ DependencyPairsProof

        ↳ QDP

          ↳ DependencyGraphProof

            ↳ AND

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ UsableRulesProof

                  ↳ QDP

                    ↳ ATransformationProof

              ↳ QDP

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

APP(fact, app(s, x)) → APP(fact, app(p, app(s, x)))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

app(p, app(s, x)) → x

The set Q consists of the following terms:

app(p, app(s, x0))
app(fact, 0)
app(fact, app(s, x0))
app(app(*, 0), x0)
app(app(*, app(s, x0)), x1)
app(app(+, x0), 0)
app(app(+, x0), app(s, x1))
app(app(map, x0), nil)
app(app(map, x0), app(app(cons, x1), x2))
app(app(filter, x0), nil)
app(app(filter, x0), app(app(cons, x1), x2))
app(app(app(app(filter2, true), x0), x1), x2)
app(app(app(app(filter2, false), x0), x1), x2)

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

  ↳ Overlay + Local Confluence

    ↳ QTRS

      ↳ DependencyPairsProof

        ↳ QDP

          ↳ DependencyGraphProof

            ↳ AND

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ UsableRulesProof

                  ↳ QDP

                    ↳ ATransformationProof

                      ↳ QDP

                        ↳ QReductionProof

              ↳ QDP

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

fact1(s(x)) → fact1(p(s(x)))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

p(s(x)) → x

The set Q consists of the following terms:

p(s(x0))
fact(0)
fact(s(x0))
*(0, x0)
*(s(x0), x1)
+(x0, 0)
+(x0, s(x1))
map(x0, nil)
map(x0, cons(x1, x2))
filter(x0, nil)
filter(x0, cons(x1, x2))
filter2(true, x0, x1, x2)
filter2(false, x0, x1, x2)

We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
We deleted the following terms from Q as each root-symbol of these terms does neither occur in P nor in R.

fact(0)
fact(s(x0))
*(0, x0)
*(s(x0), x1)
+(x0, 0)
+(x0, s(x1))
map(x0, nil)
map(x0, cons(x1, x2))
filter(x0, nil)
filter(x0, cons(x1, x2))
filter2(true, x0, x1, x2)
filter2(false, x0, x1, x2)

↳ QTRS

  ↳ Overlay + Local Confluence

    ↳ QTRS

      ↳ DependencyPairsProof

        ↳ QDP

          ↳ DependencyGraphProof

            ↳ AND

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ UsableRulesProof

                  ↳ QDP

                    ↳ ATransformationProof

                      ↳ QDP

                        ↳ QReductionProof

                          ↳ QDP

                            ↳ RuleRemovalProof

              ↳ QDP

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

fact1(s(x)) → fact1(p(s(x)))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

p(s(x)) → x

The set Q consists of the following terms:

p(s(x0))

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 rules of the TRS R:

p(s(x)) → x

Used ordering: POLO with Polynomial interpretation [25]:

POL(fact1(x₁)) = x₁
POL(p(x₁)) = x₁
POL(s(x₁)) = 1 + x₁

↳ QTRS

  ↳ Overlay + Local Confluence

    ↳ QTRS

      ↳ DependencyPairsProof

        ↳ QDP

          ↳ DependencyGraphProof

            ↳ AND

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ UsableRulesProof

                  ↳ QDP

                    ↳ ATransformationProof

                      ↳ QDP

                        ↳ QReductionProof

                          ↳ QDP

                            ↳ RuleRemovalProof

                              ↳ QDP

                                ↳ DependencyGraphProof

              ↳ QDP

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

fact1(s(x)) → fact1(p(s(x)))

R is empty.
The set Q consists of the following terms:

p(s(x0))

We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
The approximation of the Dependency Graph [15,17,22] contains 0 SCCs with 1 less node.

↳ QTRS

  ↳ Overlay + Local Confluence

    ↳ QTRS

      ↳ DependencyPairsProof

        ↳ QDP

          ↳ DependencyGraphProof

            ↳ AND

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ 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(p, app(s, x)) → x
app(fact, 0) → app(s, 0)
app(fact, app(s, x)) → app(app(*, app(s, x)), app(fact, app(p, app(s, x))))
app(app(*, 0), y) → 0
app(app(*, app(s, x)), y) → app(app(+, app(app(*, x), y)), y)
app(app(+, x), 0) → x
app(app(+, x), app(s, y)) → app(s, app(app(+, x), y))
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)

The set Q consists of the following terms:

app(p, app(s, x0))
app(fact, 0)
app(fact, app(s, x0))
app(app(*, 0), x0)
app(app(*, app(s, x0)), x1)
app(app(+, x0), 0)
app(app(+, x0), app(s, x1))
app(app(map, x0), nil)
app(app(map, x0), app(app(cons, x1), x2))
app(app(filter, x0), nil)
app(app(filter, x0), app(app(cons, x1), x2))
app(app(app(app(filter2, true), x0), x1), x2)
app(app(app(app(filter2, false), x0), x1), x2)

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:

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