Termination w.r.t. Q proof of /tmp/tmpWpLNHi/027.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(plus, 0), y) → y
app(app(plus, app(s, x)), y) → app(s, app(app(plus, x), y))
app(inc, xs) → app(app(map, app(plus, app(s, 0))), xs)
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))

Q is empty.

↳ QTRS

  ↳ Overlay + Local Confluence

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

app(app(plus, 0), y) → y
app(app(plus, app(s, x)), y) → app(s, app(app(plus, x), y))
app(inc, xs) → app(app(map, app(plus, app(s, 0))), xs)
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))

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(app(plus, 0), y) → y
app(app(plus, app(s, x)), y) → app(s, app(app(plus, x), y))
app(inc, xs) → app(app(map, app(plus, app(s, 0))), xs)
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))

The set Q consists of the following terms:

app(app(plus, 0), x0)
app(app(plus, app(s, x0)), x1)
app(inc, x0)
app(app(map, x0), nil)
app(app(map, x0), app(app(cons, 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(plus, app(s, x)), y) → APP(app(plus, x), y)
APP(inc, xs) → APP(s, 0)
APP(inc, xs) → APP(map, app(plus, app(s, 0)))
APP(app(plus, app(s, x)), y) → APP(s, app(app(plus, x), y))
APP(inc, xs) → APP(app(map, app(plus, app(s, 0))), xs)
APP(app(map, f), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → APP(cons, app(f, x))
APP(app(plus, app(s, x)), y) → APP(plus, x)
APP(inc, xs) → APP(plus, app(s, 0))
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)
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(plus, 0), y) → y
app(app(plus, app(s, x)), y) → app(s, app(app(plus, x), y))
app(inc, xs) → app(app(map, app(plus, app(s, 0))), xs)
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))

The set Q consists of the following terms:

app(app(plus, 0), x0)
app(app(plus, app(s, x0)), x1)
app(inc, x0)
app(app(map, x0), nil)
app(app(map, x0), app(app(cons, 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(plus, app(s, x)), y) → APP(app(plus, x), y)
APP(inc, xs) → APP(s, 0)
APP(inc, xs) → APP(map, app(plus, app(s, 0)))
APP(app(plus, app(s, x)), y) → APP(s, app(app(plus, x), y))
APP(inc, xs) → APP(app(map, app(plus, app(s, 0))), xs)
APP(app(map, f), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → APP(cons, app(f, x))
APP(app(plus, app(s, x)), y) → APP(plus, x)
APP(inc, xs) → APP(plus, app(s, 0))
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)
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(plus, 0), y) → y
app(app(plus, app(s, x)), y) → app(s, app(app(plus, x), y))
app(inc, xs) → app(app(map, app(plus, app(s, 0))), xs)
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))

The set Q consists of the following terms:

app(app(plus, 0), x0)
app(app(plus, app(s, x0)), x1)
app(inc, x0)
app(app(map, x0), nil)
app(app(map, x0), app(app(cons, x1), x2))

We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
The approximation of the Dependency Graph [15,17,22] contains 2 SCCs with 7 less nodes.

↳ QTRS

  ↳ Overlay + Local Confluence

    ↳ QTRS

      ↳ DependencyPairsProof

        ↳ QDP

          ↳ DependencyGraphProof

            ↳ AND

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ UsableRulesProof

              ↳ QDP

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

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

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

app(app(plus, 0), y) → y
app(app(plus, app(s, x)), y) → app(s, app(app(plus, x), y))
app(inc, xs) → app(app(map, app(plus, app(s, 0))), xs)
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))

The set Q consists of the following terms:

app(app(plus, 0), x0)
app(app(plus, app(s, x0)), x1)
app(inc, x0)
app(app(map, x0), nil)
app(app(map, x0), app(app(cons, 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

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

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

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

app(app(plus, 0), x0)
app(app(plus, app(s, x0)), x1)
app(inc, x0)
app(app(map, x0), nil)
app(app(map, x0), app(app(cons, 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

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

plus1(s(x), y) → plus1(x, y)

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

plus(0, x0)
plus(s(x0), x1)
inc(x0)
map(x0, nil)
map(x0, cons(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.

plus(0, x0)
plus(s(x0), x1)
inc(x0)
map(x0, nil)
map(x0, cons(x1, x2))

↳ QTRS

  ↳ Overlay + Local Confluence

    ↳ QTRS

      ↳ DependencyPairsProof

        ↳ QDP

          ↳ DependencyGraphProof

            ↳ AND

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ UsableRulesProof

                  ↳ QDP

                    ↳ ATransformationProof

                      ↳ QDP

                        ↳ QReductionProof

                          ↳ QDP

                            ↳ QDPSizeChangeProof

              ↳ QDP

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

plus1(s(x), y) → plus1(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:

plus1(s(x), y) → plus1(x, y)
The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1, 2 >= 2

↳ QTRS

  ↳ Overlay + Local Confluence

    ↳ QTRS

      ↳ DependencyPairsProof

        ↳ QDP

          ↳ DependencyGraphProof

            ↳ AND

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ UsableRulesProof

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

APP(inc, xs) → APP(app(map, app(plus, app(s, 0))), 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(plus, 0), y) → y
app(app(plus, app(s, x)), y) → app(s, app(app(plus, x), y))
app(inc, xs) → app(app(map, app(plus, app(s, 0))), xs)
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))

The set Q consists of the following terms:

app(app(plus, 0), x0)
app(app(plus, app(s, x0)), x1)
app(inc, x0)
app(app(map, x0), nil)
app(app(map, x0), app(app(cons, x1), x2))

↳ QTRS

  ↳ Overlay + Local Confluence

    ↳ QTRS

      ↳ DependencyPairsProof

        ↳ QDP

          ↳ DependencyGraphProof

            ↳ AND

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ UsableRulesProof

                  ↳ QDP

                    ↳ QDPSizeChangeProof

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

APP(inc, xs) → APP(app(map, app(plus, app(s, 0))), 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)

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

app(app(plus, 0), x0)
app(app(plus, app(s, x0)), x1)
app(inc, x0)
app(app(map, x0), nil)
app(app(map, x0), app(app(cons, 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(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(inc, xs) → APP(app(map, app(plus, app(s, 0))), xs)
The graph contains the following edges 2 >= 2