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:

quot(0, s(y), s(z)) → 0
quot(s(x), s(y), z) → quot(x, y, z)
quot(x, 0, s(z)) → s(quot(x, s(z), s(z)))

Q is empty.


↳ QTRS
  ↳ Overlay + Local Confluence

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

quot(0, s(y), s(z)) → 0
quot(s(x), s(y), z) → quot(x, y, z)
quot(x, 0, s(z)) → s(quot(x, s(z), s(z)))

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:

quot(0, s(y), s(z)) → 0
quot(s(x), s(y), z) → quot(x, y, z)
quot(x, 0, s(z)) → s(quot(x, s(z), s(z)))

The set Q consists of the following terms:

quot(0, s(x0), s(x1))
quot(s(x0), s(x1), x2)
quot(x0, 0, s(x1))


Using Dependency Pairs [1,15] we result in the following initial DP problem:
Q DP problem:
The TRS P consists of the following rules:

QUOT(s(x), s(y), z) → QUOT(x, y, z)
QUOT(x, 0, s(z)) → QUOT(x, s(z), s(z))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

quot(0, s(y), s(z)) → 0
quot(s(x), s(y), z) → quot(x, y, z)
quot(x, 0, s(z)) → s(quot(x, s(z), s(z)))

The set Q consists of the following terms:

quot(0, s(x0), s(x1))
quot(s(x0), s(x1), x2)
quot(x0, 0, s(x1))

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

↳ QTRS
  ↳ Overlay + Local Confluence
    ↳ QTRS
      ↳ DependencyPairsProof
        ↳ QDP
          ↳ UsableRulesProof

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

QUOT(s(x), s(y), z) → QUOT(x, y, z)
QUOT(x, 0, s(z)) → QUOT(x, s(z), s(z))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

quot(0, s(y), s(z)) → 0
quot(s(x), s(y), z) → quot(x, y, z)
quot(x, 0, s(z)) → s(quot(x, s(z), s(z)))

The set Q consists of the following terms:

quot(0, s(x0), s(x1))
quot(s(x0), s(x1), x2)
quot(x0, 0, s(x1))

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
          ↳ UsableRulesProof
            ↳ QDP
              ↳ QReductionProof

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

QUOT(s(x), s(y), z) → QUOT(x, y, z)
QUOT(x, 0, s(z)) → QUOT(x, s(z), s(z))

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

quot(0, s(x0), s(x1))
quot(s(x0), s(x1), x2)
quot(x0, 0, s(x1))

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.

quot(0, s(x0), s(x1))
quot(s(x0), s(x1), x2)
quot(x0, 0, s(x1))



↳ QTRS
  ↳ Overlay + Local Confluence
    ↳ QTRS
      ↳ DependencyPairsProof
        ↳ QDP
          ↳ UsableRulesProof
            ↳ QDP
              ↳ QReductionProof
                ↳ QDP
                  ↳ QDPSizeChangeProof

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

QUOT(s(x), s(y), z) → QUOT(x, y, z)
QUOT(x, 0, s(z)) → QUOT(x, s(z), s(z))

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: