Termination w.r.t. Q proof of /tmp/tmpW9GD4g/#4.30a.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:

minus(x, 0) → x
minus(s(x), s(y)) → minus(x, y)
le(0, y) → true
le(s(x), 0) → false
le(s(x), s(y)) → le(x, y)
quot(0, s(y)) → 0
quot(s(x), s(y)) → s(quot(minus(s(x), s(y)), s(y)))

Q is empty.

↳ QTRS

  ↳ AAECC Innermost

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

minus(x, 0) → x
minus(s(x), s(y)) → minus(x, y)
le(0, y) → true
le(s(x), 0) → false
le(s(x), s(y)) → le(x, y)
quot(0, s(y)) → 0
quot(s(x), s(y)) → s(quot(minus(s(x), s(y)), s(y)))

Q is empty.

We have applied [19,8] to switch to innermost. The TRS R 1 is

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

The TRS R 2 is

le(0, y) → true
le(s(x), 0) → false
le(s(x), s(y)) → le(x, y)

The signature Sigma is {le, true, false}

↳ QTRS

  ↳ AAECC Innermost

    ↳ QTRS

      ↳ DependencyPairsProof

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

minus(x, 0) → x
minus(s(x), s(y)) → minus(x, y)
le(0, y) → true
le(s(x), 0) → false
le(s(x), s(y)) → le(x, y)
quot(0, s(y)) → 0
quot(s(x), s(y)) → s(quot(minus(s(x), s(y)), s(y)))

The set Q consists of the following terms:

minus(x0, 0)
minus(s(x0), s(x1))
le(0, x0)
le(s(x0), 0)
le(s(x0), s(x1))
quot(0, s(x0))
quot(s(x0), 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)) → MINUS(s(x), s(y))
MINUS(s(x), s(y)) → MINUS(x, y)
QUOT(s(x), s(y)) → QUOT(minus(s(x), s(y)), s(y))
LE(s(x), s(y)) → LE(x, y)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

minus(x, 0) → x
minus(s(x), s(y)) → minus(x, y)
le(0, y) → true
le(s(x), 0) → false
le(s(x), s(y)) → le(x, y)
quot(0, s(y)) → 0
quot(s(x), s(y)) → s(quot(minus(s(x), s(y)), s(y)))

The set Q consists of the following terms:

minus(x0, 0)
minus(s(x0), s(x1))
le(0, x0)
le(s(x0), 0)
le(s(x0), s(x1))
quot(0, s(x0))
quot(s(x0), s(x1))

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

↳ QTRS

  ↳ AAECC Innermost

    ↳ QTRS

      ↳ DependencyPairsProof

        ↳ QDP

          ↳ DependencyGraphProof

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

QUOT(s(x), s(y)) → MINUS(s(x), s(y))
MINUS(s(x), s(y)) → MINUS(x, y)
QUOT(s(x), s(y)) → QUOT(minus(s(x), s(y)), s(y))
LE(s(x), s(y)) → LE(x, y)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

minus(x, 0) → x
minus(s(x), s(y)) → minus(x, y)
le(0, y) → true
le(s(x), 0) → false
le(s(x), s(y)) → le(x, y)
quot(0, s(y)) → 0
quot(s(x), s(y)) → s(quot(minus(s(x), s(y)), s(y)))

The set Q consists of the following terms:

minus(x0, 0)
minus(s(x0), s(x1))
le(0, x0)
le(s(x0), 0)
le(s(x0), s(x1))
quot(0, s(x0))
quot(s(x0), s(x1))

We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
The approximation of the Dependency Graph [15,17,22] contains 3 SCCs with 1 less node.

↳ QTRS

  ↳ AAECC Innermost

    ↳ QTRS

      ↳ DependencyPairsProof

        ↳ QDP

          ↳ DependencyGraphProof

            ↳ AND

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ UsableRulesProof

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

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

LE(s(x), s(y)) → LE(x, y)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

minus(x, 0) → x
minus(s(x), s(y)) → minus(x, y)
le(0, y) → true
le(s(x), 0) → false
le(s(x), s(y)) → le(x, y)
quot(0, s(y)) → 0
quot(s(x), s(y)) → s(quot(minus(s(x), s(y)), s(y)))

The set Q consists of the following terms:

minus(x0, 0)
minus(s(x0), s(x1))
le(0, x0)
le(s(x0), 0)
le(s(x0), s(x1))
quot(0, s(x0))
quot(s(x0), 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

  ↳ AAECC Innermost

    ↳ QTRS

      ↳ DependencyPairsProof

        ↳ QDP

          ↳ DependencyGraphProof

            ↳ AND

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ UsableRulesProof

                  ↳ QDP

                    ↳ QReductionProof

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

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

LE(s(x), s(y)) → LE(x, y)

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

minus(x0, 0)
minus(s(x0), s(x1))
le(0, x0)
le(s(x0), 0)
le(s(x0), s(x1))
quot(0, s(x0))
quot(s(x0), 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.

minus(x0, 0)
minus(s(x0), s(x1))
le(0, x0)
le(s(x0), 0)
le(s(x0), s(x1))
quot(0, s(x0))
quot(s(x0), s(x1))

↳ QTRS

  ↳ AAECC Innermost

    ↳ QTRS

      ↳ DependencyPairsProof

        ↳ QDP

          ↳ DependencyGraphProof

            ↳ AND

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ UsableRulesProof

                  ↳ QDP

                    ↳ QReductionProof

                      ↳ QDP

                        ↳ QDPSizeChangeProof

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

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

LE(s(x), s(y)) → LE(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:

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

↳ QTRS

  ↳ AAECC Innermost

    ↳ QTRS

      ↳ DependencyPairsProof

        ↳ QDP

          ↳ DependencyGraphProof

            ↳ AND

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ UsableRulesProof

              ↳ 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:

minus(x, 0) → x
minus(s(x), s(y)) → minus(x, y)
le(0, y) → true
le(s(x), 0) → false
le(s(x), s(y)) → le(x, y)
quot(0, s(y)) → 0
quot(s(x), s(y)) → s(quot(minus(s(x), s(y)), s(y)))

The set Q consists of the following terms:

minus(x0, 0)
minus(s(x0), s(x1))
le(0, x0)
le(s(x0), 0)
le(s(x0), s(x1))
quot(0, s(x0))
quot(s(x0), s(x1))

↳ QTRS

  ↳ AAECC Innermost

    ↳ QTRS

      ↳ DependencyPairsProof

        ↳ QDP

          ↳ DependencyGraphProof

            ↳ AND

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ UsableRulesProof

                  ↳ QDP

                    ↳ QReductionProof

              ↳ QDP

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

MINUS(s(x), s(y)) → MINUS(x, y)

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

minus(x0, 0)
minus(s(x0), s(x1))
le(0, x0)
le(s(x0), 0)
le(s(x0), s(x1))
quot(0, s(x0))
quot(s(x0), 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.

minus(x0, 0)
minus(s(x0), s(x1))
le(0, x0)
le(s(x0), 0)
le(s(x0), s(x1))
quot(0, s(x0))
quot(s(x0), s(x1))

↳ QTRS

  ↳ AAECC Innermost

    ↳ QTRS

      ↳ DependencyPairsProof

        ↳ QDP

          ↳ DependencyGraphProof

            ↳ AND

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ UsableRulesProof

                  ↳ QDP

                    ↳ QReductionProof

                      ↳ QDP

                        ↳ QDPSizeChangeProof

              ↳ QDP

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

MINUS(s(x), s(y)) → MINUS(x, y)

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

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

↳ QTRS

  ↳ AAECC Innermost

    ↳ QTRS

      ↳ DependencyPairsProof

        ↳ QDP

          ↳ DependencyGraphProof

            ↳ AND

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ UsableRulesProof

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

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

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

minus(x, 0) → x
minus(s(x), s(y)) → minus(x, y)
le(0, y) → true
le(s(x), 0) → false
le(s(x), s(y)) → le(x, y)
quot(0, s(y)) → 0
quot(s(x), s(y)) → s(quot(minus(s(x), s(y)), s(y)))

The set Q consists of the following terms:

minus(x0, 0)
minus(s(x0), s(x1))
le(0, x0)
le(s(x0), 0)
le(s(x0), s(x1))
quot(0, s(x0))
quot(s(x0), s(x1))

↳ QTRS

  ↳ AAECC Innermost

    ↳ QTRS

      ↳ DependencyPairsProof

        ↳ QDP

          ↳ DependencyGraphProof

            ↳ AND

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ UsableRulesProof

                  ↳ QDP

                    ↳ QReductionProof

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

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

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

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

The set Q consists of the following terms:

minus(x0, 0)
minus(s(x0), s(x1))
le(0, x0)
le(s(x0), 0)
le(s(x0), s(x1))
quot(0, s(x0))
quot(s(x0), 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.

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

↳ QTRS

  ↳ AAECC Innermost

    ↳ QTRS

      ↳ DependencyPairsProof

        ↳ QDP

          ↳ DependencyGraphProof

            ↳ AND

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ UsableRulesProof

                  ↳ QDP

                    ↳ QReductionProof

                      ↳ QDP

                        ↳ Rewriting

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

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

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

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

The set Q consists of the following terms:

minus(x0, 0)
minus(s(x0), s(x1))

We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
By rewriting [15] the rule QUOT(s(x), s(y)) → QUOT(minus(s(x), s(y)), s(y)) at position [0] we obtained the following new rules:

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

↳ QTRS

  ↳ AAECC Innermost

    ↳ QTRS

      ↳ DependencyPairsProof

        ↳ QDP

          ↳ DependencyGraphProof

            ↳ AND

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ UsableRulesProof

                  ↳ QDP

                    ↳ QReductionProof

                      ↳ QDP

                        ↳ Rewriting

                          ↳ QDP

                            ↳ QDPOrderProof

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

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

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

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

The set Q consists of the following terms:

minus(x0, 0)
minus(s(x0), s(x1))

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.

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

The remaining pairs can at least be oriented weakly.
none
Used ordering: Polynomial interpretation [25]:

POL(0) = 0
POL(QUOT(x₁, x₂)) = x₁
POL(minus(x₁, x₂)) = x₁
POL(s(x₁)) = 1 + x₁

The following usable rules [17] were oriented:

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

↳ QTRS

  ↳ AAECC Innermost

    ↳ QTRS

      ↳ DependencyPairsProof

        ↳ QDP

          ↳ DependencyGraphProof

            ↳ AND

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ UsableRulesProof

                  ↳ QDP

                    ↳ QReductionProof

                      ↳ QDP

                        ↳ Rewriting

                          ↳ QDP

                            ↳ QDPOrderProof

                              ↳ QDP

                                ↳ PisEmptyProof

Q DP problem:
P is empty.
The TRS R consists of the following rules:

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

The set Q consists of the following terms:

minus(x0, 0)
minus(s(x0), s(x1))

We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
The TRS P is empty. Hence, there is no (P,Q,R) chain.