Termination w.r.t. Q proof of /tmp/tmpipAuLc/Ex2

Termination w.r.t. Q of the following Term Rewriting System could be disproven:

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

fst(0, Z) → nil
fst(s(X), cons(Y, Z)) → cons(Y, fst(X, Z))
from(X) → cons(X, from(s(X)))
add(0, X) → X
add(s(X), Y) → s(add(X, Y))
len(nil) → 0
len(cons(X, Z)) → s(len(Z))

Q is empty.

↳ QTRS

  ↳ Overlay + Local Confluence

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

fst(0, Z) → nil
fst(s(X), cons(Y, Z)) → cons(Y, fst(X, Z))
from(X) → cons(X, from(s(X)))
add(0, X) → X
add(s(X), Y) → s(add(X, Y))
len(nil) → 0
len(cons(X, Z)) → s(len(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:

fst(0, Z) → nil
fst(s(X), cons(Y, Z)) → cons(Y, fst(X, Z))
from(X) → cons(X, from(s(X)))
add(0, X) → X
add(s(X), Y) → s(add(X, Y))
len(nil) → 0
len(cons(X, Z)) → s(len(Z))

The set Q consists of the following terms:

fst(0, x0)
fst(s(x0), cons(x1, x2))
from(x0)
add(0, x0)
add(s(x0), x1)
len(nil)
len(cons(x0, 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:

FST(s(X), cons(Y, Z)) → FST(X, Z)
LEN(cons(X, Z)) → LEN(Z)
ADD(s(X), Y) → ADD(X, Y)
FROM(X) → FROM(s(X))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

fst(0, Z) → nil
fst(s(X), cons(Y, Z)) → cons(Y, fst(X, Z))
from(X) → cons(X, from(s(X)))
add(0, X) → X
add(s(X), Y) → s(add(X, Y))
len(nil) → 0
len(cons(X, Z)) → s(len(Z))

The set Q consists of the following terms:

fst(0, x0)
fst(s(x0), cons(x1, x2))
from(x0)
add(0, x0)
add(s(x0), x1)
len(nil)
len(cons(x0, x1))

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:

FST(s(X), cons(Y, Z)) → FST(X, Z)
LEN(cons(X, Z)) → LEN(Z)
ADD(s(X), Y) → ADD(X, Y)
FROM(X) → FROM(s(X))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

fst(0, Z) → nil
fst(s(X), cons(Y, Z)) → cons(Y, fst(X, Z))
from(X) → cons(X, from(s(X)))
add(0, X) → X
add(s(X), Y) → s(add(X, Y))
len(nil) → 0
len(cons(X, Z)) → s(len(Z))

The set Q consists of the following terms:

fst(0, x0)
fst(s(x0), cons(x1, x2))
from(x0)
add(0, x0)
add(s(x0), x1)
len(nil)
len(cons(x0, x1))

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

↳ 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:

LEN(cons(X, Z)) → LEN(Z)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

fst(0, Z) → nil
fst(s(X), cons(Y, Z)) → cons(Y, fst(X, Z))
from(X) → cons(X, from(s(X)))
add(0, X) → X
add(s(X), Y) → s(add(X, Y))
len(nil) → 0
len(cons(X, Z)) → s(len(Z))

The set Q consists of the following terms:

fst(0, x0)
fst(s(x0), cons(x1, x2))
from(x0)
add(0, x0)
add(s(x0), x1)
len(nil)
len(cons(x0, 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

          ↳ DependencyGraphProof

            ↳ AND

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ UsableRulesProof

                  ↳ QDP

                    ↳ QReductionProof

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

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

LEN(cons(X, Z)) → LEN(Z)

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

fst(0, x0)
fst(s(x0), cons(x1, x2))
from(x0)
add(0, x0)
add(s(x0), x1)
len(nil)
len(cons(x0, 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.

fst(0, x0)
fst(s(x0), cons(x1, x2))
from(x0)
add(0, x0)
add(s(x0), x1)
len(nil)
len(cons(x0, x1))

↳ QTRS

  ↳ Overlay + Local Confluence

    ↳ QTRS

      ↳ DependencyPairsProof

        ↳ QDP

          ↳ DependencyGraphProof

            ↳ AND

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ UsableRulesProof

                  ↳ QDP

                    ↳ QReductionProof

                      ↳ QDP

                        ↳ QDPSizeChangeProof

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

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

LEN(cons(X, Z)) → LEN(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:

LEN(cons(X, Z)) → LEN(Z)
The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1

↳ 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:

ADD(s(X), Y) → ADD(X, Y)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

fst(0, Z) → nil
fst(s(X), cons(Y, Z)) → cons(Y, fst(X, Z))
from(X) → cons(X, from(s(X)))
add(0, X) → X
add(s(X), Y) → s(add(X, Y))
len(nil) → 0
len(cons(X, Z)) → s(len(Z))

The set Q consists of the following terms:

fst(0, x0)
fst(s(x0), cons(x1, x2))
from(x0)
add(0, x0)
add(s(x0), x1)
len(nil)
len(cons(x0, x1))

↳ QTRS

  ↳ Overlay + Local Confluence

    ↳ QTRS

      ↳ DependencyPairsProof

        ↳ QDP

          ↳ DependencyGraphProof

            ↳ AND

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ UsableRulesProof

                  ↳ QDP

                    ↳ QReductionProof

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

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

ADD(s(X), Y) → ADD(X, Y)

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

fst(0, x0)
fst(s(x0), cons(x1, x2))
from(x0)
add(0, x0)
add(s(x0), x1)
len(nil)
len(cons(x0, 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.

fst(0, x0)
fst(s(x0), cons(x1, x2))
from(x0)
add(0, x0)
add(s(x0), x1)
len(nil)
len(cons(x0, x1))

↳ QTRS

  ↳ Overlay + Local Confluence

    ↳ QTRS

      ↳ DependencyPairsProof

        ↳ QDP

          ↳ DependencyGraphProof

            ↳ AND

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ UsableRulesProof

                  ↳ QDP

                    ↳ QReductionProof

                      ↳ QDP

                        ↳ QDPSizeChangeProof

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

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

ADD(s(X), Y) → ADD(X, Y)

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

ADD(s(X), Y) → ADD(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:

FROM(X) → FROM(s(X))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

fst(0, Z) → nil
fst(s(X), cons(Y, Z)) → cons(Y, fst(X, Z))
from(X) → cons(X, from(s(X)))
add(0, X) → X
add(s(X), Y) → s(add(X, Y))
len(nil) → 0
len(cons(X, Z)) → s(len(Z))

The set Q consists of the following terms:

fst(0, x0)
fst(s(x0), cons(x1, x2))
from(x0)
add(0, x0)
add(s(x0), x1)
len(nil)
len(cons(x0, x1))

↳ QTRS

  ↳ Overlay + Local Confluence

    ↳ QTRS

      ↳ DependencyPairsProof

        ↳ QDP

          ↳ DependencyGraphProof

            ↳ AND

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ UsableRulesProof

                  ↳ QDP

                    ↳ QReductionProof

              ↳ QDP

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

FROM(X) → FROM(s(X))

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

fst(0, x0)
fst(s(x0), cons(x1, x2))
from(x0)
add(0, x0)
add(s(x0), x1)
len(nil)
len(cons(x0, 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.

fst(0, x0)
fst(s(x0), cons(x1, x2))
from(x0)
add(0, x0)
add(s(x0), x1)
len(nil)
len(cons(x0, x1))

↳ QTRS

  ↳ Overlay + Local Confluence

    ↳ QTRS

      ↳ DependencyPairsProof

        ↳ QDP

          ↳ DependencyGraphProof

            ↳ AND

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ UsableRulesProof

                  ↳ QDP

                    ↳ QReductionProof

                      ↳ QDP

                        ↳ Instantiation

              ↳ QDP

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

FROM(X) → FROM(s(X))

R is empty.
Q is empty.
We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
By instantiating [15] the rule FROM(X) → FROM(s(X)) we obtained the following new rules:

FROM(s(z0)) → FROM(s(s(z0)))

↳ QTRS

  ↳ Overlay + Local Confluence

    ↳ QTRS

      ↳ DependencyPairsProof

        ↳ QDP

          ↳ DependencyGraphProof

            ↳ AND

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ UsableRulesProof

                  ↳ QDP

                    ↳ QReductionProof

                      ↳ QDP

                        ↳ Instantiation

                          ↳ QDP

                            ↳ Instantiation

              ↳ QDP

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

FROM(s(z0)) → FROM(s(s(z0)))

R is empty.
Q is empty.
We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
By instantiating [15] the rule FROM(s(z0)) → FROM(s(s(z0))) we obtained the following new rules:

FROM(s(s(z0))) → FROM(s(s(s(z0))))

↳ QTRS

  ↳ Overlay + Local Confluence

    ↳ QTRS

      ↳ DependencyPairsProof

        ↳ QDP

          ↳ DependencyGraphProof

            ↳ AND

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ UsableRulesProof

                  ↳ QDP

                    ↳ QReductionProof

                      ↳ QDP

                        ↳ Instantiation

                          ↳ QDP

                            ↳ Instantiation

                              ↳ QDP

                                ↳ NonTerminationProof

              ↳ QDP

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

FROM(s(s(z0))) → FROM(s(s(s(z0))))

R is empty.
Q is empty.
We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
We used the non-termination processor [17] to show that the DP problem is infinite.
Found a loop by semiunifying a rule from P directly.

The TRS P consists of the following rules:

FROM(s(s(z0))) → FROM(s(s(s(z0))))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:none

s = FROM(s(s(z0))) evaluates to t =FROM(s(s(s(z0))))

Thus s starts an infinite chain as s semiunifies with t with the following substitutions:

Semiunifier: [ ]
Matcher: [z0 / s(z0)]

Rewriting sequence

The DP semiunifies directly so there is only one rewrite step from FROM(s(s(z0))) to FROM(s(s(s(z0)))).

↳ QTRS

  ↳ Overlay + Local Confluence

    ↳ QTRS

      ↳ DependencyPairsProof

        ↳ QDP

          ↳ DependencyGraphProof

            ↳ AND

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ UsableRulesProof

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

FST(s(X), cons(Y, Z)) → FST(X, Z)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

fst(0, Z) → nil
fst(s(X), cons(Y, Z)) → cons(Y, fst(X, Z))
from(X) → cons(X, from(s(X)))
add(0, X) → X
add(s(X), Y) → s(add(X, Y))
len(nil) → 0
len(cons(X, Z)) → s(len(Z))

The set Q consists of the following terms:

fst(0, x0)
fst(s(x0), cons(x1, x2))
from(x0)
add(0, x0)
add(s(x0), x1)
len(nil)
len(cons(x0, x1))

↳ QTRS

  ↳ Overlay + Local Confluence

    ↳ QTRS

      ↳ DependencyPairsProof

        ↳ QDP

          ↳ DependencyGraphProof

            ↳ AND

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ UsableRulesProof

                  ↳ QDP

                    ↳ QReductionProof

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

FST(s(X), cons(Y, Z)) → FST(X, Z)

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

fst(0, x0)
fst(s(x0), cons(x1, x2))
from(x0)
add(0, x0)
add(s(x0), x1)
len(nil)
len(cons(x0, 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.

fst(0, x0)
fst(s(x0), cons(x1, x2))
from(x0)
add(0, x0)
add(s(x0), x1)
len(nil)
len(cons(x0, x1))

↳ QTRS

  ↳ Overlay + Local Confluence

    ↳ QTRS

      ↳ DependencyPairsProof

        ↳ QDP

          ↳ DependencyGraphProof

            ↳ AND

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ UsableRulesProof

                  ↳ QDP

                    ↳ QReductionProof

                      ↳ QDP

                        ↳ QDPSizeChangeProof

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

FST(s(X), cons(Y, Z)) → FST(X, Z)

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

FST(s(X), cons(Y, Z)) → FST(X, Z)
The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1, 2 > 2