Termination w.r.t. Q proof of /tmp/tmph3gpVk/10.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:

+(0, y) → y
+(s(x), y) → s(+(x, y))
++(nil, ys) → ys
++(:(x, xs), ys) → :(x, ++(xs, ys))
sum(:(x, nil)) → :(x, nil)
sum(:(x, :(y, xs))) → sum(:(+(x, y), xs))
sum(++(xs, :(x, :(y, ys)))) → sum(++(xs, sum(:(x, :(y, ys)))))
-(x, 0) → x
-(0, s(y)) → 0
-(s(x), s(y)) → -(x, y)
quot(0, s(y)) → 0
quot(s(x), s(y)) → s(quot(-(x, y), s(y)))
length(nil) → 0
length(:(x, xs)) → s(length(xs))
hd(:(x, xs)) → x
avg(xs) → quot(hd(sum(xs)), length(xs))

Q is empty.

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

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

+(0, y) → y
+(s(x), y) → s(+(x, y))
++(nil, ys) → ys
++(:(x, xs), ys) → :(x, ++(xs, ys))
sum(:(x, nil)) → :(x, nil)
sum(:(x, :(y, xs))) → sum(:(+(x, y), xs))
sum(++(xs, :(x, :(y, ys)))) → sum(++(xs, sum(:(x, :(y, ys)))))
-(x, 0) → x
-(0, s(y)) → 0
-(s(x), s(y)) → -(x, y)
quot(0, s(y)) → 0
quot(s(x), s(y)) → s(quot(-(x, y), s(y)))
length(nil) → 0
length(:(x, xs)) → s(length(xs))
hd(:(x, xs)) → x
avg(xs) → quot(hd(sum(xs)), length(xs))

Q is empty.

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

-¹(s(x), s(y)) → -¹(x, y)
AVG(xs) → HD(sum(xs))
QUOT(s(x), s(y)) → QUOT(-(x, y), s(y))
SUM(:(x, :(y, xs))) → SUM(:(+(x, y), xs))
++¹(:(x, xs), ys) → ++¹(xs, ys)
AVG(xs) → LENGTH(xs)
SUM(++(xs, :(x, :(y, ys)))) → ++¹(xs, sum(:(x, :(y, ys))))
SUM(++(xs, :(x, :(y, ys)))) → SUM(++(xs, sum(:(x, :(y, ys)))))
AVG(xs) → SUM(xs)
+¹(s(x), y) → +¹(x, y)
QUOT(s(x), s(y)) → -¹(x, y)
SUM(:(x, :(y, xs))) → +¹(x, y)
LENGTH(:(x, xs)) → LENGTH(xs)
SUM(++(xs, :(x, :(y, ys)))) → SUM(:(x, :(y, ys)))
AVG(xs) → QUOT(hd(sum(xs)), length(xs))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

+(0, y) → y
+(s(x), y) → s(+(x, y))
++(nil, ys) → ys
++(:(x, xs), ys) → :(x, ++(xs, ys))
sum(:(x, nil)) → :(x, nil)
sum(:(x, :(y, xs))) → sum(:(+(x, y), xs))
sum(++(xs, :(x, :(y, ys)))) → sum(++(xs, sum(:(x, :(y, ys)))))
-(x, 0) → x
-(0, s(y)) → 0
-(s(x), s(y)) → -(x, y)
quot(0, s(y)) → 0
quot(s(x), s(y)) → s(quot(-(x, y), s(y)))
length(nil) → 0
length(:(x, xs)) → s(length(xs))
hd(:(x, xs)) → x
avg(xs) → quot(hd(sum(xs)), length(xs))

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

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

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

-¹(s(x), s(y)) → -¹(x, y)
AVG(xs) → HD(sum(xs))
QUOT(s(x), s(y)) → QUOT(-(x, y), s(y))
SUM(:(x, :(y, xs))) → SUM(:(+(x, y), xs))
++¹(:(x, xs), ys) → ++¹(xs, ys)
AVG(xs) → LENGTH(xs)
SUM(++(xs, :(x, :(y, ys)))) → ++¹(xs, sum(:(x, :(y, ys))))
SUM(++(xs, :(x, :(y, ys)))) → SUM(++(xs, sum(:(x, :(y, ys)))))
AVG(xs) → SUM(xs)
+¹(s(x), y) → +¹(x, y)
QUOT(s(x), s(y)) → -¹(x, y)
SUM(:(x, :(y, xs))) → +¹(x, y)
LENGTH(:(x, xs)) → LENGTH(xs)
SUM(++(xs, :(x, :(y, ys)))) → SUM(:(x, :(y, ys)))
AVG(xs) → QUOT(hd(sum(xs)), length(xs))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

+(0, y) → y
+(s(x), y) → s(+(x, y))
++(nil, ys) → ys
++(:(x, xs), ys) → :(x, ++(xs, ys))
sum(:(x, nil)) → :(x, nil)
sum(:(x, :(y, xs))) → sum(:(+(x, y), xs))
sum(++(xs, :(x, :(y, ys)))) → sum(++(xs, sum(:(x, :(y, ys)))))
-(x, 0) → x
-(0, s(y)) → 0
-(s(x), s(y)) → -(x, y)
quot(0, s(y)) → 0
quot(s(x), s(y)) → s(quot(-(x, y), s(y)))
length(nil) → 0
length(:(x, xs)) → s(length(xs))
hd(:(x, xs)) → x
avg(xs) → quot(hd(sum(xs)), length(xs))

Q is empty.
We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
The approximation of the Dependency Graph [15,17,22] contains 7 SCCs with 8 less nodes.

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ UsableRulesProof

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

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

LENGTH(:(x, xs)) → LENGTH(xs)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

+(0, y) → y
+(s(x), y) → s(+(x, y))
++(nil, ys) → ys
++(:(x, xs), ys) → :(x, ++(xs, ys))
sum(:(x, nil)) → :(x, nil)
sum(:(x, :(y, xs))) → sum(:(+(x, y), xs))
sum(++(xs, :(x, :(y, ys)))) → sum(++(xs, sum(:(x, :(y, ys)))))
-(x, 0) → x
-(0, s(y)) → 0
-(s(x), s(y)) → -(x, y)
quot(0, s(y)) → 0
quot(s(x), s(y)) → s(quot(-(x, y), s(y)))
length(nil) → 0
length(:(x, xs)) → s(length(xs))
hd(:(x, xs)) → x
avg(xs) → quot(hd(sum(xs)), length(xs))

Q is empty.
We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
We can use the usable rules and reduction pair processor [15] with the Ce-compatible extension of the polynomial order that maps every function symbol to the sum of its argument. Then, we can delete all non-usable rules [17] from R.

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ UsableRulesProof

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ QDPSizeChangeProof

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

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

LENGTH(:(x, xs)) → LENGTH(xs)

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:

LENGTH(:(x, xs)) → LENGTH(xs)
The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ UsableRulesProof

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

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

-¹(s(x), s(y)) → -¹(x, y)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

+(0, y) → y
+(s(x), y) → s(+(x, y))
++(nil, ys) → ys
++(:(x, xs), ys) → :(x, ++(xs, ys))
sum(:(x, nil)) → :(x, nil)
sum(:(x, :(y, xs))) → sum(:(+(x, y), xs))
sum(++(xs, :(x, :(y, ys)))) → sum(++(xs, sum(:(x, :(y, ys)))))
-(x, 0) → x
-(0, s(y)) → 0
-(s(x), s(y)) → -(x, y)
quot(0, s(y)) → 0
quot(s(x), s(y)) → s(quot(-(x, y), s(y)))
length(nil) → 0
length(:(x, xs)) → s(length(xs))
hd(:(x, xs)) → x
avg(xs) → quot(hd(sum(xs)), length(xs))

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ UsableRulesProof

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ QDPSizeChangeProof

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

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

-¹(s(x), s(y)) → -¹(x, y)

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

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

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ QDPOrderProof

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

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

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

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

+(0, y) → y
+(s(x), y) → s(+(x, y))
++(nil, ys) → ys
++(:(x, xs), ys) → :(x, ++(xs, ys))
sum(:(x, nil)) → :(x, nil)
sum(:(x, :(y, xs))) → sum(:(+(x, y), xs))
sum(++(xs, :(x, :(y, ys)))) → sum(++(xs, sum(:(x, :(y, ys)))))
-(x, 0) → x
-(0, s(y)) → 0
-(s(x), s(y)) → -(x, y)
quot(0, s(y)) → 0
quot(s(x), s(y)) → s(quot(-(x, y), s(y)))
length(nil) → 0
length(:(x, xs)) → s(length(xs))
hd(:(x, xs)) → x
avg(xs) → quot(hd(sum(xs)), length(xs))

Q is empty.
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(-(x, y), s(y))

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

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

The following usable rules [17] were oriented:

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

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ QDPOrderProof

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ PisEmptyProof

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

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

+(0, y) → y
+(s(x), y) → s(+(x, y))
++(nil, ys) → ys
++(:(x, xs), ys) → :(x, ++(xs, ys))
sum(:(x, nil)) → :(x, nil)
sum(:(x, :(y, xs))) → sum(:(+(x, y), xs))
sum(++(xs, :(x, :(y, ys)))) → sum(++(xs, sum(:(x, :(y, ys)))))
-(x, 0) → x
-(0, s(y)) → 0
-(s(x), s(y)) → -(x, y)
quot(0, s(y)) → 0
quot(s(x), s(y)) → s(quot(-(x, y), s(y)))
length(nil) → 0
length(:(x, xs)) → s(length(xs))
hd(:(x, xs)) → x
avg(xs) → quot(hd(sum(xs)), length(xs))

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

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ UsableRulesProof

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

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

++¹(:(x, xs), ys) → ++¹(xs, ys)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

+(0, y) → y
+(s(x), y) → s(+(x, y))
++(nil, ys) → ys
++(:(x, xs), ys) → :(x, ++(xs, ys))
sum(:(x, nil)) → :(x, nil)
sum(:(x, :(y, xs))) → sum(:(+(x, y), xs))
sum(++(xs, :(x, :(y, ys)))) → sum(++(xs, sum(:(x, :(y, ys)))))
-(x, 0) → x
-(0, s(y)) → 0
-(s(x), s(y)) → -(x, y)
quot(0, s(y)) → 0
quot(s(x), s(y)) → s(quot(-(x, y), s(y)))
length(nil) → 0
length(:(x, xs)) → s(length(xs))
hd(:(x, xs)) → x
avg(xs) → quot(hd(sum(xs)), length(xs))

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ UsableRulesProof

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ QDPSizeChangeProof

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

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

++¹(:(x, xs), ys) → ++¹(xs, ys)

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

++¹(:(x, xs), ys) → ++¹(xs, ys)
The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1, 2 >= 2

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ UsableRulesProof

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

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

+¹(s(x), y) → +¹(x, y)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

+(0, y) → y
+(s(x), y) → s(+(x, y))
++(nil, ys) → ys
++(:(x, xs), ys) → :(x, ++(xs, ys))
sum(:(x, nil)) → :(x, nil)
sum(:(x, :(y, xs))) → sum(:(+(x, y), xs))
sum(++(xs, :(x, :(y, ys)))) → sum(++(xs, sum(:(x, :(y, ys)))))
-(x, 0) → x
-(0, s(y)) → 0
-(s(x), s(y)) → -(x, y)
quot(0, s(y)) → 0
quot(s(x), s(y)) → s(quot(-(x, y), s(y)))
length(nil) → 0
length(:(x, xs)) → s(length(xs))
hd(:(x, xs)) → x
avg(xs) → quot(hd(sum(xs)), length(xs))

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ UsableRulesProof

              ↳ 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

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ UsableRulesProof

          ↳ QDP

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

SUM(:(x, :(y, xs))) → SUM(:(+(x, y), xs))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

+(0, y) → y
+(s(x), y) → s(+(x, y))
++(nil, ys) → ys
++(:(x, xs), ys) → :(x, ++(xs, ys))
sum(:(x, nil)) → :(x, nil)
sum(:(x, :(y, xs))) → sum(:(+(x, y), xs))
sum(++(xs, :(x, :(y, ys)))) → sum(++(xs, sum(:(x, :(y, ys)))))
-(x, 0) → x
-(0, s(y)) → 0
-(s(x), s(y)) → -(x, y)
quot(0, s(y)) → 0
quot(s(x), s(y)) → s(quot(-(x, y), s(y)))
length(nil) → 0
length(:(x, xs)) → s(length(xs))
hd(:(x, xs)) → x
avg(xs) → quot(hd(sum(xs)), length(xs))

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ UsableRulesProof

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ MNOCProof

          ↳ QDP

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

SUM(:(x, :(y, xs))) → SUM(:(+(x, y), xs))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

+(0, y) → y
+(s(x), y) → s(+(x, y))

Q is empty.
We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
We use the modular non-overlap check [15] to enlarge Q to all left-hand sides of R.

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ UsableRulesProof

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ MNOCProof

                  ↳ QDP

                    ↳ UsableRulesReductionPairsProof

          ↳ QDP

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

SUM(:(x, :(y, xs))) → SUM(:(+(x, y), xs))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

+(0, y) → y
+(s(x), y) → s(+(x, y))

The set Q consists of the following terms:

+(0, x0)
+(s(x0), x1)

We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
By using the usable rules with reduction pair processor [15] with a polynomial ordering [25], all dependency pairs and the corresponding usable rules [17] can be oriented non-strictly. All non-usable rules are removed, and those dependency pairs and usable rules that have been oriented strictly or contain non-usable symbols in their left-hand side are removed as well.

The following dependency pairs can be deleted:

SUM(:(x, :(y, xs))) → SUM(:(+(x, y), xs))

The following rules are removed from R:

+(0, y) → y

Used ordering: POLO with Polynomial interpretation [25]:

POL(+(x₁, x₂)) = x₁ + x₂
POL(0) = 0
POL(:(x₁, x₂)) = 2 + 2·x₁ + 2·x₂
POL(SUM(x₁)) = 2·x₁
POL(s(x₁)) = x₁

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ UsableRulesProof

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ MNOCProof

                  ↳ QDP

                    ↳ UsableRulesReductionPairsProof

                      ↳ QDP

                        ↳ PisEmptyProof

          ↳ QDP

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

+(s(x), y) → s(+(x, y))

The set Q consists of the following terms:

+(0, x0)
+(s(x0), x1)

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

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ UsableRulesProof

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

SUM(++(xs, :(x, :(y, ys)))) → SUM(++(xs, sum(:(x, :(y, ys)))))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

+(0, y) → y
+(s(x), y) → s(+(x, y))
++(nil, ys) → ys
++(:(x, xs), ys) → :(x, ++(xs, ys))
sum(:(x, nil)) → :(x, nil)
sum(:(x, :(y, xs))) → sum(:(+(x, y), xs))
sum(++(xs, :(x, :(y, ys)))) → sum(++(xs, sum(:(x, :(y, ys)))))
-(x, 0) → x
-(0, s(y)) → 0
-(s(x), s(y)) → -(x, y)
quot(0, s(y)) → 0
quot(s(x), s(y)) → s(quot(-(x, y), s(y)))
length(nil) → 0
length(:(x, xs)) → s(length(xs))
hd(:(x, xs)) → x
avg(xs) → quot(hd(sum(xs)), length(xs))

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ UsableRulesProof

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ UsableRulesReductionPairsProof

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

SUM(++(xs, :(x, :(y, ys)))) → SUM(++(xs, sum(:(x, :(y, ys)))))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

sum(:(x, :(y, xs))) → sum(:(+(x, y), xs))
++(nil, ys) → ys
++(:(x, xs), ys) → :(x, ++(xs, ys))
+(0, y) → y
+(s(x), y) → s(+(x, y))
sum(:(x, nil)) → :(x, nil)

Q is empty.
We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
By using the usable rules with reduction pair processor [15] with a polynomial ordering [25], all dependency pairs and the corresponding usable rules [17] can be oriented non-strictly. All non-usable rules are removed, and those dependency pairs and usable rules that have been oriented strictly or contain non-usable symbols in their left-hand side are removed as well.

No dependency pairs are removed.

The following rules are removed from R:

++(nil, ys) → ys
+(0, y) → y

Used ordering: POLO with Polynomial interpretation [25]:

POL(+(x₁, x₂)) = x₁ + x₂
POL(++(x₁, x₂)) = 2 + 2·x₁ + x₂
POL(0) = 0
POL(:(x₁, x₂)) = 2·x₁ + x₂
POL(SUM(x₁)) = x₁
POL(nil) = 0
POL(s(x₁)) = x₁
POL(sum(x₁)) = x₁

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ UsableRulesProof

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ UsableRulesReductionPairsProof

                  ↳ QDP

                    ↳ RuleRemovalProof

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

SUM(++(xs, :(x, :(y, ys)))) → SUM(++(xs, sum(:(x, :(y, ys)))))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

sum(:(x, :(y, xs))) → sum(:(+(x, y), xs))
++(:(x, xs), ys) → :(x, ++(xs, ys))
+(s(x), y) → s(+(x, y))
sum(:(x, nil)) → :(x, nil)

Q is empty.
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:

sum(:(x, :(y, xs))) → sum(:(+(x, y), xs))
++(:(x, xs), ys) → :(x, ++(xs, ys))

Used ordering: POLO with Polynomial interpretation [25]:

POL(+(x₁, x₂)) = x₁ + x₂
POL(++(x₁, x₂)) = 1 + 2·x₁ + 2·x₂
POL(:(x₁, x₂)) = 1 + x₁ + x₂
POL(SUM(x₁)) = x₁
POL(nil) = 0
POL(s(x₁)) = x₁
POL(sum(x₁)) = x₁

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ UsableRulesProof

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ UsableRulesReductionPairsProof

                  ↳ QDP

                    ↳ RuleRemovalProof

                      ↳ QDP

                        ↳ DependencyGraphProof

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

SUM(++(xs, :(x, :(y, ys)))) → SUM(++(xs, sum(:(x, :(y, ys)))))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

+(s(x), y) → s(+(x, y))
sum(:(x, nil)) → :(x, nil)

Q is empty.
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.