Termination w.r.t. Q proof of /tmp/tmphbHr-E/12.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:

O(0) → 0
+(0, x) → x
+(x, 0) → x
+(O(x), O(y)) → O(+(x, y))
+(O(x), I(y)) → I(+(x, y))
+(I(x), O(y)) → I(+(x, y))
+(I(x), I(y)) → O(+(+(x, y), I(0)))
*(0, x) → 0
*(x, 0) → 0
*(O(x), y) → O(*(x, y))
*(I(x), y) → +(O(*(x, y)), y)

Q is empty.

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

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

O(0) → 0
+(0, x) → x
+(x, 0) → x
+(O(x), O(y)) → O(+(x, y))
+(O(x), I(y)) → I(+(x, y))
+(I(x), O(y)) → I(+(x, y))
+(I(x), I(y)) → O(+(+(x, y), I(0)))
*(0, x) → 0
*(x, 0) → 0
*(O(x), y) → O(*(x, y))
*(I(x), y) → +(O(*(x, y)), y)

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(I(x), O(y)) → +¹(x, y)
+¹(O(x), I(y)) → +¹(x, y)
*¹(I(x), y) → O¹(*(x, y))
*¹(O(x), y) → O¹(*(x, y))
*¹(I(x), y) → +¹(O(*(x, y)), y)
+¹(O(x), O(y)) → +¹(x, y)
+¹(I(x), I(y)) → +¹(+(x, y), I(0))
*¹(O(x), y) → *¹(x, y)
+¹(O(x), O(y)) → O¹(+(x, y))
+¹(I(x), I(y)) → +¹(x, y)
*¹(I(x), y) → *¹(x, y)
+¹(I(x), I(y)) → O¹(+(+(x, y), I(0)))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

O(0) → 0
+(0, x) → x
+(x, 0) → x
+(O(x), O(y)) → O(+(x, y))
+(O(x), I(y)) → I(+(x, y))
+(I(x), O(y)) → I(+(x, y))
+(I(x), I(y)) → O(+(+(x, y), I(0)))
*(0, x) → 0
*(x, 0) → 0
*(O(x), y) → O(*(x, y))
*(I(x), y) → +(O(*(x, y)), y)

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(I(x), O(y)) → +¹(x, y)
+¹(O(x), I(y)) → +¹(x, y)
*¹(I(x), y) → O¹(*(x, y))
*¹(O(x), y) → O¹(*(x, y))
*¹(I(x), y) → +¹(O(*(x, y)), y)
+¹(O(x), O(y)) → +¹(x, y)
+¹(I(x), I(y)) → +¹(+(x, y), I(0))
*¹(O(x), y) → *¹(x, y)
+¹(O(x), O(y)) → O¹(+(x, y))
+¹(I(x), I(y)) → +¹(x, y)
*¹(I(x), y) → *¹(x, y)
+¹(I(x), I(y)) → O¹(+(+(x, y), I(0)))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

O(0) → 0
+(0, x) → x
+(x, 0) → x
+(O(x), O(y)) → O(+(x, y))
+(O(x), I(y)) → I(+(x, y))
+(I(x), O(y)) → I(+(x, y))
+(I(x), I(y)) → O(+(+(x, y), I(0)))
*(0, x) → 0
*(x, 0) → 0
*(O(x), y) → O(*(x, y))
*(I(x), y) → +(O(*(x, y)), y)

Q is empty.
We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
The approximation of the Dependency Graph [15,17,22] contains 2 SCCs with 5 less nodes.

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ UsableRulesProof

          ↳ QDP

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

+¹(I(x), O(y)) → +¹(x, y)
+¹(O(x), I(y)) → +¹(x, y)
+¹(O(x), O(y)) → +¹(x, y)
+¹(I(x), I(y)) → +¹(+(x, y), I(0))
+¹(I(x), I(y)) → +¹(x, y)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

O(0) → 0
+(0, x) → x
+(x, 0) → x
+(O(x), O(y)) → O(+(x, y))
+(O(x), I(y)) → I(+(x, y))
+(I(x), O(y)) → I(+(x, y))
+(I(x), I(y)) → O(+(+(x, y), I(0)))
*(0, x) → 0
*(x, 0) → 0
*(O(x), y) → O(*(x, y))
*(I(x), y) → +(O(*(x, y)), y)

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

                ↳ RuleRemovalProof

          ↳ QDP

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

+¹(O(x), I(y)) → +¹(x, y)
+¹(I(x), O(y)) → +¹(x, y)
+¹(O(x), O(y)) → +¹(x, y)
+¹(I(x), I(y)) → +¹(+(x, y), I(0))
+¹(I(x), I(y)) → +¹(x, y)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

+(0, x) → x
+(x, 0) → x
+(O(x), O(y)) → O(+(x, y))
+(O(x), I(y)) → I(+(x, y))
+(I(x), O(y)) → I(+(x, y))
+(I(x), I(y)) → O(+(+(x, y), I(0)))
O(0) → 0

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 dependency pairs:

+¹(O(x), I(y)) → +¹(x, y)
+¹(I(x), O(y)) → +¹(x, y)
+¹(I(x), I(y)) → +¹(+(x, y), I(0))
+¹(I(x), I(y)) → +¹(x, y)

Strictly oriented rules of the TRS R:

+(I(x), I(y)) → O(+(+(x, y), I(0)))

Used ordering: POLO with Polynomial interpretation [25]:

POL(+(x₁, x₂)) = x₁ + x₂
POL(+¹(x₁, x₂)) = 2·x₁ + 2·x₂
POL(0) = 0
POL(I(x₁)) = 1 + x₁
POL(O(x₁)) = x₁

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ UsableRulesProof

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ RuleRemovalProof

                  ↳ QDP

                    ↳ UsableRulesProof

          ↳ QDP

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

+¹(O(x), O(y)) → +¹(x, y)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

+(0, x) → x
+(x, 0) → x
+(O(x), O(y)) → O(+(x, y))
+(O(x), I(y)) → I(+(x, y))
+(I(x), O(y)) → I(+(x, y))
O(0) → 0

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ UsableRulesProof

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ RuleRemovalProof

                  ↳ QDP

                    ↳ UsableRulesProof

                      ↳ QDP

                        ↳ QDPSizeChangeProof

          ↳ QDP

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

+¹(O(x), O(y)) → +¹(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:

+¹(O(x), O(y)) → +¹(x, y)
The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1, 2 > 2

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ UsableRulesProof

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

*¹(O(x), y) → *¹(x, y)
*¹(I(x), y) → *¹(x, y)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

O(0) → 0
+(0, x) → x
+(x, 0) → x
+(O(x), O(y)) → O(+(x, y))
+(O(x), I(y)) → I(+(x, y))
+(I(x), O(y)) → I(+(x, y))
+(I(x), I(y)) → O(+(+(x, y), I(0)))
*(0, x) → 0
*(x, 0) → 0
*(O(x), y) → O(*(x, y))
*(I(x), y) → +(O(*(x, y)), y)

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ AND

          ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDP

            ↳ UsableRulesProof

              ↳ QDP

                ↳ QDPSizeChangeProof

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

*¹(O(x), y) → *¹(x, y)
*¹(I(x), y) → *¹(x, y)

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

*¹(O(x), y) → *¹(x, y)
The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1, 2 >= 2
*¹(I(x), y) → *¹(x, y)
The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1, 2 >= 2