YES Termination w.r.t. Q proof of ../tpdb/TRS/AG01/#3.6.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:

le(0, y) → true
le(s(x), 0) → false
le(s(x), s(y)) → le(x, y)
pred(s(x)) → x
minus(x, 0) → x
minus(x, s(y)) → pred(minus(x, y))
gcd(0, y) → y
gcd(s(x), 0) → s(x)
gcd(s(x), s(y)) → if_gcd(le(y, x), s(x), s(y))
if_gcd(true, s(x), s(y)) → gcd(minus(x, y), s(y))
if_gcd(false, s(x), s(y)) → gcd(minus(y, x), s(x))

Q is empty.


↳ QTRS
  ↳ Overlay + Local Confluence

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

le(0, y) → true
le(s(x), 0) → false
le(s(x), s(y)) → le(x, y)
pred(s(x)) → x
minus(x, 0) → x
minus(x, s(y)) → pred(minus(x, y))
gcd(0, y) → y
gcd(s(x), 0) → s(x)
gcd(s(x), s(y)) → if_gcd(le(y, x), s(x), s(y))
if_gcd(true, s(x), s(y)) → gcd(minus(x, y), s(y))
if_gcd(false, s(x), s(y)) → gcd(minus(y, x), s(x))

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:

le(0, y) → true
le(s(x), 0) → false
le(s(x), s(y)) → le(x, y)
pred(s(x)) → x
minus(x, 0) → x
minus(x, s(y)) → pred(minus(x, y))
gcd(0, y) → y
gcd(s(x), 0) → s(x)
gcd(s(x), s(y)) → if_gcd(le(y, x), s(x), s(y))
if_gcd(true, s(x), s(y)) → gcd(minus(x, y), s(y))
if_gcd(false, s(x), s(y)) → gcd(minus(y, x), s(x))

The set Q consists of the following terms:

le(0, x0)
le(s(x0), 0)
le(s(x0), s(x1))
pred(s(x0))
minus(x0, 0)
minus(x0, s(x1))
gcd(0, x0)
gcd(s(x0), 0)
gcd(s(x0), s(x1))
if_gcd(true, s(x0), s(x1))
if_gcd(false, 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:

IF_GCD(false, s(x), s(y)) → GCD(minus(y, x), s(x))
IF_GCD(true, s(x), s(y)) → MINUS(x, y)
MINUS(x, s(y)) → PRED(minus(x, y))
LE(s(x), s(y)) → LE(x, y)
GCD(s(x), s(y)) → LE(y, x)
IF_GCD(true, s(x), s(y)) → GCD(minus(x, y), s(y))
GCD(s(x), s(y)) → IF_GCD(le(y, x), s(x), s(y))
MINUS(x, s(y)) → MINUS(x, y)
IF_GCD(false, s(x), s(y)) → MINUS(y, x)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

le(0, y) → true
le(s(x), 0) → false
le(s(x), s(y)) → le(x, y)
pred(s(x)) → x
minus(x, 0) → x
minus(x, s(y)) → pred(minus(x, y))
gcd(0, y) → y
gcd(s(x), 0) → s(x)
gcd(s(x), s(y)) → if_gcd(le(y, x), s(x), s(y))
if_gcd(true, s(x), s(y)) → gcd(minus(x, y), s(y))
if_gcd(false, s(x), s(y)) → gcd(minus(y, x), s(x))

The set Q consists of the following terms:

le(0, x0)
le(s(x0), 0)
le(s(x0), s(x1))
pred(s(x0))
minus(x0, 0)
minus(x0, s(x1))
gcd(0, x0)
gcd(s(x0), 0)
gcd(s(x0), s(x1))
if_gcd(true, s(x0), s(x1))
if_gcd(false, s(x0), s(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:

IF_GCD(false, s(x), s(y)) → GCD(minus(y, x), s(x))
IF_GCD(true, s(x), s(y)) → MINUS(x, y)
MINUS(x, s(y)) → PRED(minus(x, y))
LE(s(x), s(y)) → LE(x, y)
GCD(s(x), s(y)) → LE(y, x)
IF_GCD(true, s(x), s(y)) → GCD(minus(x, y), s(y))
GCD(s(x), s(y)) → IF_GCD(le(y, x), s(x), s(y))
MINUS(x, s(y)) → MINUS(x, y)
IF_GCD(false, s(x), s(y)) → MINUS(y, x)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

le(0, y) → true
le(s(x), 0) → false
le(s(x), s(y)) → le(x, y)
pred(s(x)) → x
minus(x, 0) → x
minus(x, s(y)) → pred(minus(x, y))
gcd(0, y) → y
gcd(s(x), 0) → s(x)
gcd(s(x), s(y)) → if_gcd(le(y, x), s(x), s(y))
if_gcd(true, s(x), s(y)) → gcd(minus(x, y), s(y))
if_gcd(false, s(x), s(y)) → gcd(minus(y, x), s(x))

The set Q consists of the following terms:

le(0, x0)
le(s(x0), 0)
le(s(x0), s(x1))
pred(s(x0))
minus(x0, 0)
minus(x0, s(x1))
gcd(0, x0)
gcd(s(x0), 0)
gcd(s(x0), s(x1))
if_gcd(true, s(x0), s(x1))
if_gcd(false, 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 4 less nodes.

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

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

MINUS(x, s(y)) → MINUS(x, y)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

le(0, y) → true
le(s(x), 0) → false
le(s(x), s(y)) → le(x, y)
pred(s(x)) → x
minus(x, 0) → x
minus(x, s(y)) → pred(minus(x, y))
gcd(0, y) → y
gcd(s(x), 0) → s(x)
gcd(s(x), s(y)) → if_gcd(le(y, x), s(x), s(y))
if_gcd(true, s(x), s(y)) → gcd(minus(x, y), s(y))
if_gcd(false, s(x), s(y)) → gcd(minus(y, x), s(x))

The set Q consists of the following terms:

le(0, x0)
le(s(x0), 0)
le(s(x0), s(x1))
pred(s(x0))
minus(x0, 0)
minus(x0, s(x1))
gcd(0, x0)
gcd(s(x0), 0)
gcd(s(x0), s(x1))
if_gcd(true, s(x0), s(x1))
if_gcd(false, 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
  ↳ Overlay + Local Confluence
    ↳ QTRS
      ↳ DependencyPairsProof
        ↳ QDP
          ↳ DependencyGraphProof
            ↳ AND
              ↳ QDP
                ↳ UsableRulesProof
                  ↳ QDP
                    ↳ QReductionProof
              ↳ QDP
              ↳ QDP

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

MINUS(x, s(y)) → MINUS(x, y)

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

le(0, x0)
le(s(x0), 0)
le(s(x0), s(x1))
pred(s(x0))
minus(x0, 0)
minus(x0, s(x1))
gcd(0, x0)
gcd(s(x0), 0)
gcd(s(x0), s(x1))
if_gcd(true, s(x0), s(x1))
if_gcd(false, 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))
pred(s(x0))
minus(x0, 0)
minus(x0, s(x1))
gcd(0, x0)
gcd(s(x0), 0)
gcd(s(x0), s(x1))
if_gcd(true, s(x0), s(x1))
if_gcd(false, s(x0), s(x1))



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

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

MINUS(x, s(y)) → MINUS(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: 



↳ QTRS
  ↳ Overlay + Local Confluence
    ↳ QTRS
      ↳ DependencyPairsProof
        ↳ QDP
          ↳ DependencyGraphProof
            ↳ AND
              ↳ QDP
              ↳ QDP
                ↳ UsableRulesProof
              ↳ 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:

le(0, y) → true
le(s(x), 0) → false
le(s(x), s(y)) → le(x, y)
pred(s(x)) → x
minus(x, 0) → x
minus(x, s(y)) → pred(minus(x, y))
gcd(0, y) → y
gcd(s(x), 0) → s(x)
gcd(s(x), s(y)) → if_gcd(le(y, x), s(x), s(y))
if_gcd(true, s(x), s(y)) → gcd(minus(x, y), s(y))
if_gcd(false, s(x), s(y)) → gcd(minus(y, x), s(x))

The set Q consists of the following terms:

le(0, x0)
le(s(x0), 0)
le(s(x0), s(x1))
pred(s(x0))
minus(x0, 0)
minus(x0, s(x1))
gcd(0, x0)
gcd(s(x0), 0)
gcd(s(x0), s(x1))
if_gcd(true, s(x0), s(x1))
if_gcd(false, 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
  ↳ Overlay + Local Confluence
    ↳ QTRS
      ↳ DependencyPairsProof
        ↳ QDP
          ↳ DependencyGraphProof
            ↳ AND
              ↳ QDP
              ↳ QDP
                ↳ UsableRulesProof
                  ↳ QDP
                    ↳ QReductionProof
              ↳ 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:

le(0, x0)
le(s(x0), 0)
le(s(x0), s(x1))
pred(s(x0))
minus(x0, 0)
minus(x0, s(x1))
gcd(0, x0)
gcd(s(x0), 0)
gcd(s(x0), s(x1))
if_gcd(true, s(x0), s(x1))
if_gcd(false, 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))
pred(s(x0))
minus(x0, 0)
minus(x0, s(x1))
gcd(0, x0)
gcd(s(x0), 0)
gcd(s(x0), s(x1))
if_gcd(true, s(x0), s(x1))
if_gcd(false, s(x0), s(x1))



↳ QTRS
  ↳ Overlay + Local Confluence
    ↳ QTRS
      ↳ DependencyPairsProof
        ↳ QDP
          ↳ DependencyGraphProof
            ↳ AND
              ↳ QDP
              ↳ QDP
                ↳ UsableRulesProof
                  ↳ QDP
                    ↳ QReductionProof
                      ↳ QDP
                        ↳ QDPSizeChangeProof
              ↳ 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: 



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

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

IF_GCD(false, s(x), s(y)) → GCD(minus(y, x), s(x))
IF_GCD(true, s(x), s(y)) → GCD(minus(x, y), s(y))
GCD(s(x), s(y)) → IF_GCD(le(y, x), s(x), s(y))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

le(0, y) → true
le(s(x), 0) → false
le(s(x), s(y)) → le(x, y)
pred(s(x)) → x
minus(x, 0) → x
minus(x, s(y)) → pred(minus(x, y))
gcd(0, y) → y
gcd(s(x), 0) → s(x)
gcd(s(x), s(y)) → if_gcd(le(y, x), s(x), s(y))
if_gcd(true, s(x), s(y)) → gcd(minus(x, y), s(y))
if_gcd(false, s(x), s(y)) → gcd(minus(y, x), s(x))

The set Q consists of the following terms:

le(0, x0)
le(s(x0), 0)
le(s(x0), s(x1))
pred(s(x0))
minus(x0, 0)
minus(x0, s(x1))
gcd(0, x0)
gcd(s(x0), 0)
gcd(s(x0), s(x1))
if_gcd(true, s(x0), s(x1))
if_gcd(false, 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
  ↳ Overlay + Local Confluence
    ↳ QTRS
      ↳ DependencyPairsProof
        ↳ QDP
          ↳ DependencyGraphProof
            ↳ AND
              ↳ QDP
              ↳ QDP
              ↳ QDP
                ↳ UsableRulesProof
                  ↳ QDP
                    ↳ QReductionProof

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

IF_GCD(false, s(x), s(y)) → GCD(minus(y, x), s(x))
IF_GCD(true, s(x), s(y)) → GCD(minus(x, y), s(y))
GCD(s(x), s(y)) → IF_GCD(le(y, x), s(x), s(y))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

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

The set Q consists of the following terms:

le(0, x0)
le(s(x0), 0)
le(s(x0), s(x1))
pred(s(x0))
minus(x0, 0)
minus(x0, s(x1))
gcd(0, x0)
gcd(s(x0), 0)
gcd(s(x0), s(x1))
if_gcd(true, s(x0), s(x1))
if_gcd(false, 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.

gcd(0, x0)
gcd(s(x0), 0)
gcd(s(x0), s(x1))
if_gcd(true, s(x0), s(x1))
if_gcd(false, s(x0), s(x1))



↳ QTRS
  ↳ Overlay + Local Confluence
    ↳ QTRS
      ↳ DependencyPairsProof
        ↳ QDP
          ↳ DependencyGraphProof
            ↳ AND
              ↳ QDP
              ↳ QDP
              ↳ QDP
                ↳ UsableRulesProof
                  ↳ QDP
                    ↳ QReductionProof
                      ↳ QDP
                        ↳ QDPOrderProof

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

IF_GCD(false, s(x), s(y)) → GCD(minus(y, x), s(x))
IF_GCD(true, s(x), s(y)) → GCD(minus(x, y), s(y))
GCD(s(x), s(y)) → IF_GCD(le(y, x), s(x), s(y))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

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

The set Q consists of the following terms:

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


IF_GCD(false, s(x), s(y)) → GCD(minus(y, x), s(x))
IF_GCD(true, s(x), s(y)) → GCD(minus(x, y), s(y))
The remaining pairs can at least be oriented weakly.

GCD(s(x), s(y)) → IF_GCD(le(y, x), s(x), s(y))
Used ordering: Combined order from the following AFS and order.
IF_GCD(x1, x2, x3)  =  IF_GCD(x2, x3)
false  =  false
s(x1)  =  s(x1)
GCD(x1, x2)  =  GCD(x1, x2)
minus(x1, x2)  =  minus(x1)
true  =  true
le(x1, x2)  =  le
0  =  0
pred(x1)  =  x1

Recursive path order with status [2].
Quasi-Precedence:
[s1, le] > true > minus1 > [IFGCD2, false, GCD2]
0 > true > minus1 > [IFGCD2, false, GCD2]

Status:
minus1: [1]
true: multiset
IFGCD2: multiset
GCD2: multiset
false: multiset
le: multiset
s1: multiset
0: multiset


The following usable rules [17] were oriented:

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



↳ QTRS
  ↳ Overlay + Local Confluence
    ↳ QTRS
      ↳ DependencyPairsProof
        ↳ QDP
          ↳ DependencyGraphProof
            ↳ AND
              ↳ QDP
              ↳ QDP
              ↳ QDP
                ↳ UsableRulesProof
                  ↳ QDP
                    ↳ QReductionProof
                      ↳ QDP
                        ↳ QDPOrderProof
                          ↳ QDP
                            ↳ DependencyGraphProof

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

GCD(s(x), s(y)) → IF_GCD(le(y, x), s(x), s(y))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

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

The set Q consists of the following terms:

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

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.