YES Termination w.r.t. Q proof of ../tpdb/TRS/Rubio/gcd.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, s(Y)) → pred(minus(X, Y))
minus(X, 0) → X
pred(s(X)) → X
le(s(X), s(Y)) → le(X, Y)
le(s(X), 0) → false
le(0, Y) → true
gcd(0, Y) → 0
gcd(s(X), 0) → s(X)
gcd(s(X), s(Y)) → if(le(Y, X), s(X), s(Y))
if(true, s(X), s(Y)) → gcd(minus(X, Y), s(Y))
if(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:

minus(X, s(Y)) → pred(minus(X, Y))
minus(X, 0) → X
pred(s(X)) → X
le(s(X), s(Y)) → le(X, Y)
le(s(X), 0) → false
le(0, Y) → true
gcd(0, Y) → 0
gcd(s(X), 0) → s(X)
gcd(s(X), s(Y)) → if(le(Y, X), s(X), s(Y))
if(true, s(X), s(Y)) → gcd(minus(X, Y), s(Y))
if(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:

minus(X, s(Y)) → pred(minus(X, Y))
minus(X, 0) → X
pred(s(X)) → X
le(s(X), s(Y)) → le(X, Y)
le(s(X), 0) → false
le(0, Y) → true
gcd(0, Y) → 0
gcd(s(X), 0) → s(X)
gcd(s(X), s(Y)) → if(le(Y, X), s(X), s(Y))
if(true, s(X), s(Y)) → gcd(minus(X, Y), s(Y))
if(false, s(X), s(Y)) → gcd(minus(Y, X), s(X))

The set Q consists of the following terms:

minus(x0, s(x1))
minus(x0, 0)
pred(s(x0))
le(s(x0), s(x1))
le(s(x0), 0)
le(0, x0)
gcd(0, x0)
gcd(s(x0), 0)
gcd(s(x0), s(x1))
if(true, s(x0), s(x1))
if(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(false, s(X), s(Y)) → MINUS(Y, X)
IF(true, s(X), s(Y)) → GCD(minus(X, Y), s(Y))
IF(false, s(X), s(Y)) → GCD(minus(Y, X), s(X))
MINUS(X, s(Y)) → PRED(minus(X, Y))
LE(s(X), s(Y)) → LE(X, Y)
GCD(s(X), s(Y)) → IF(le(Y, X), s(X), s(Y))
GCD(s(X), s(Y)) → LE(Y, X)
IF(true, s(X), s(Y)) → MINUS(X, Y)
MINUS(X, s(Y)) → MINUS(X, Y)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

minus(X, s(Y)) → pred(minus(X, Y))
minus(X, 0) → X
pred(s(X)) → X
le(s(X), s(Y)) → le(X, Y)
le(s(X), 0) → false
le(0, Y) → true
gcd(0, Y) → 0
gcd(s(X), 0) → s(X)
gcd(s(X), s(Y)) → if(le(Y, X), s(X), s(Y))
if(true, s(X), s(Y)) → gcd(minus(X, Y), s(Y))
if(false, s(X), s(Y)) → gcd(minus(Y, X), s(X))

The set Q consists of the following terms:

minus(x0, s(x1))
minus(x0, 0)
pred(s(x0))
le(s(x0), s(x1))
le(s(x0), 0)
le(0, x0)
gcd(0, x0)
gcd(s(x0), 0)
gcd(s(x0), s(x1))
if(true, s(x0), s(x1))
if(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(false, s(X), s(Y)) → MINUS(Y, X)
IF(true, s(X), s(Y)) → GCD(minus(X, Y), s(Y))
IF(false, s(X), s(Y)) → GCD(minus(Y, X), s(X))
MINUS(X, s(Y)) → PRED(minus(X, Y))
LE(s(X), s(Y)) → LE(X, Y)
GCD(s(X), s(Y)) → IF(le(Y, X), s(X), s(Y))
GCD(s(X), s(Y)) → LE(Y, X)
IF(true, s(X), s(Y)) → MINUS(X, Y)
MINUS(X, s(Y)) → MINUS(X, Y)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

minus(X, s(Y)) → pred(minus(X, Y))
minus(X, 0) → X
pred(s(X)) → X
le(s(X), s(Y)) → le(X, Y)
le(s(X), 0) → false
le(0, Y) → true
gcd(0, Y) → 0
gcd(s(X), 0) → s(X)
gcd(s(X), s(Y)) → if(le(Y, X), s(X), s(Y))
if(true, s(X), s(Y)) → gcd(minus(X, Y), s(Y))
if(false, s(X), s(Y)) → gcd(minus(Y, X), s(X))

The set Q consists of the following terms:

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

LE(s(X), s(Y)) → LE(X, Y)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

minus(X, s(Y)) → pred(minus(X, Y))
minus(X, 0) → X
pred(s(X)) → X
le(s(X), s(Y)) → le(X, Y)
le(s(X), 0) → false
le(0, Y) → true
gcd(0, Y) → 0
gcd(s(X), 0) → s(X)
gcd(s(X), s(Y)) → if(le(Y, X), s(X), s(Y))
if(true, s(X), s(Y)) → gcd(minus(X, Y), s(Y))
if(false, s(X), s(Y)) → gcd(minus(Y, X), s(X))

The set Q consists of the following terms:

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

LE(s(X), s(Y)) → LE(X, Y)

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

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

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

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
                ↳ UsableRulesProof
              ↳ 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:

minus(X, s(Y)) → pred(minus(X, Y))
minus(X, 0) → X
pred(s(X)) → X
le(s(X), s(Y)) → le(X, Y)
le(s(X), 0) → false
le(0, Y) → true
gcd(0, Y) → 0
gcd(s(X), 0) → s(X)
gcd(s(X), s(Y)) → if(le(Y, X), s(X), s(Y))
if(true, s(X), s(Y)) → gcd(minus(X, Y), s(Y))
if(false, s(X), s(Y)) → gcd(minus(Y, X), s(X))

The set Q consists of the following terms:

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

MINUS(X, s(Y)) → MINUS(X, Y)

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

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

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

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
              ↳ QDP
                ↳ UsableRulesProof

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

IF(true, s(X), s(Y)) → GCD(minus(X, Y), s(Y))
IF(false, s(X), s(Y)) → GCD(minus(Y, X), s(X))
GCD(s(X), s(Y)) → IF(le(Y, X), s(X), s(Y))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

minus(X, s(Y)) → pred(minus(X, Y))
minus(X, 0) → X
pred(s(X)) → X
le(s(X), s(Y)) → le(X, Y)
le(s(X), 0) → false
le(0, Y) → true
gcd(0, Y) → 0
gcd(s(X), 0) → s(X)
gcd(s(X), s(Y)) → if(le(Y, X), s(X), s(Y))
if(true, s(X), s(Y)) → gcd(minus(X, Y), s(Y))
if(false, s(X), s(Y)) → gcd(minus(Y, X), s(X))

The set Q consists of the following terms:

minus(x0, s(x1))
minus(x0, 0)
pred(s(x0))
le(s(x0), s(x1))
le(s(x0), 0)
le(0, x0)
gcd(0, x0)
gcd(s(x0), 0)
gcd(s(x0), s(x1))
if(true, s(x0), s(x1))
if(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(true, s(X), s(Y)) → GCD(minus(X, Y), s(Y))
IF(false, s(X), s(Y)) → GCD(minus(Y, X), s(X))
GCD(s(X), s(Y)) → IF(le(Y, X), s(X), s(Y))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

minus(X, s(Y)) → pred(minus(X, Y))
minus(X, 0) → X
pred(s(X)) → X
le(s(X), s(Y)) → le(X, Y)
le(s(X), 0) → false
le(0, Y) → true

The set Q consists of the following terms:

minus(x0, s(x1))
minus(x0, 0)
pred(s(x0))
le(s(x0), s(x1))
le(s(x0), 0)
le(0, x0)
gcd(0, x0)
gcd(s(x0), 0)
gcd(s(x0), s(x1))
if(true, s(x0), s(x1))
if(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(true, s(x0), s(x1))
if(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(true, s(X), s(Y)) → GCD(minus(X, Y), s(Y))
IF(false, s(X), s(Y)) → GCD(minus(Y, X), s(X))
GCD(s(X), s(Y)) → IF(le(Y, X), s(X), s(Y))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

minus(X, s(Y)) → pred(minus(X, Y))
minus(X, 0) → X
pred(s(X)) → X
le(s(X), s(Y)) → le(X, Y)
le(s(X), 0) → false
le(0, Y) → true

The set Q consists of the following terms:

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

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.


GCD(s(X), s(Y)) → IF(le(Y, X), s(X), s(Y))
The remaining pairs can at least be oriented weakly.

IF(true, s(X), s(Y)) → GCD(minus(X, Y), s(Y))
IF(false, s(X), s(Y)) → GCD(minus(Y, X), s(X))
Used ordering: Polynomial interpretation [25]:

POL(0) = 0   
POL(GCD(x1, x2)) = 1 + x1 + x2   
POL(IF(x1, x2, x3)) = x2 + x3   
POL(false) = 0   
POL(le(x1, x2)) = 0   
POL(minus(x1, x2)) = x1   
POL(pred(x1)) = x1   
POL(s(x1)) = 1 + x1   
POL(true) = 0   

The following usable rules [17] were oriented:

minus(X, 0) → X
minus(X, s(Y)) → pred(minus(X, Y))
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:

IF(true, s(X), s(Y)) → GCD(minus(X, Y), s(Y))
IF(false, s(X), s(Y)) → GCD(minus(Y, X), s(X))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

minus(X, s(Y)) → pred(minus(X, Y))
minus(X, 0) → X
pred(s(X)) → X
le(s(X), s(Y)) → le(X, Y)
le(s(X), 0) → false
le(0, Y) → true

The set Q consists of the following terms:

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

We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
The approximation of the Dependency Graph [15,17,22] contains 0 SCCs with 2 less nodes.