YES Termination w.r.t. Q proof of ../tpdb/TRS/TRCSR/Ex23_Luc06_iGM.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:

active(f(f(a))) → mark(c(f(g(f(a)))))
mark(f(X)) → active(f(mark(X)))
mark(a) → active(a)
mark(c(X)) → active(c(X))
mark(g(X)) → active(g(mark(X)))
f(mark(X)) → f(X)
f(active(X)) → f(X)
c(mark(X)) → c(X)
c(active(X)) → c(X)
g(mark(X)) → g(X)
g(active(X)) → g(X)

Q is empty.


↳ QTRS
  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

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

active(f(f(a))) → mark(c(f(g(f(a)))))
mark(f(X)) → active(f(mark(X)))
mark(a) → active(a)
mark(c(X)) → active(c(X))
mark(g(X)) → active(g(mark(X)))
f(mark(X)) → f(X)
f(active(X)) → f(X)
c(mark(X)) → c(X)
c(active(X)) → c(X)
g(mark(X)) → g(X)
g(active(X)) → g(X)

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:

C(mark(X)) → C(X)
MARK(f(X)) → ACTIVE(f(mark(X)))
ACTIVE(f(f(a))) → G(f(a))
G(mark(X)) → G(X)
MARK(c(X)) → ACTIVE(c(X))
F(mark(X)) → F(X)
MARK(g(X)) → G(mark(X))
F(active(X)) → F(X)
MARK(f(X)) → F(mark(X))
MARK(g(X)) → MARK(X)
C(active(X)) → C(X)
ACTIVE(f(f(a))) → F(g(f(a)))
MARK(g(X)) → ACTIVE(g(mark(X)))
ACTIVE(f(f(a))) → C(f(g(f(a))))
ACTIVE(f(f(a))) → MARK(c(f(g(f(a)))))
MARK(a) → ACTIVE(a)
G(active(X)) → G(X)
MARK(f(X)) → MARK(X)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

active(f(f(a))) → mark(c(f(g(f(a)))))
mark(f(X)) → active(f(mark(X)))
mark(a) → active(a)
mark(c(X)) → active(c(X))
mark(g(X)) → active(g(mark(X)))
f(mark(X)) → f(X)
f(active(X)) → f(X)
c(mark(X)) → c(X)
c(active(X)) → c(X)
g(mark(X)) → g(X)
g(active(X)) → g(X)

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:

C(mark(X)) → C(X)
MARK(f(X)) → ACTIVE(f(mark(X)))
ACTIVE(f(f(a))) → G(f(a))
G(mark(X)) → G(X)
MARK(c(X)) → ACTIVE(c(X))
F(mark(X)) → F(X)
MARK(g(X)) → G(mark(X))
F(active(X)) → F(X)
MARK(f(X)) → F(mark(X))
MARK(g(X)) → MARK(X)
C(active(X)) → C(X)
ACTIVE(f(f(a))) → F(g(f(a)))
MARK(g(X)) → ACTIVE(g(mark(X)))
ACTIVE(f(f(a))) → C(f(g(f(a))))
ACTIVE(f(f(a))) → MARK(c(f(g(f(a)))))
MARK(a) → ACTIVE(a)
G(active(X)) → G(X)
MARK(f(X)) → MARK(X)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

active(f(f(a))) → mark(c(f(g(f(a)))))
mark(f(X)) → active(f(mark(X)))
mark(a) → active(a)
mark(c(X)) → active(c(X))
mark(g(X)) → active(g(mark(X)))
f(mark(X)) → f(X)
f(active(X)) → f(X)
c(mark(X)) → c(X)
c(active(X)) → c(X)
g(mark(X)) → g(X)
g(active(X)) → g(X)

Q is empty.
We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
The approximation of the Dependency Graph [15,17,22] contains 5 SCCs with 8 less nodes.

↳ QTRS
  ↳ DependencyPairsProof
    ↳ QDP
      ↳ DependencyGraphProof
        ↳ AND
          ↳ QDP
            ↳ UsableRulesProof
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP

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

G(mark(X)) → G(X)
G(active(X)) → G(X)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

active(f(f(a))) → mark(c(f(g(f(a)))))
mark(f(X)) → active(f(mark(X)))
mark(a) → active(a)
mark(c(X)) → active(c(X))
mark(g(X)) → active(g(mark(X)))
f(mark(X)) → f(X)
f(active(X)) → f(X)
c(mark(X)) → c(X)
c(active(X)) → c(X)
g(mark(X)) → g(X)
g(active(X)) → g(X)

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

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

G(mark(X)) → G(X)
G(active(X)) → G(X)

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
  ↳ DependencyPairsProof
    ↳ QDP
      ↳ DependencyGraphProof
        ↳ AND
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP
            ↳ UsableRulesProof
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP

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

C(mark(X)) → C(X)
C(active(X)) → C(X)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

active(f(f(a))) → mark(c(f(g(f(a)))))
mark(f(X)) → active(f(mark(X)))
mark(a) → active(a)
mark(c(X)) → active(c(X))
mark(g(X)) → active(g(mark(X)))
f(mark(X)) → f(X)
f(active(X)) → f(X)
c(mark(X)) → c(X)
c(active(X)) → c(X)
g(mark(X)) → g(X)
g(active(X)) → g(X)

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
          ↳ QDP
            ↳ UsableRulesProof
              ↳ QDP
                ↳ QDPSizeChangeProof
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP

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

C(mark(X)) → C(X)
C(active(X)) → C(X)

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
  ↳ DependencyPairsProof
    ↳ QDP
      ↳ DependencyGraphProof
        ↳ AND
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP
            ↳ UsableRulesProof
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP

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

F(mark(X)) → F(X)
F(active(X)) → F(X)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

active(f(f(a))) → mark(c(f(g(f(a)))))
mark(f(X)) → active(f(mark(X)))
mark(a) → active(a)
mark(c(X)) → active(c(X))
mark(g(X)) → active(g(mark(X)))
f(mark(X)) → f(X)
f(active(X)) → f(X)
c(mark(X)) → c(X)
c(active(X)) → c(X)
g(mark(X)) → g(X)
g(active(X)) → g(X)

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
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP
            ↳ UsableRulesProof
              ↳ QDP
                ↳ QDPSizeChangeProof
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP

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

F(mark(X)) → F(X)
F(active(X)) → F(X)

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
  ↳ DependencyPairsProof
    ↳ QDP
      ↳ DependencyGraphProof
        ↳ AND
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP
            ↳ UsableRulesProof
          ↳ QDP

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

MARK(c(X)) → ACTIVE(c(X))
ACTIVE(f(f(a))) → MARK(c(f(g(f(a)))))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

active(f(f(a))) → mark(c(f(g(f(a)))))
mark(f(X)) → active(f(mark(X)))
mark(a) → active(a)
mark(c(X)) → active(c(X))
mark(g(X)) → active(g(mark(X)))
f(mark(X)) → f(X)
f(active(X)) → f(X)
c(mark(X)) → c(X)
c(active(X)) → c(X)
g(mark(X)) → g(X)
g(active(X)) → g(X)

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
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP
            ↳ UsableRulesProof
              ↳ QDP
                ↳ DependencyGraphProof
          ↳ QDP

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

MARK(c(X)) → ACTIVE(c(X))
ACTIVE(f(f(a))) → MARK(c(f(g(f(a)))))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

c(mark(X)) → c(X)
c(active(X)) → c(X)

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 2 less nodes.

↳ QTRS
  ↳ DependencyPairsProof
    ↳ QDP
      ↳ DependencyGraphProof
        ↳ AND
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP
            ↳ UsableRulesProof

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

MARK(g(X)) → MARK(X)
MARK(f(X)) → MARK(X)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

active(f(f(a))) → mark(c(f(g(f(a)))))
mark(f(X)) → active(f(mark(X)))
mark(a) → active(a)
mark(c(X)) → active(c(X))
mark(g(X)) → active(g(mark(X)))
f(mark(X)) → f(X)
f(active(X)) → f(X)
c(mark(X)) → c(X)
c(active(X)) → c(X)
g(mark(X)) → g(X)
g(active(X)) → g(X)

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
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP
            ↳ UsableRulesProof
              ↳ QDP
                ↳ QDPSizeChangeProof

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

MARK(g(X)) → MARK(X)
MARK(f(X)) → MARK(X)

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: