YES Termination proof of ../tpdb/TRS/TRCSR/ExSec11_1_Luc02a.trs
Termination of the following Term Rewriting System could be proven:

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

terms(N) → cons(recip(sqr(N)), terms(s(N)))
sqr(0) → 0
sqr(s(X)) → s(add(sqr(X), dbl(X)))
dbl(0) → 0
dbl(s(X)) → s(s(dbl(X)))
add(0, X) → X
add(s(X), Y) → s(add(X, Y))
first(0, X) → nil
first(s(X), cons(Y, Z)) → cons(Y, first(X, Z))
half(0) → 0
half(s(0)) → 0
half(s(s(X))) → s(half(X))
half(dbl(X)) → X

The replacement map contains the following entries:

terms: {1}
cons: {1}
recip: {1}
sqr: {1}
s: {1}
0: empty set
add: {1, 2}
dbl: {1}
first: {1, 2}
nil: empty set
half: {1}


↳ CSR
  ↳ Lucas-Transformation

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

terms(N) → cons(recip(sqr(N)), terms(s(N)))
sqr(0) → 0
sqr(s(X)) → s(add(sqr(X), dbl(X)))
dbl(0) → 0
dbl(s(X)) → s(s(dbl(X)))
add(0, X) → X
add(s(X), Y) → s(add(X, Y))
first(0, X) → nil
first(s(X), cons(Y, Z)) → cons(Y, first(X, Z))
half(0) → 0
half(s(0)) → 0
half(s(s(X))) → s(half(X))
half(dbl(X)) → X

The replacement map contains the following entries:

terms: {1}
cons: {1}
recip: {1}
sqr: {1}
s: {1}
0: empty set
add: {1, 2}
dbl: {1}
first: {1, 2}
nil: empty set
half: {1}

We applied the Lucas [26] to transform the context-sensitive TRS to an usual TRS.

↳ CSR
  ↳ Lucas-Transformation
    ↳ QTRS
      ↳ DependencyPairsProof

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

terms(N) → cons(recip(sqr(N)))
sqr(0) → 0
sqr(s(X)) → s(add(sqr(X), dbl(X)))
dbl(0) → 0
dbl(s(X)) → s(s(dbl(X)))
add(0, X) → X
add(s(X), Y) → s(add(X, Y))
first(0, X) → nil
first(s(X), cons(Y)) → cons(Y)
half(0) → 0
half(s(0)) → 0
half(s(s(X))) → s(half(X))
half(dbl(X)) → 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:

SQR(s(X)) → ADD(sqr(X), dbl(X))
ADD(s(X), Y) → ADD(X, Y)
SQR(s(X)) → SQR(X)
SQR(s(X)) → DBL(X)
TERMS(N) → SQR(N)
DBL(s(X)) → DBL(X)
HALF(s(s(X))) → HALF(X)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

terms(N) → cons(recip(sqr(N)))
sqr(0) → 0
sqr(s(X)) → s(add(sqr(X), dbl(X)))
dbl(0) → 0
dbl(s(X)) → s(s(dbl(X)))
add(0, X) → X
add(s(X), Y) → s(add(X, Y))
first(0, X) → nil
first(s(X), cons(Y)) → cons(Y)
half(0) → 0
half(s(0)) → 0
half(s(s(X))) → s(half(X))
half(dbl(X)) → X

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

↳ CSR
  ↳ Lucas-Transformation
    ↳ QTRS
      ↳ DependencyPairsProof
        ↳ QDP
          ↳ DependencyGraphProof

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

SQR(s(X)) → ADD(sqr(X), dbl(X))
ADD(s(X), Y) → ADD(X, Y)
SQR(s(X)) → SQR(X)
SQR(s(X)) → DBL(X)
TERMS(N) → SQR(N)
DBL(s(X)) → DBL(X)
HALF(s(s(X))) → HALF(X)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

terms(N) → cons(recip(sqr(N)))
sqr(0) → 0
sqr(s(X)) → s(add(sqr(X), dbl(X)))
dbl(0) → 0
dbl(s(X)) → s(s(dbl(X)))
add(0, X) → X
add(s(X), Y) → s(add(X, Y))
first(0, X) → nil
first(s(X), cons(Y)) → cons(Y)
half(0) → 0
half(s(0)) → 0
half(s(s(X))) → s(half(X))
half(dbl(X)) → X

Q is empty.
We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
The approximation of the Dependency Graph [15,17,22] contains 4 SCCs with 3 less nodes.

↳ CSR
  ↳ Lucas-Transformation
    ↳ QTRS
      ↳ DependencyPairsProof
        ↳ QDP
          ↳ DependencyGraphProof
            ↳ AND
              ↳ QDP
                ↳ MNOCProof
              ↳ QDP
              ↳ QDP
              ↳ QDP

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

HALF(s(s(X))) → HALF(X)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

terms(N) → cons(recip(sqr(N)))
sqr(0) → 0
sqr(s(X)) → s(add(sqr(X), dbl(X)))
dbl(0) → 0
dbl(s(X)) → s(s(dbl(X)))
add(0, X) → X
add(s(X), Y) → s(add(X, Y))
first(0, X) → nil
first(s(X), cons(Y)) → cons(Y)
half(0) → 0
half(s(0)) → 0
half(s(s(X))) → s(half(X))
half(dbl(X)) → X

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.

↳ CSR
  ↳ Lucas-Transformation
    ↳ QTRS
      ↳ DependencyPairsProof
        ↳ QDP
          ↳ DependencyGraphProof
            ↳ AND
              ↳ QDP
                ↳ MNOCProof
                  ↳ QDP
                    ↳ UsableRulesProof
              ↳ QDP
              ↳ QDP
              ↳ QDP

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

HALF(s(s(X))) → HALF(X)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

terms(N) → cons(recip(sqr(N)))
sqr(0) → 0
sqr(s(X)) → s(add(sqr(X), dbl(X)))
dbl(0) → 0
dbl(s(X)) → s(s(dbl(X)))
add(0, X) → X
add(s(X), Y) → s(add(X, Y))
first(0, X) → nil
first(s(X), cons(Y)) → cons(Y)
half(0) → 0
half(s(0)) → 0
half(s(s(X))) → s(half(X))
half(dbl(X)) → X

The set Q consists of the following terms:

terms(x0)
sqr(0)
sqr(s(x0))
dbl(0)
dbl(s(x0))
add(0, x0)
add(s(x0), x1)
first(0, x0)
first(s(x0), cons(x1))
half(0)
half(s(0))
half(s(s(x0)))
half(dbl(x0))

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.

↳ CSR
  ↳ Lucas-Transformation
    ↳ QTRS
      ↳ DependencyPairsProof
        ↳ QDP
          ↳ DependencyGraphProof
            ↳ AND
              ↳ QDP
                ↳ MNOCProof
                  ↳ QDP
                    ↳ UsableRulesProof
                      ↳ QDP
                        ↳ QReductionProof
              ↳ QDP
              ↳ QDP
              ↳ QDP

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

HALF(s(s(X))) → HALF(X)

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

terms(x0)
sqr(0)
sqr(s(x0))
dbl(0)
dbl(s(x0))
add(0, x0)
add(s(x0), x1)
first(0, x0)
first(s(x0), cons(x1))
half(0)
half(s(0))
half(s(s(x0)))
half(dbl(x0))

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.

terms(x0)
sqr(0)
sqr(s(x0))
dbl(0)
dbl(s(x0))
add(0, x0)
add(s(x0), x1)
first(0, x0)
first(s(x0), cons(x1))
half(0)
half(s(0))
half(s(s(x0)))
half(dbl(x0))



↳ CSR
  ↳ Lucas-Transformation
    ↳ QTRS
      ↳ DependencyPairsProof
        ↳ QDP
          ↳ DependencyGraphProof
            ↳ AND
              ↳ QDP
                ↳ MNOCProof
                  ↳ QDP
                    ↳ UsableRulesProof
                      ↳ QDP
                        ↳ QReductionProof
                          ↳ QDP
                            ↳ QDPSizeChangeProof
              ↳ QDP
              ↳ QDP
              ↳ QDP

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

HALF(s(s(X))) → HALF(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: 



↳ CSR
  ↳ Lucas-Transformation
    ↳ QTRS
      ↳ DependencyPairsProof
        ↳ QDP
          ↳ DependencyGraphProof
            ↳ AND
              ↳ QDP
              ↳ QDP
                ↳ MNOCProof
              ↳ QDP
              ↳ QDP

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

ADD(s(X), Y) → ADD(X, Y)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

terms(N) → cons(recip(sqr(N)))
sqr(0) → 0
sqr(s(X)) → s(add(sqr(X), dbl(X)))
dbl(0) → 0
dbl(s(X)) → s(s(dbl(X)))
add(0, X) → X
add(s(X), Y) → s(add(X, Y))
first(0, X) → nil
first(s(X), cons(Y)) → cons(Y)
half(0) → 0
half(s(0)) → 0
half(s(s(X))) → s(half(X))
half(dbl(X)) → X

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.

↳ CSR
  ↳ Lucas-Transformation
    ↳ QTRS
      ↳ DependencyPairsProof
        ↳ QDP
          ↳ DependencyGraphProof
            ↳ AND
              ↳ QDP
              ↳ QDP
                ↳ MNOCProof
                  ↳ QDP
                    ↳ UsableRulesProof
              ↳ QDP
              ↳ QDP

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

ADD(s(X), Y) → ADD(X, Y)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

terms(N) → cons(recip(sqr(N)))
sqr(0) → 0
sqr(s(X)) → s(add(sqr(X), dbl(X)))
dbl(0) → 0
dbl(s(X)) → s(s(dbl(X)))
add(0, X) → X
add(s(X), Y) → s(add(X, Y))
first(0, X) → nil
first(s(X), cons(Y)) → cons(Y)
half(0) → 0
half(s(0)) → 0
half(s(s(X))) → s(half(X))
half(dbl(X)) → X

The set Q consists of the following terms:

terms(x0)
sqr(0)
sqr(s(x0))
dbl(0)
dbl(s(x0))
add(0, x0)
add(s(x0), x1)
first(0, x0)
first(s(x0), cons(x1))
half(0)
half(s(0))
half(s(s(x0)))
half(dbl(x0))

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.

↳ CSR
  ↳ Lucas-Transformation
    ↳ QTRS
      ↳ DependencyPairsProof
        ↳ QDP
          ↳ DependencyGraphProof
            ↳ AND
              ↳ QDP
              ↳ QDP
                ↳ MNOCProof
                  ↳ QDP
                    ↳ UsableRulesProof
                      ↳ QDP
                        ↳ QReductionProof
              ↳ QDP
              ↳ QDP

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

ADD(s(X), Y) → ADD(X, Y)

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

terms(x0)
sqr(0)
sqr(s(x0))
dbl(0)
dbl(s(x0))
add(0, x0)
add(s(x0), x1)
first(0, x0)
first(s(x0), cons(x1))
half(0)
half(s(0))
half(s(s(x0)))
half(dbl(x0))

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.

terms(x0)
sqr(0)
sqr(s(x0))
dbl(0)
dbl(s(x0))
add(0, x0)
add(s(x0), x1)
first(0, x0)
first(s(x0), cons(x1))
half(0)
half(s(0))
half(s(s(x0)))
half(dbl(x0))



↳ CSR
  ↳ Lucas-Transformation
    ↳ QTRS
      ↳ DependencyPairsProof
        ↳ QDP
          ↳ DependencyGraphProof
            ↳ AND
              ↳ QDP
              ↳ QDP
                ↳ MNOCProof
                  ↳ QDP
                    ↳ UsableRulesProof
                      ↳ QDP
                        ↳ QReductionProof
                          ↳ QDP
                            ↳ QDPSizeChangeProof
              ↳ QDP
              ↳ QDP

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

ADD(s(X), Y) → ADD(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: 



↳ CSR
  ↳ Lucas-Transformation
    ↳ QTRS
      ↳ DependencyPairsProof
        ↳ QDP
          ↳ DependencyGraphProof
            ↳ AND
              ↳ QDP
              ↳ QDP
              ↳ QDP
                ↳ MNOCProof
              ↳ QDP

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

DBL(s(X)) → DBL(X)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

terms(N) → cons(recip(sqr(N)))
sqr(0) → 0
sqr(s(X)) → s(add(sqr(X), dbl(X)))
dbl(0) → 0
dbl(s(X)) → s(s(dbl(X)))
add(0, X) → X
add(s(X), Y) → s(add(X, Y))
first(0, X) → nil
first(s(X), cons(Y)) → cons(Y)
half(0) → 0
half(s(0)) → 0
half(s(s(X))) → s(half(X))
half(dbl(X)) → X

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.

↳ CSR
  ↳ Lucas-Transformation
    ↳ QTRS
      ↳ DependencyPairsProof
        ↳ QDP
          ↳ DependencyGraphProof
            ↳ AND
              ↳ QDP
              ↳ QDP
              ↳ QDP
                ↳ MNOCProof
                  ↳ QDP
                    ↳ UsableRulesProof
              ↳ QDP

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

DBL(s(X)) → DBL(X)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

terms(N) → cons(recip(sqr(N)))
sqr(0) → 0
sqr(s(X)) → s(add(sqr(X), dbl(X)))
dbl(0) → 0
dbl(s(X)) → s(s(dbl(X)))
add(0, X) → X
add(s(X), Y) → s(add(X, Y))
first(0, X) → nil
first(s(X), cons(Y)) → cons(Y)
half(0) → 0
half(s(0)) → 0
half(s(s(X))) → s(half(X))
half(dbl(X)) → X

The set Q consists of the following terms:

terms(x0)
sqr(0)
sqr(s(x0))
dbl(0)
dbl(s(x0))
add(0, x0)
add(s(x0), x1)
first(0, x0)
first(s(x0), cons(x1))
half(0)
half(s(0))
half(s(s(x0)))
half(dbl(x0))

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.

↳ CSR
  ↳ Lucas-Transformation
    ↳ QTRS
      ↳ DependencyPairsProof
        ↳ QDP
          ↳ DependencyGraphProof
            ↳ AND
              ↳ QDP
              ↳ QDP
              ↳ QDP
                ↳ MNOCProof
                  ↳ QDP
                    ↳ UsableRulesProof
                      ↳ QDP
                        ↳ QReductionProof
              ↳ QDP

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

DBL(s(X)) → DBL(X)

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

terms(x0)
sqr(0)
sqr(s(x0))
dbl(0)
dbl(s(x0))
add(0, x0)
add(s(x0), x1)
first(0, x0)
first(s(x0), cons(x1))
half(0)
half(s(0))
half(s(s(x0)))
half(dbl(x0))

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.

terms(x0)
sqr(0)
sqr(s(x0))
dbl(0)
dbl(s(x0))
add(0, x0)
add(s(x0), x1)
first(0, x0)
first(s(x0), cons(x1))
half(0)
half(s(0))
half(s(s(x0)))
half(dbl(x0))



↳ CSR
  ↳ Lucas-Transformation
    ↳ QTRS
      ↳ DependencyPairsProof
        ↳ QDP
          ↳ DependencyGraphProof
            ↳ AND
              ↳ QDP
              ↳ QDP
              ↳ QDP
                ↳ MNOCProof
                  ↳ QDP
                    ↳ UsableRulesProof
                      ↳ QDP
                        ↳ QReductionProof
                          ↳ QDP
                            ↳ QDPSizeChangeProof
              ↳ QDP

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

DBL(s(X)) → DBL(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: 



↳ CSR
  ↳ Lucas-Transformation
    ↳ QTRS
      ↳ DependencyPairsProof
        ↳ QDP
          ↳ DependencyGraphProof
            ↳ AND
              ↳ QDP
              ↳ QDP
              ↳ QDP
              ↳ QDP
                ↳ MNOCProof

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

SQR(s(X)) → SQR(X)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

terms(N) → cons(recip(sqr(N)))
sqr(0) → 0
sqr(s(X)) → s(add(sqr(X), dbl(X)))
dbl(0) → 0
dbl(s(X)) → s(s(dbl(X)))
add(0, X) → X
add(s(X), Y) → s(add(X, Y))
first(0, X) → nil
first(s(X), cons(Y)) → cons(Y)
half(0) → 0
half(s(0)) → 0
half(s(s(X))) → s(half(X))
half(dbl(X)) → X

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.

↳ CSR
  ↳ Lucas-Transformation
    ↳ QTRS
      ↳ DependencyPairsProof
        ↳ QDP
          ↳ DependencyGraphProof
            ↳ AND
              ↳ QDP
              ↳ QDP
              ↳ QDP
              ↳ QDP
                ↳ MNOCProof
                  ↳ QDP
                    ↳ UsableRulesProof

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

SQR(s(X)) → SQR(X)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

terms(N) → cons(recip(sqr(N)))
sqr(0) → 0
sqr(s(X)) → s(add(sqr(X), dbl(X)))
dbl(0) → 0
dbl(s(X)) → s(s(dbl(X)))
add(0, X) → X
add(s(X), Y) → s(add(X, Y))
first(0, X) → nil
first(s(X), cons(Y)) → cons(Y)
half(0) → 0
half(s(0)) → 0
half(s(s(X))) → s(half(X))
half(dbl(X)) → X

The set Q consists of the following terms:

terms(x0)
sqr(0)
sqr(s(x0))
dbl(0)
dbl(s(x0))
add(0, x0)
add(s(x0), x1)
first(0, x0)
first(s(x0), cons(x1))
half(0)
half(s(0))
half(s(s(x0)))
half(dbl(x0))

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.

↳ CSR
  ↳ Lucas-Transformation
    ↳ QTRS
      ↳ DependencyPairsProof
        ↳ QDP
          ↳ DependencyGraphProof
            ↳ AND
              ↳ QDP
              ↳ QDP
              ↳ QDP
              ↳ QDP
                ↳ MNOCProof
                  ↳ QDP
                    ↳ UsableRulesProof
                      ↳ QDP
                        ↳ QReductionProof

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

SQR(s(X)) → SQR(X)

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

terms(x0)
sqr(0)
sqr(s(x0))
dbl(0)
dbl(s(x0))
add(0, x0)
add(s(x0), x1)
first(0, x0)
first(s(x0), cons(x1))
half(0)
half(s(0))
half(s(s(x0)))
half(dbl(x0))

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.

terms(x0)
sqr(0)
sqr(s(x0))
dbl(0)
dbl(s(x0))
add(0, x0)
add(s(x0), x1)
first(0, x0)
first(s(x0), cons(x1))
half(0)
half(s(0))
half(s(s(x0)))
half(dbl(x0))



↳ CSR
  ↳ Lucas-Transformation
    ↳ QTRS
      ↳ DependencyPairsProof
        ↳ QDP
          ↳ DependencyGraphProof
            ↳ AND
              ↳ QDP
              ↳ QDP
              ↳ QDP
              ↳ QDP
                ↳ MNOCProof
                  ↳ QDP
                    ↳ UsableRulesProof
                      ↳ QDP
                        ↳ QReductionProof
                          ↳ QDP
                            ↳ QDPSizeChangeProof

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

SQR(s(X)) → SQR(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: