YES Termination w.r.t. Q proof of ../tpdb/secret2007/cime/secret5.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:

t(N) → cs(r(q(N)), nt(ns(N)))
q(0) → 0
q(s(X)) → s(p(q(X), d(X)))
d(0) → 0
d(s(X)) → s(s(d(X)))
p(0, X) → X
p(X, 0) → X
p(s(X), s(Y)) → s(s(p(X, Y)))
f(0, X) → nil
f(s(X), cs(Y, Z)) → cs(Y, nf(X, a(Z)))
t(X) → nt(X)
s(X) → ns(X)
f(X1, X2) → nf(X1, X2)
a(nt(X)) → t(a(X))
a(ns(X)) → s(a(X))
a(nf(X1, X2)) → f(a(X1), a(X2))
a(X) → X

Q is empty.


↳ QTRS
  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

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

t(N) → cs(r(q(N)), nt(ns(N)))
q(0) → 0
q(s(X)) → s(p(q(X), d(X)))
d(0) → 0
d(s(X)) → s(s(d(X)))
p(0, X) → X
p(X, 0) → X
p(s(X), s(Y)) → s(s(p(X, Y)))
f(0, X) → nil
f(s(X), cs(Y, Z)) → cs(Y, nf(X, a(Z)))
t(X) → nt(X)
s(X) → ns(X)
f(X1, X2) → nf(X1, X2)
a(nt(X)) → t(a(X))
a(ns(X)) → s(a(X))
a(nf(X1, X2)) → f(a(X1), a(X2))
a(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:

T(N) → Q(N)
A(nf(X1, X2)) → A(X2)
Q(s(X)) → Q(X)
P(s(X), s(Y)) → P(X, Y)
A(nf(X1, X2)) → A(X1)
F(s(X), cs(Y, Z)) → A(Z)
A(ns(X)) → A(X)
P(s(X), s(Y)) → S(s(p(X, Y)))
P(s(X), s(Y)) → S(p(X, Y))
Q(s(X)) → P(q(X), d(X))
D(s(X)) → D(X)
A(ns(X)) → S(a(X))
A(nf(X1, X2)) → F(a(X1), a(X2))
A(nt(X)) → A(X)
Q(s(X)) → S(p(q(X), d(X)))
A(nt(X)) → T(a(X))
Q(s(X)) → D(X)
D(s(X)) → S(s(d(X)))
D(s(X)) → S(d(X))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

t(N) → cs(r(q(N)), nt(ns(N)))
q(0) → 0
q(s(X)) → s(p(q(X), d(X)))
d(0) → 0
d(s(X)) → s(s(d(X)))
p(0, X) → X
p(X, 0) → X
p(s(X), s(Y)) → s(s(p(X, Y)))
f(0, X) → nil
f(s(X), cs(Y, Z)) → cs(Y, nf(X, a(Z)))
t(X) → nt(X)
s(X) → ns(X)
f(X1, X2) → nf(X1, X2)
a(nt(X)) → t(a(X))
a(ns(X)) → s(a(X))
a(nf(X1, X2)) → f(a(X1), a(X2))
a(X) → 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:

T(N) → Q(N)
A(nf(X1, X2)) → A(X2)
Q(s(X)) → Q(X)
P(s(X), s(Y)) → P(X, Y)
A(nf(X1, X2)) → A(X1)
F(s(X), cs(Y, Z)) → A(Z)
A(ns(X)) → A(X)
P(s(X), s(Y)) → S(s(p(X, Y)))
P(s(X), s(Y)) → S(p(X, Y))
Q(s(X)) → P(q(X), d(X))
D(s(X)) → D(X)
A(ns(X)) → S(a(X))
A(nf(X1, X2)) → F(a(X1), a(X2))
A(nt(X)) → A(X)
Q(s(X)) → S(p(q(X), d(X)))
A(nt(X)) → T(a(X))
Q(s(X)) → D(X)
D(s(X)) → S(s(d(X)))
D(s(X)) → S(d(X))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

t(N) → cs(r(q(N)), nt(ns(N)))
q(0) → 0
q(s(X)) → s(p(q(X), d(X)))
d(0) → 0
d(s(X)) → s(s(d(X)))
p(0, X) → X
p(X, 0) → X
p(s(X), s(Y)) → s(s(p(X, Y)))
f(0, X) → nil
f(s(X), cs(Y, Z)) → cs(Y, nf(X, a(Z)))
t(X) → nt(X)
s(X) → ns(X)
f(X1, X2) → nf(X1, X2)
a(nt(X)) → t(a(X))
a(ns(X)) → s(a(X))
a(nf(X1, X2)) → f(a(X1), a(X2))
a(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 10 less nodes.

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

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

P(s(X), s(Y)) → P(X, Y)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

t(N) → cs(r(q(N)), nt(ns(N)))
q(0) → 0
q(s(X)) → s(p(q(X), d(X)))
d(0) → 0
d(s(X)) → s(s(d(X)))
p(0, X) → X
p(X, 0) → X
p(s(X), s(Y)) → s(s(p(X, Y)))
f(0, X) → nil
f(s(X), cs(Y, Z)) → cs(Y, nf(X, a(Z)))
t(X) → nt(X)
s(X) → ns(X)
f(X1, X2) → nf(X1, X2)
a(nt(X)) → t(a(X))
a(ns(X)) → s(a(X))
a(nf(X1, X2)) → f(a(X1), a(X2))
a(X) → 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

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

P(s(X), s(Y)) → P(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
  ↳ DependencyPairsProof
    ↳ QDP
      ↳ DependencyGraphProof
        ↳ AND
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP
            ↳ UsableRulesProof
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP

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

D(s(X)) → D(X)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

t(N) → cs(r(q(N)), nt(ns(N)))
q(0) → 0
q(s(X)) → s(p(q(X), d(X)))
d(0) → 0
d(s(X)) → s(s(d(X)))
p(0, X) → X
p(X, 0) → X
p(s(X), s(Y)) → s(s(p(X, Y)))
f(0, X) → nil
f(s(X), cs(Y, Z)) → cs(Y, nf(X, a(Z)))
t(X) → nt(X)
s(X) → ns(X)
f(X1, X2) → nf(X1, X2)
a(nt(X)) → t(a(X))
a(ns(X)) → s(a(X))
a(nf(X1, X2)) → f(a(X1), a(X2))
a(X) → 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

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

D(s(X)) → D(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

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

Q(s(X)) → Q(X)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

t(N) → cs(r(q(N)), nt(ns(N)))
q(0) → 0
q(s(X)) → s(p(q(X), d(X)))
d(0) → 0
d(s(X)) → s(s(d(X)))
p(0, X) → X
p(X, 0) → X
p(s(X), s(Y)) → s(s(p(X, Y)))
f(0, X) → nil
f(s(X), cs(Y, Z)) → cs(Y, nf(X, a(Z)))
t(X) → nt(X)
s(X) → ns(X)
f(X1, X2) → nf(X1, X2)
a(nt(X)) → t(a(X))
a(ns(X)) → s(a(X))
a(nf(X1, X2)) → f(a(X1), a(X2))
a(X) → 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

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

Q(s(X)) → Q(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
            ↳ QDPOrderProof

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

A(nf(X1, X2)) → A(X2)
A(ns(X)) → A(X)
A(nf(X1, X2)) → A(X1)
F(s(X), cs(Y, Z)) → A(Z)
A(nf(X1, X2)) → F(a(X1), a(X2))
A(nt(X)) → A(X)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

t(N) → cs(r(q(N)), nt(ns(N)))
q(0) → 0
q(s(X)) → s(p(q(X), d(X)))
d(0) → 0
d(s(X)) → s(s(d(X)))
p(0, X) → X
p(X, 0) → X
p(s(X), s(Y)) → s(s(p(X, Y)))
f(0, X) → nil
f(s(X), cs(Y, Z)) → cs(Y, nf(X, a(Z)))
t(X) → nt(X)
s(X) → ns(X)
f(X1, X2) → nf(X1, X2)
a(nt(X)) → t(a(X))
a(ns(X)) → s(a(X))
a(nf(X1, X2)) → f(a(X1), a(X2))
a(X) → X

Q is empty.
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.


A(nf(X1, X2)) → A(X2)
A(nf(X1, X2)) → A(X1)
F(s(X), cs(Y, Z)) → A(Z)
A(nt(X)) → A(X)
The remaining pairs can at least be oriented weakly.

A(ns(X)) → A(X)
A(nf(X1, X2)) → F(a(X1), a(X2))
Used ordering: Polynomial interpretation [25]:

POL(0) = 0   
POL(A(x1)) = x1   
POL(F(x1, x2)) = 1 + x2   
POL(a(x1)) = x1   
POL(cs(x1, x2)) = x2   
POL(d(x1)) = 0   
POL(f(x1, x2)) = 1 + x1 + x2   
POL(nf(x1, x2)) = 1 + x1 + x2   
POL(nil) = 0   
POL(ns(x1)) = x1   
POL(nt(x1)) = 1 + x1   
POL(p(x1, x2)) = 0   
POL(q(x1)) = 0   
POL(r(x1)) = 0   
POL(s(x1)) = x1   
POL(t(x1)) = 1 + x1   

The following usable rules [17] were oriented:

a(nt(X)) → t(a(X))
t(X) → nt(X)
f(s(X), cs(Y, Z)) → cs(Y, nf(X, a(Z)))
a(ns(X)) → s(a(X))
t(N) → cs(r(q(N)), nt(ns(N)))
f(0, X) → nil
a(nf(X1, X2)) → f(a(X1), a(X2))
a(X) → X
f(X1, X2) → nf(X1, X2)
s(X) → ns(X)



↳ QTRS
  ↳ DependencyPairsProof
    ↳ QDP
      ↳ DependencyGraphProof
        ↳ AND
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP
          ↳ QDP
            ↳ QDPOrderProof
              ↳ QDP
                ↳ DependencyGraphProof

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

A(ns(X)) → A(X)
A(nf(X1, X2)) → F(a(X1), a(X2))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

t(N) → cs(r(q(N)), nt(ns(N)))
q(0) → 0
q(s(X)) → s(p(q(X), d(X)))
d(0) → 0
d(s(X)) → s(s(d(X)))
p(0, X) → X
p(X, 0) → X
p(s(X), s(Y)) → s(s(p(X, Y)))
f(0, X) → nil
f(s(X), cs(Y, Z)) → cs(Y, nf(X, a(Z)))
t(X) → nt(X)
s(X) → ns(X)
f(X1, X2) → nf(X1, X2)
a(nt(X)) → t(a(X))
a(ns(X)) → s(a(X))
a(nf(X1, X2)) → f(a(X1), a(X2))
a(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 1 SCC with 1 less node.

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

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

A(ns(X)) → A(X)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

t(N) → cs(r(q(N)), nt(ns(N)))
q(0) → 0
q(s(X)) → s(p(q(X), d(X)))
d(0) → 0
d(s(X)) → s(s(d(X)))
p(0, X) → X
p(X, 0) → X
p(s(X), s(Y)) → s(s(p(X, Y)))
f(0, X) → nil
f(s(X), cs(Y, Z)) → cs(Y, nf(X, a(Z)))
t(X) → nt(X)
s(X) → ns(X)
f(X1, X2) → nf(X1, X2)
a(nt(X)) → t(a(X))
a(ns(X)) → s(a(X))
a(nf(X1, X2)) → f(a(X1), a(X2))
a(X) → 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
            ↳ QDPOrderProof
              ↳ QDP
                ↳ DependencyGraphProof
                  ↳ QDP
                    ↳ UsableRulesProof
                      ↳ QDP
                        ↳ QDPSizeChangeProof

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

A(ns(X)) → A(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: