YES Termination w.r.t. Q proof of /home/cern_httpd/provide/research/cycsrs/examples/collection/lata10.srs

(0) Obligation:

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

2(1(x)) → 4(1(x))
3(4(x)) → 4(2(x))
2(4(x)) → 3(2(x))

Q is empty.

(1) Overlay + Local Confluence (EQUIVALENT transformation)

The TRS is overlay and locally confluent. By [NOC] we can switch to innermost.

(2) Obligation:

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

2(1(x)) → 4(1(x))
3(4(x)) → 4(2(x))
2(4(x)) → 3(2(x))

The set Q consists of the following terms:

2(1(x0))
3(4(x0))
2(4(x0))

(3) DependencyPairsProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

Using Dependency Pairs [AG00,LPAR04] we result in the following initial DP problem.

(4) Obligation:

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

31(4(x)) → 21(x)
21(4(x)) → 31(2(x))
21(4(x)) → 21(x)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

2(1(x)) → 4(1(x))
3(4(x)) → 4(2(x))
2(4(x)) → 3(2(x))

The set Q consists of the following terms:

2(1(x0))
3(4(x0))
2(4(x0))

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

(5) MRRProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

By using the rule removal processor [LPAR04] with the following ordering, at least one Dependency Pair or term rewrite system rule of this QDP problem can be strictly oriented.
Strictly oriented dependency pairs:

31(4(x)) → 21(x)
21(4(x)) → 31(2(x))
21(4(x)) → 21(x)


Used ordering: Polynomial interpretation [POLO]:

POL(1(x1)) = 2·x1   
POL(2(x1)) = 2 + 2·x1   
POL(21(x1)) = 1 + 2·x1   
POL(3(x1)) = 2 + 2·x1   
POL(31(x1)) = x1   
POL(4(x1)) = 2 + 2·x1   

(6) Obligation:

Q DP problem:
P is empty.
The TRS R consists of the following rules:

2(1(x)) → 4(1(x))
3(4(x)) → 4(2(x))
2(4(x)) → 3(2(x))

The set Q consists of the following terms:

2(1(x0))
3(4(x0))
2(4(x0))

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

(7) PisEmptyProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

The TRS P is empty. Hence, there is no (P,Q,R) chain.

(8) YES