The rewrite relation of the following TRS is considered.
2nd(cons(X,n__cons(Y,Z))) | → | activate(Y) | (1) |
from(X) | → | cons(X,n__from(n__s(X))) | (2) |
cons(X1,X2) | → | n__cons(X1,X2) | (3) |
from(X) | → | n__from(X) | (4) |
s(X) | → | n__s(X) | (5) |
activate(n__cons(X1,X2)) | → | cons(activate(X1),X2) | (6) |
activate(n__from(X)) | → | from(activate(X)) | (7) |
activate(n__s(X)) | → | s(activate(X)) | (8) |
activate(X) | → | X | (9) |
activate#(n__cons(X1,X2)) | → | cons#(activate(X1),X2) | (10) |
2nd#(cons(X,n__cons(Y,Z))) | → | activate#(Y) | (11) |
activate#(n__s(X)) | → | s#(activate(X)) | (12) |
activate#(n__from(X)) | → | activate#(X) | (13) |
activate#(n__cons(X1,X2)) | → | activate#(X1) | (14) |
from#(X) | → | cons#(X,n__from(n__s(X))) | (15) |
activate#(n__s(X)) | → | activate#(X) | (16) |
activate#(n__from(X)) | → | from#(activate(X)) | (17) |
The dependency pairs are split into 1 component.
activate#(n__s(X)) | → | activate#(X) | (16) |
activate#(n__cons(X1,X2)) | → | activate#(X1) | (14) |
activate#(n__from(X)) | → | activate#(X) | (13) |
[cons#(x1, x2)] | = | 0 |
[s(x1)] | = | 0 |
[activate(x1)] | = | 0 |
[n__from(x1)] | = | x1 + 1 |
[activate#(x1)] | = | x1 + 0 |
[2nd(x1)] | = | 0 |
[n__s(x1)] | = | x1 + 1 |
[from(x1)] | = | 0 |
[s#(x1)] | = | 0 |
[n__cons(x1, x2)] | = | x1 + 1 |
[2nd#(x1)] | = | 0 |
[from#(x1)] | = | 0 |
[cons(x1, x2)] | = | 0 |
activate#(n__s(X)) | → | activate#(X) | (16) |
activate#(n__cons(X1,X2)) | → | activate#(X1) | (14) |
activate#(n__from(X)) | → | activate#(X) | (13) |
The dependency pairs are split into 0 components.