Term Rewriting System R:
[f, x, xs]
app(app(map, f), nil) -> nil
app(app(map, f), app(app(cons, x), xs)) -> app(app(cons, app(f, x)), app(app(map, f), xs))
app(app(treemap, f), app(app(node, x), xs)) -> app(app(node, app(f, x)), app(app(map, app(treemap, f)), xs))

Termination of R to be shown. 



   R
     ↳Overlay and local confluence Check



The TRS is overlay and locally confluent (all critical pairs are trivially joinable).Hence, we can switch to innermost. 


   R
     ↳OC
       →TRS2
         ↳Dependency Pair Analysis



R contains the following Dependency Pairs:

APP(app(map, f), app(app(cons, x), xs)) -> APP(app(cons, app(f, x)), app(app(map, f), xs))
APP(app(map, f), app(app(cons, x), xs)) -> APP(cons, app(f, x))
APP(app(map, f), app(app(cons, x), xs)) -> APP(f, x)
APP(app(map, f), app(app(cons, x), xs)) -> APP(app(map, f), xs)
APP(app(treemap, f), app(app(node, x), xs)) -> APP(app(node, app(f, x)), app(app(map, app(treemap, f)), xs))
APP(app(treemap, f), app(app(node, x), xs)) -> APP(node, app(f, x))
APP(app(treemap, f), app(app(node, x), xs)) -> APP(f, x)
APP(app(treemap, f), app(app(node, x), xs)) -> APP(app(map, app(treemap, f)), xs)
APP(app(treemap, f), app(app(node, x), xs)) -> APP(map, app(treemap, f))

Furthermore, R contains one SCC. 


   R
     ↳OC
       →TRS2
         ↳DPs
           →DP Problem 1
             ↳Usable Rules (Innermost)


Dependency Pairs:

APP(app(treemap, f), app(app(node, x), xs)) -> APP(app(map, app(treemap, f)), xs)
APP(app(treemap, f), app(app(node, x), xs)) -> APP(f, x)
APP(app(map, f), app(app(cons, x), xs)) -> APP(app(map, f), xs)
APP(app(map, f), app(app(cons, x), xs)) -> APP(f, x)


Rules:


app(app(map, f), nil) -> nil
app(app(map, f), app(app(cons, x), xs)) -> app(app(cons, app(f, x)), app(app(map, f), xs))
app(app(treemap, f), app(app(node, x), xs)) -> app(app(node, app(f, x)), app(app(map, app(treemap, f)), xs))


Strategy:

innermost




As we are in the innermost case, we can delete all 3 non-usable-rules.


   R
     ↳OC
       →TRS2
         ↳DPs
           →DP Problem 1
             ↳UsableRules
             ...
               →DP Problem 2
                 ↳Size-Change Principle


Dependency Pairs:

APP(app(treemap, f), app(app(node, x), xs)) -> APP(app(map, app(treemap, f)), xs)
APP(app(treemap, f), app(app(node, x), xs)) -> APP(f, x)
APP(app(map, f), app(app(cons, x), xs)) -> APP(app(map, f), xs)
APP(app(map, f), app(app(cons, x), xs)) -> APP(f, x)


Rule:

none


Strategy:

innermost




We number the DPs as follows:
  1. APP(app(treemap, f), app(app(node, x), xs)) -> APP(app(map, app(treemap, f)), xs)
  2. APP(app(treemap, f), app(app(node, x), xs)) -> APP(f, x)
  3. APP(app(map, f), app(app(cons, x), xs)) -> APP(app(map, f), xs)
  4. APP(app(map, f), app(app(cons, x), xs)) -> APP(f, x)
and get the following Size-Change Graph(s):
{1} , {1}
2>2
{2} , {2}
1>1
2>2
{3} , {3}
1=1
2>2
{4} , {4}
1>1
2>2

which lead(s) to this/these maximal multigraph(s):
{3} , {3}
1=1
2>2
{2} , {2}
1>1
2>2
{4} , {4}
1>1
2>2
{2} , {4}
1>1
2>2
{4} , {3}
1>1
2>2
{3} , {4}
1>1
2>2
{1} , {4}
2>2
{4} , {1}
2>2
{4} , {2}
1>1
2>2
{3} , {3}
1>1
2>2
{2} , {4}
2>2
{4} , {3}
2>2
{1} , {2}
2>2
{3} , {1}
2>2
{4} , {4}
2>2
{3} , {2}
1>1
2>2
{4} , {2}
2>2
{3} , {4}
2>2
{2} , {2}
2>2
{3} , {3}
2>2
{3} , {2}
2>2

DP: empty set
Oriented Rules: none

We used the order Homeomorphic Embedding Order with Non-Strict Precedence.
trivial

with Argument Filtering System:
app(x1, x2) -> app(x1, x2)

We obtain no new DP problems.

Termination of R successfully shown.
Duration:
0:00 minutes