Termination w.r.t. Q proof of /tmp/tmpxM0S9q/#3.32.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:

app(f, a) → app(f, b)
app(g, b) → app(g, a)
app(app(map, fun), nil) → nil
app(app(map, fun), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → app(app(cons, app(fun, x)), app(app(map, fun), xs))
app(app(filter, fun), nil) → nil
app(app(filter, fun), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → app(app(app(app(filter2, app(fun, x)), fun), x), xs)
app(app(app(app(filter2, true), fun), x), xs) → app(app(cons, x), app(app(filter, fun), xs))
app(app(app(app(filter2, false), fun), x), xs) → app(app(filter, fun), xs)

Q is empty.

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

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

app(f, a) → app(f, b)
app(g, b) → app(g, a)
app(app(map, fun), nil) → nil
app(app(map, fun), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → app(app(cons, app(fun, x)), app(app(map, fun), xs))
app(app(filter, fun), nil) → nil
app(app(filter, fun), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → app(app(app(app(filter2, app(fun, x)), fun), x), xs)
app(app(app(app(filter2, true), fun), x), xs) → app(app(cons, x), app(app(filter, fun), xs))
app(app(app(app(filter2, false), fun), x), xs) → app(app(filter, fun), xs)

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:

APP(app(app(app(filter2, false), fun), x), xs) → APP(filter, fun)
APP(app(filter, fun), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → APP(app(filter2, app(fun, x)), fun)
APP(app(filter, fun), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → APP(fun, x)
APP(g, b) → APP(g, a)
APP(app(filter, fun), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → APP(app(app(filter2, app(fun, x)), fun), x)
APP(app(filter, fun), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → APP(app(app(app(filter2, app(fun, x)), fun), x), xs)
APP(app(map, fun), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → APP(fun, x)
APP(app(map, fun), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → APP(app(map, fun), xs)
APP(f, a) → APP(f, b)
APP(app(app(app(filter2, true), fun), x), xs) → APP(cons, x)
APP(app(filter, fun), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → APP(filter2, app(fun, x))
APP(app(app(app(filter2, false), fun), x), xs) → APP(app(filter, fun), xs)
APP(app(app(app(filter2, true), fun), x), xs) → APP(app(filter, fun), xs)
APP(app(map, fun), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → APP(cons, app(fun, x))
APP(app(app(app(filter2, true), fun), x), xs) → APP(filter, fun)
APP(app(app(app(filter2, true), fun), x), xs) → APP(app(cons, x), app(app(filter, fun), xs))
APP(app(map, fun), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → APP(app(cons, app(fun, x)), app(app(map, fun), xs))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

app(f, a) → app(f, b)
app(g, b) → app(g, a)
app(app(map, fun), nil) → nil
app(app(map, fun), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → app(app(cons, app(fun, x)), app(app(map, fun), xs))
app(app(filter, fun), nil) → nil
app(app(filter, fun), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → app(app(app(app(filter2, app(fun, x)), fun), x), xs)
app(app(app(app(filter2, true), fun), x), xs) → app(app(cons, x), app(app(filter, fun), xs))
app(app(app(app(filter2, false), fun), x), xs) → app(app(filter, fun), xs)

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:

APP(app(app(app(filter2, false), fun), x), xs) → APP(filter, fun)
APP(app(filter, fun), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → APP(app(filter2, app(fun, x)), fun)
APP(app(filter, fun), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → APP(fun, x)
APP(g, b) → APP(g, a)
APP(app(filter, fun), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → APP(app(app(filter2, app(fun, x)), fun), x)
APP(app(filter, fun), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → APP(app(app(app(filter2, app(fun, x)), fun), x), xs)
APP(app(map, fun), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → APP(fun, x)
APP(app(map, fun), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → APP(app(map, fun), xs)
APP(f, a) → APP(f, b)
APP(app(app(app(filter2, true), fun), x), xs) → APP(cons, x)
APP(app(filter, fun), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → APP(filter2, app(fun, x))
APP(app(app(app(filter2, false), fun), x), xs) → APP(app(filter, fun), xs)
APP(app(app(app(filter2, true), fun), x), xs) → APP(app(filter, fun), xs)
APP(app(map, fun), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → APP(cons, app(fun, x))
APP(app(app(app(filter2, true), fun), x), xs) → APP(filter, fun)
APP(app(app(app(filter2, true), fun), x), xs) → APP(app(cons, x), app(app(filter, fun), xs))
APP(app(map, fun), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → APP(app(cons, app(fun, x)), app(app(map, fun), xs))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

app(f, a) → app(f, b)
app(g, b) → app(g, a)
app(app(map, fun), nil) → nil
app(app(map, fun), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → app(app(cons, app(fun, x)), app(app(map, fun), xs))
app(app(filter, fun), nil) → nil
app(app(filter, fun), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → app(app(app(app(filter2, app(fun, x)), fun), x), xs)
app(app(app(app(filter2, true), fun), x), xs) → app(app(cons, x), app(app(filter, fun), xs))
app(app(app(app(filter2, false), fun), x), xs) → app(app(filter, fun), xs)

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 12 less nodes.

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDPOrderProof

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

APP(app(filter, fun), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → APP(fun, x)
APP(app(app(app(filter2, false), fun), x), xs) → APP(app(filter, fun), xs)
APP(app(app(app(filter2, true), fun), x), xs) → APP(app(filter, fun), xs)
APP(app(map, fun), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → APP(fun, x)
APP(app(map, fun), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → APP(app(map, fun), xs)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

app(f, a) → app(f, b)
app(g, b) → app(g, a)
app(app(map, fun), nil) → nil
app(app(map, fun), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → app(app(cons, app(fun, x)), app(app(map, fun), xs))
app(app(filter, fun), nil) → nil
app(app(filter, fun), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → app(app(app(app(filter2, app(fun, x)), fun), x), xs)
app(app(app(app(filter2, true), fun), x), xs) → app(app(cons, x), app(app(filter, fun), xs))
app(app(app(app(filter2, false), fun), x), xs) → app(app(filter, fun), xs)

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.

APP(app(filter, fun), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → APP(fun, x)
APP(app(app(app(filter2, false), fun), x), xs) → APP(app(filter, fun), xs)
APP(app(app(app(filter2, true), fun), x), xs) → APP(app(filter, fun), xs)
APP(app(map, fun), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → APP(fun, x)
APP(app(map, fun), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → APP(app(map, fun), xs)

The remaining pairs can at least be oriented weakly.
none
Used ordering: Polynomial interpretation [25,35]:

POL(APP(x₁, x₂)) = (4)x_1 + (4)x_2
POL(cons) = 4
POL(true) = 4
POL(map) = 1
POL(false) = 4
POL(app(x₁, x₂)) = 4 + (4)x_1 + (4)x_2
POL(filter2) = 3
POL(filter) = 4

The value of delta used in the strict ordering is 336.
The following usable rules [17] were oriented: none

↳ QTRS

  ↳ DependencyPairsProof

    ↳ QDP

      ↳ DependencyGraphProof

        ↳ QDP

          ↳ QDPOrderProof

            ↳ QDP

              ↳ PisEmptyProof

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

app(f, a) → app(f, b)
app(g, b) → app(g, a)
app(app(map, fun), nil) → nil
app(app(map, fun), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → app(app(cons, app(fun, x)), app(app(map, fun), xs))
app(app(filter, fun), nil) → nil
app(app(filter, fun), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → app(app(app(app(filter2, app(fun, x)), fun), x), xs)
app(app(app(app(filter2, true), fun), x), xs) → app(app(cons, x), app(app(filter, fun), xs))
app(app(app(app(filter2, false), fun), x), xs) → app(app(filter, fun), xs)

Q is empty.
We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.
The TRS P is empty. Hence, there is no (P,Q,R) chain.