Termination w.r.t. Q of the given QTRS could be proven:

(0) Obligation:

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

w(r(x)) → r(w(x))
b(r(x)) → r(b(x))
b(w(x)) → w(b(x))

Q is empty.

(1) QTRSRRRProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

Used ordering:
Recursive Path Order [RPO].
Precedence:

[w₁, b₁] > r₁

With this ordering the following rules can be removed by the rule removal processor [LPAR04] because they are oriented strictly:

w(r(x)) → r(w(x))
b(r(x)) → r(b(x))

(2) Obligation:

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

b(w(x)) → w(b(x))

Q is empty.

(3) QTRSRRRProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

Used ordering:
Recursive Path Order [RPO].
Precedence:

b₁ > w₁

With this ordering the following rules can be removed by the rule removal processor [LPAR04] because they are oriented strictly:

b(w(x)) → w(b(x))

(4) Obligation:

Q restricted rewrite system:
R is empty.
Q is empty.

(5) RisEmptyProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

The TRS R is empty. Hence, termination is trivially proven.

(6) TRUE