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:

h(f(x), y) → f(g(x, y))
g(x, y) → h(x, y)

Q is empty.

(1) QTRSRRRProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

Used ordering:
Recursive path order with status [RPO].
Quasi-Precedence:

[h₂, g₂] > f₁

Status:

f₁: [1]
g₂: [2,1]
h₂: [2,1]

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

h(f(x), y) → f(g(x, y))

(2) Obligation:

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

g(x, y) → h(x, y)

Q is empty.

(3) QTRSRRRProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

Used ordering:
Recursive path order with status [RPO].
Quasi-Precedence:

g₂ > h₂

Status:

g₂: [2,1]
h₂: multiset

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

g(x, y) → h(x, y)

(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