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:

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

Q is empty.

(1) QTRSRRRProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

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

[f₂, g₂] > h₁

Status:

f₂: multiset
g₂: multiset
h₁: [1]

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

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

(2) Obligation:

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

f(x, y) → g(x, y)

Q is empty.

(3) QTRSRRRProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

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

f₂ > g₂

Status:

f₂: [1,2]
g₂: multiset

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

f(x, y) → g(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