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:

purge(nil) → nil
purge(.(x, y)) → .(x, purge(remove(x, y)))
remove(x, nil) → nil
remove(x, .(y, z)) → if(=(x, y), remove(x, z), .(y, remove(x, z)))

Q is empty.

(1) Overlay + Local Confluence (EQUIVALENT transformation)

The TRS is overlay and locally confluent. By [NOC] we can switch to innermost.

(2) Obligation:

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

purge(nil) → nil
purge(.(x, y)) → .(x, purge(remove(x, y)))
remove(x, nil) → nil
remove(x, .(y, z)) → if(=(x, y), remove(x, z), .(y, remove(x, z)))

The set Q consists of the following terms:

purge(nil)
purge(.(x0, x1))
remove(x0, nil)
remove(x0, .(x1, x2))

(3) DependencyPairsProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

Using Dependency Pairs [AG00,LPAR04] we result in the following initial DP problem.

(4) Obligation:

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

PURGE(.(x, y)) → PURGE(remove(x, y))
PURGE(.(x, y)) → REMOVE(x, y)
REMOVE(x, .(y, z)) → REMOVE(x, z)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

purge(nil) → nil
purge(.(x, y)) → .(x, purge(remove(x, y)))
remove(x, nil) → nil
remove(x, .(y, z)) → if(=(x, y), remove(x, z), .(y, remove(x, z)))

The set Q consists of the following terms:

purge(nil)
purge(.(x0, x1))
remove(x0, nil)
remove(x0, .(x1, x2))

We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.

(5) DependencyGraphProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

The approximation of the Dependency Graph [LPAR04,FROCOS05,EDGSTAR] contains 1 SCC with 2 less nodes.

(6) Obligation:

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

REMOVE(x, .(y, z)) → REMOVE(x, z)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

purge(nil) → nil
purge(.(x, y)) → .(x, purge(remove(x, y)))
remove(x, nil) → nil
remove(x, .(y, z)) → if(=(x, y), remove(x, z), .(y, remove(x, z)))

The set Q consists of the following terms:

purge(nil)
purge(.(x0, x1))
remove(x0, nil)
remove(x0, .(x1, x2))

We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.

(7) QDPOrderProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

We use the reduction pair processor [LPAR04].

The following pairs can be oriented strictly and are deleted.

REMOVE(x, .(y, z)) → REMOVE(x, z)

The remaining pairs can at least be oriented weakly.
Used ordering: Combined order from the following AFS and order.
REMOVE(x1, x2)  =  x2
.(x1, x2)  =  .(x2)
purge(x1)  =  x1
nil  =  nil
remove(x1, x2)  =  remove
if(x1, x2, x3)  =  if
=(x1, x2)  =  =

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

.₁ > [nil, remove, if]

Status:

trivial

The following usable rules [FROCOS05] were oriented:

purge(nil) → nil
purge(.(x, y)) → .(x, purge(remove(x, y)))
remove(x, nil) → nil
remove(x, .(y, z)) → if(=(x, y), remove(x, z), .(y, remove(x, z)))

(8) Obligation:

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

purge(nil) → nil
purge(.(x, y)) → .(x, purge(remove(x, y)))
remove(x, nil) → nil
remove(x, .(y, z)) → if(=(x, y), remove(x, z), .(y, remove(x, z)))

The set Q consists of the following terms:

purge(nil)
purge(.(x0, x1))
remove(x0, nil)
remove(x0, .(x1, x2))

We have to consider all minimal (P,Q,R)-chains.

(9) PisEmptyProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

The TRS P is empty. Hence, there is no (P,Q,R) chain.

(10) TRUE