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

0 QTRS
↳1 QTRSRRRProof (⇔)
↳2 QTRS
↳3 QTRSRRRProof (⇔)
↳4 QTRS
↳5 RisEmptyProof (⇔)
↳6 TRUE

(0) Obligation:

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

f(f(a)) → f(g(n__f(n__a)))
f(X) → n__f(X)
a → n__a
activate(n__f(X)) → f(activate(X))
activate(n__a) → a
activate(X) → X

Q is empty.

(1) QTRSRRRProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

Used ordering:
Recursive Path Order [RPO].
Precedence:
[f1, nf1, activate1] > a > g1
[f1, nf1, activate1] > a > na

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

f(f(a)) → f(g(n__f(n__a)))
a → n__a
activate(n__a) → a
activate(X) → X


(2) Obligation:

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

f(X) → n__f(X)
activate(n__f(X)) → f(activate(X))

Q is empty.

(3) QTRSRRRProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

Used ordering:
Recursive Path Order [RPO].
Precedence:
activate1 > f1 > nf1

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

f(X) → n__f(X)
activate(n__f(X)) → f(activate(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