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:

a__c → a__f(g(c))
a__f(g(X)) → g(X)
mark(c) → a__c
mark(f(X)) → a__f(X)
mark(g(X)) → g(X)
a__c → c
a__f(X) → f(X)

Q is empty.

(1) QTRSRRRProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

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

mark₁ > a_c > c > [a_f1, g₁, f₁]

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

a__c → a__f(g(c))
a__f(g(X)) → g(X)
mark(c) → a__c
mark(f(X)) → a__f(X)
mark(g(X)) → g(X)
a__c → c

(2) Obligation:

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

a__f(X) → f(X)

Q is empty.

(3) QTRSRRRProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

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

a_f1 > f₁

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

a__f(X) → f(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