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:

__(__(X, Y), Z) → __(X, __(Y, Z))
__(X, nil) → X
__(nil, X) → X
U11(tt) → U12(tt)
U12(tt) → tt
isNePal(__(I, __(P, I))) → U11(tt)

Q is empty.

(1) QTRSRRRProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

Used ordering:
Lexicographic path order with status [LPO].
Quasi-Precedence:

_₂ > [U11₁, tt, U12₁]
nil > [U11₁, tt, U12₁]
isNePal₁ > [U11₁, tt, U12₁]

Status:

_₂: [1,2]
nil: []
U11₁: [1]
tt: []
U12₁: [1]
isNePal₁: [1]

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

__(__(X, Y), Z) → __(X, __(Y, Z))
__(X, nil) → X
__(nil, X) → X
U12(tt) → tt
isNePal(__(I, __(P, I))) → U11(tt)

(2) Obligation:

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

U11(tt) → U12(tt)

Q is empty.

(3) QTRSRRRProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

Used ordering:
Lexicographic path order with status [LPO].
Quasi-Precedence:

U11₁ > [tt, U12₁]

Status:

U11₁: [1]
tt: []
U12₁: [1]

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

U11(tt) → U12(tt)

(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