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

0 QTRS
↳1 DependencyPairsProof (⇔)
↳2 QDP
↳3 DependencyGraphProof (⇔)
↳4 AND
  ↳5 QDP
    ↳6 QDPApplicativeOrderProof (⇔)
    ↳7 QDP
    ↳8 PisEmptyProof (⇔)
    ↳9 TRUE
  ↳10 QDP
    ↳11 QDPSizeChangeProof (⇔)
    ↳12 TRUE

(0) Obligation:

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

app(f, app(app(cons, nil), y)) → y
app(f, app(app(cons, app(f, app(app(cons, nil), y))), z)) → app(app(app(copy, n), y), z)
app(app(app(copy, 0), y), z) → app(f, z)
app(app(app(copy, app(s, x)), y), z) → app(app(app(copy, x), y), app(app(cons, app(f, y)), z))
app(app(map, fun), nil) → nil
app(app(map, fun), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → app(app(cons, app(fun, x)), app(app(map, fun), xs))
app(app(filter, fun), nil) → nil
app(app(filter, fun), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → app(app(app(app(filter2, app(fun, x)), fun), x), xs)
app(app(app(app(filter2, true), fun), x), xs) → app(app(cons, x), app(app(filter, fun), xs))
app(app(app(app(filter2, false), fun), x), xs) → app(app(filter, fun), xs)

Q is empty.

(1) DependencyPairsProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

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

(2) Obligation:

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

APP(f, app(app(cons, app(f, app(app(cons, nil), y))), z)) → APP(app(app(copy, n), y), z)
APP(f, app(app(cons, app(f, app(app(cons, nil), y))), z)) → APP(app(copy, n), y)
APP(f, app(app(cons, app(f, app(app(cons, nil), y))), z)) → APP(copy, n)
APP(app(app(copy, 0), y), z) → APP(f, z)
APP(app(app(copy, app(s, x)), y), z) → APP(app(app(copy, x), y), app(app(cons, app(f, y)), z))
APP(app(app(copy, app(s, x)), y), z) → APP(app(copy, x), y)
APP(app(app(copy, app(s, x)), y), z) → APP(copy, x)
APP(app(app(copy, app(s, x)), y), z) → APP(app(cons, app(f, y)), z)
APP(app(app(copy, app(s, x)), y), z) → APP(cons, app(f, y))
APP(app(app(copy, app(s, x)), y), z) → APP(f, y)
APP(app(map, fun), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → APP(app(cons, app(fun, x)), app(app(map, fun), xs))
APP(app(map, fun), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → APP(cons, app(fun, x))
APP(app(map, fun), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → APP(fun, x)
APP(app(map, fun), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → APP(app(map, fun), xs)
APP(app(filter, fun), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → APP(app(app(app(filter2, app(fun, x)), fun), x), xs)
APP(app(filter, fun), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → APP(app(app(filter2, app(fun, x)), fun), x)
APP(app(filter, fun), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → APP(app(filter2, app(fun, x)), fun)
APP(app(filter, fun), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → APP(filter2, app(fun, x))
APP(app(filter, fun), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → APP(fun, x)
APP(app(app(app(filter2, true), fun), x), xs) → APP(app(cons, x), app(app(filter, fun), xs))
APP(app(app(app(filter2, true), fun), x), xs) → APP(cons, x)
APP(app(app(app(filter2, true), fun), x), xs) → APP(app(filter, fun), xs)
APP(app(app(app(filter2, true), fun), x), xs) → APP(filter, fun)
APP(app(app(app(filter2, false), fun), x), xs) → APP(app(filter, fun), xs)
APP(app(app(app(filter2, false), fun), x), xs) → APP(filter, fun)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

app(f, app(app(cons, nil), y)) → y
app(f, app(app(cons, app(f, app(app(cons, nil), y))), z)) → app(app(app(copy, n), y), z)
app(app(app(copy, 0), y), z) → app(f, z)
app(app(app(copy, app(s, x)), y), z) → app(app(app(copy, x), y), app(app(cons, app(f, y)), z))
app(app(map, fun), nil) → nil
app(app(map, fun), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → app(app(cons, app(fun, x)), app(app(map, fun), xs))
app(app(filter, fun), nil) → nil
app(app(filter, fun), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → app(app(app(app(filter2, app(fun, x)), fun), x), xs)
app(app(app(app(filter2, true), fun), x), xs) → app(app(cons, x), app(app(filter, fun), xs))
app(app(app(app(filter2, false), fun), x), xs) → app(app(filter, fun), xs)

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

(3) DependencyGraphProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

The approximation of the Dependency Graph [LPAR04,FROCOS05,EDGSTAR] contains 2 SCCs with 18 less nodes.

(4) Complex Obligation (AND)

(5) Obligation:

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

APP(app(app(copy, app(s, x)), y), z) → APP(app(app(copy, x), y), app(app(cons, app(f, y)), z))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

app(f, app(app(cons, nil), y)) → y
app(f, app(app(cons, app(f, app(app(cons, nil), y))), z)) → app(app(app(copy, n), y), z)
app(app(app(copy, 0), y), z) → app(f, z)
app(app(app(copy, app(s, x)), y), z) → app(app(app(copy, x), y), app(app(cons, app(f, y)), z))
app(app(map, fun), nil) → nil
app(app(map, fun), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → app(app(cons, app(fun, x)), app(app(map, fun), xs))
app(app(filter, fun), nil) → nil
app(app(filter, fun), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → app(app(app(app(filter2, app(fun, x)), fun), x), xs)
app(app(app(app(filter2, true), fun), x), xs) → app(app(cons, x), app(app(filter, fun), xs))
app(app(app(app(filter2, false), fun), x), xs) → app(app(filter, fun), xs)

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

(6) QDPApplicativeOrderProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

We use the reduction pair processor [LPAR04].Here, we combined the reduction pair processor with the A-transformation [FROCOS05] which results in the following intermediate Q-DP Problem.
The a-transformed P is

copy1(s(x), y, z) → copy1(x, y, cons(f(y), z))

The a-transformed usable rules are
none


The following pairs can be oriented strictly and are deleted.


APP(app(app(copy, app(s, x)), y), z) → APP(app(app(copy, x), y), app(app(cons, app(f, y)), z))
The remaining pairs can at least be oriented weakly.
none
Used ordering: Polynomial interpretation [POLO]:

POL(cons(x1, x2)) = x1   
POL(copy(x1, x2, x3)) = 1 + x2 + x3   
POL(copy1(x1, x2, x3)) = x1   
POL(f(x1)) = 0   
POL(n) = 0   
POL(nil) = 0   
POL(s(x1)) = 1 + x1   

The following usable rules [FROCOS05] were oriented: none

(7) Obligation:

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

app(f, app(app(cons, nil), y)) → y
app(f, app(app(cons, app(f, app(app(cons, nil), y))), z)) → app(app(app(copy, n), y), z)
app(app(app(copy, 0), y), z) → app(f, z)
app(app(app(copy, app(s, x)), y), z) → app(app(app(copy, x), y), app(app(cons, app(f, y)), z))
app(app(map, fun), nil) → nil
app(app(map, fun), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → app(app(cons, app(fun, x)), app(app(map, fun), xs))
app(app(filter, fun), nil) → nil
app(app(filter, fun), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → app(app(app(app(filter2, app(fun, x)), fun), x), xs)
app(app(app(app(filter2, true), fun), x), xs) → app(app(cons, x), app(app(filter, fun), xs))
app(app(app(app(filter2, false), fun), x), xs) → app(app(filter, fun), xs)

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

(8) PisEmptyProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

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

(9) TRUE

(10) Obligation:

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

APP(app(map, fun), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → APP(app(map, fun), xs)
APP(app(map, fun), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → APP(fun, x)
APP(app(filter, fun), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → APP(app(app(app(filter2, app(fun, x)), fun), x), xs)
APP(app(app(app(filter2, true), fun), x), xs) → APP(app(filter, fun), xs)
APP(app(filter, fun), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → APP(fun, x)
APP(app(app(app(filter2, false), fun), x), xs) → APP(app(filter, fun), xs)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

app(f, app(app(cons, nil), y)) → y
app(f, app(app(cons, app(f, app(app(cons, nil), y))), z)) → app(app(app(copy, n), y), z)
app(app(app(copy, 0), y), z) → app(f, z)
app(app(app(copy, app(s, x)), y), z) → app(app(app(copy, x), y), app(app(cons, app(f, y)), z))
app(app(map, fun), nil) → nil
app(app(map, fun), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → app(app(cons, app(fun, x)), app(app(map, fun), xs))
app(app(filter, fun), nil) → nil
app(app(filter, fun), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → app(app(app(app(filter2, app(fun, x)), fun), x), xs)
app(app(app(app(filter2, true), fun), x), xs) → app(app(cons, x), app(app(filter, fun), xs))
app(app(app(app(filter2, false), fun), x), xs) → app(app(filter, fun), xs)

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

(11) QDPSizeChangeProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

By using the subterm criterion [SUBTERM_CRITERION] together with the size-change analysis [AAECC05] we have proven that there are no infinite chains for this DP problem.

From the DPs we obtained the following set of size-change graphs:

  • APP(app(filter, fun), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → APP(fun, x)
    The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1, 2 > 2

  • APP(app(map, fun), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → APP(fun, x)
    The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1, 2 > 2

  • APP(app(map, fun), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → APP(app(map, fun), xs)
    The graph contains the following edges 1 >= 1, 2 > 2

  • APP(app(filter, fun), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → APP(app(app(app(filter2, app(fun, x)), fun), x), xs)
    The graph contains the following edges 2 > 2

  • APP(app(app(app(filter2, true), fun), x), xs) → APP(app(filter, fun), xs)
    The graph contains the following edges 2 >= 2

  • APP(app(app(app(filter2, false), fun), x), xs) → APP(app(filter, fun), xs)
    The graph contains the following edges 2 >= 2

(12) TRUE