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:

app(app(plus, 0), y) → y
app(app(plus, app(s, x)), y) → app(s, app(app(plus, x), y))
app(app(map, f), nil) → nil
app(app(map, f), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → app(app(cons, app(f, x)), app(app(map, f), xs))
inc → app(map, app(plus, app(s, 0)))

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:

app(app(plus, 0), y) → y
app(app(plus, app(s, x)), y) → app(s, app(app(plus, x), y))
app(app(map, f), nil) → nil
app(app(map, f), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → app(app(cons, app(f, x)), app(app(map, f), xs))
inc → app(map, app(plus, app(s, 0)))

The set Q consists of the following terms:

app(app(plus, 0), x0)
app(app(plus, app(s, x0)), x1)
app(app(map, x0), nil)
app(app(map, x0), app(app(cons, x1), x2))
inc

(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:

APP(app(plus, app(s, x)), y) → APP(s, app(app(plus, x), y))
APP(app(plus, app(s, x)), y) → APP(app(plus, x), y)
APP(app(plus, app(s, x)), y) → APP(plus, x)
APP(app(map, f), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → APP(app(cons, app(f, x)), app(app(map, f), xs))
APP(app(map, f), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → APP(cons, app(f, x))
APP(app(map, f), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → APP(f, x)
APP(app(map, f), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → APP(app(map, f), xs)
INC → APP(map, app(plus, app(s, 0)))
INC → APP(plus, app(s, 0))
INC → APP(s, 0)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

app(app(plus, 0), y) → y
app(app(plus, app(s, x)), y) → app(s, app(app(plus, x), y))
app(app(map, f), nil) → nil
app(app(map, f), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → app(app(cons, app(f, x)), app(app(map, f), xs))
inc → app(map, app(plus, app(s, 0)))

The set Q consists of the following terms:

app(app(plus, 0), x0)
app(app(plus, app(s, x0)), x1)
app(app(map, x0), nil)
app(app(map, x0), app(app(cons, x1), x2))
inc

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

(5) DependencyGraphProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

The approximation of the Dependency Graph [LPAR04,FROCOS05,EDGSTAR] contains 2 SCCs with 7 less nodes.

(6) Complex Obligation (AND)

(7) Obligation:

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

APP(app(plus, app(s, x)), y) → APP(app(plus, x), y)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

app(app(plus, 0), y) → y
app(app(plus, app(s, x)), y) → app(s, app(app(plus, x), y))
app(app(map, f), nil) → nil
app(app(map, f), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → app(app(cons, app(f, x)), app(app(map, f), xs))
inc → app(map, app(plus, app(s, 0)))

The set Q consists of the following terms:

app(app(plus, 0), x0)
app(app(plus, app(s, x0)), x1)
app(app(map, x0), nil)
app(app(map, x0), app(app(cons, x1), x2))
inc

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

(8) UsableRulesProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

As all Q-normal forms are R-normal forms we are in the innermost case. Hence, by the usable rules processor [LPAR04] we can delete all non-usable rules [FROCOS05] from R.

(9) Obligation:

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

APP(app(plus, app(s, x)), y) → APP(app(plus, x), y)

R is empty.
The set Q consists of the following terms:

app(app(plus, 0), x0)
app(app(plus, app(s, x0)), x1)
app(app(map, x0), nil)
app(app(map, x0), app(app(cons, x1), x2))
inc

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

(10) QReductionProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

We deleted the following terms from Q as each root-symbol of these terms does neither occur in P nor in R.[THIEMANN].

inc

(11) Obligation:

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

APP(app(plus, app(s, x)), y) → APP(app(plus, x), y)

R is empty.
The set Q consists of the following terms:

app(app(plus, 0), x0)
app(app(plus, app(s, x0)), x1)
app(app(map, x0), nil)
app(app(map, x0), app(app(cons, x1), x2))

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

(12) ATransformationProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

We have applied the A-Transformation [FROCOS05] to get from an applicative problem to a standard problem.

(13) Obligation:

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

plus1(s(x), y) → plus1(x, y)

R is empty.
The set Q consists of the following terms:

plus(0, x0)
plus(s(x0), x1)
map(x0, nil)
map(x0, cons(x1, x2))

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

(14) QReductionProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

We deleted the following terms from Q as each root-symbol of these terms does neither occur in P nor in R.[THIEMANN].

plus(0, x0)
plus(s(x0), x1)
map(x0, nil)
map(x0, cons(x1, x2))

(15) Obligation:

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

plus1(s(x), y) → plus1(x, y)

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

(16) 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:

• plus1(s(x), y) → plus1(x, y)
  The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1, 2 >= 2

(17) TRUE

(18) Obligation:

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

APP(app(map, f), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → APP(app(map, f), xs)
APP(app(map, f), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → APP(f, x)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

app(app(plus, 0), y) → y
app(app(plus, app(s, x)), y) → app(s, app(app(plus, x), y))
app(app(map, f), nil) → nil
app(app(map, f), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → app(app(cons, app(f, x)), app(app(map, f), xs))
inc → app(map, app(plus, app(s, 0)))

The set Q consists of the following terms:

app(app(plus, 0), x0)
app(app(plus, app(s, x0)), x1)
app(app(map, x0), nil)
app(app(map, x0), app(app(cons, x1), x2))
inc

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

(19) UsableRulesProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

As all Q-normal forms are R-normal forms we are in the innermost case. Hence, by the usable rules processor [LPAR04] we can delete all non-usable rules [FROCOS05] from R.

(20) Obligation:

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

APP(app(map, f), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → APP(app(map, f), xs)
APP(app(map, f), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → APP(f, x)

R is empty.
The set Q consists of the following terms:

app(app(plus, 0), x0)
app(app(plus, app(s, x0)), x1)
app(app(map, x0), nil)
app(app(map, x0), app(app(cons, x1), x2))
inc

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

(21) QReductionProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

We deleted the following terms from Q as each root-symbol of these terms does neither occur in P nor in R.[THIEMANN].

inc

(22) Obligation:

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

APP(app(map, f), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → APP(app(map, f), xs)
APP(app(map, f), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → APP(f, x)

R is empty.
The set Q consists of the following terms:

app(app(plus, 0), x0)
app(app(plus, app(s, x0)), x1)
app(app(map, x0), nil)
app(app(map, x0), app(app(cons, x1), x2))

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

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

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

(24) TRUE