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(app(compose, f), g), x) → app(g, app(f, x))
app(reverse, l) → app(app(reverse2, l), nil)
app(app(reverse2, nil), l) → l
app(app(reverse2, app(app(cons, x), xs)), l) → app(app(reverse2, xs), app(app(cons, x), l))
app(hd, app(app(cons, x), xs)) → x
app(tl, app(app(cons, x), xs)) → xs
last → app(app(compose, hd), reverse)
init → app(app(compose, reverse), app(app(compose, tl), reverse))

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(app(app(compose, f), g), x) → APP(g, app(f, x))
APP(app(app(compose, f), g), x) → APP(f, x)
APP(reverse, l) → APP(app(reverse2, l), nil)
APP(reverse, l) → APP(reverse2, l)
APP(app(reverse2, app(app(cons, x), xs)), l) → APP(app(reverse2, xs), app(app(cons, x), l))
APP(app(reverse2, app(app(cons, x), xs)), l) → APP(reverse2, xs)
APP(app(reverse2, app(app(cons, x), xs)), l) → APP(app(cons, x), l)
LAST → APP(app(compose, hd), reverse)
LAST → APP(compose, hd)
INIT → APP(app(compose, reverse), app(app(compose, tl), reverse))
INIT → APP(compose, reverse)
INIT → APP(app(compose, tl), reverse)
INIT → APP(compose, tl)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

app(app(app(compose, f), g), x) → app(g, app(f, x))
app(reverse, l) → app(app(reverse2, l), nil)
app(app(reverse2, nil), l) → l
app(app(reverse2, app(app(cons, x), xs)), l) → app(app(reverse2, xs), app(app(cons, x), l))
app(hd, app(app(cons, x), xs)) → x
app(tl, app(app(cons, x), xs)) → xs
last → app(app(compose, hd), reverse)
init → app(app(compose, reverse), app(app(compose, tl), reverse))

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 10 less nodes.

(4) Complex Obligation (AND)

(5) Obligation:

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

APP(app(reverse2, app(app(cons, x), xs)), l) → APP(app(reverse2, xs), app(app(cons, x), l))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

app(app(app(compose, f), g), x) → app(g, app(f, x))
app(reverse, l) → app(app(reverse2, l), nil)
app(app(reverse2, nil), l) → l
app(app(reverse2, app(app(cons, x), xs)), l) → app(app(reverse2, xs), app(app(cons, x), l))
app(hd, app(app(cons, x), xs)) → x
app(tl, app(app(cons, x), xs)) → xs
last → app(app(compose, hd), reverse)
init → app(app(compose, reverse), app(app(compose, tl), reverse))

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

(6) QDPSizeChangeProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

We used the following order and afs together with the size-change analysis [AAECC05] to show that there are no infinite chains for this DP problem.

Order:Homeomorphic Embedding Order

AFS:
reverse2  =  reverse2
cons  =  cons
app(x1, x2)  =  app(x2)

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

• APP(app(reverse2, app(app(cons, x), xs)), l) → APP(app(reverse2, xs), app(app(cons, x), l)) (allowed arguments on rhs = {1, 2})
  The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1

We oriented the following set of usable rules [AAECC05,FROCOS05]. none

(7) TRUE

(8) Obligation:

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

APP(app(app(compose, f), g), x) → APP(f, x)
APP(app(app(compose, f), g), x) → APP(g, app(f, x))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

app(app(app(compose, f), g), x) → app(g, app(f, x))
app(reverse, l) → app(app(reverse2, l), nil)
app(app(reverse2, nil), l) → l
app(app(reverse2, app(app(cons, x), xs)), l) → app(app(reverse2, xs), app(app(cons, x), l))
app(hd, app(app(cons, x), xs)) → x
app(tl, app(app(cons, x), xs)) → xs
last → app(app(compose, hd), reverse)
init → app(app(compose, reverse), app(app(compose, tl), reverse))

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

(9) QDPSizeChangeProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

We used the following order and afs together with the size-change analysis [AAECC05] to show that there are no infinite chains for this DP problem.

Order:Homeomorphic Embedding Order

AFS:
compose  =  compose
app(x1, x2)  =  app(x1, x2)

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

• APP(app(app(compose, f), g), x) → APP(f, x) (allowed arguments on rhs = {1, 2})
  The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1, 2 >= 2

• APP(app(app(compose, f), g), x) → APP(g, app(f, x)) (allowed arguments on rhs = {1})
  The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1

We oriented the following set of usable rules [AAECC05,FROCOS05]. none

(10) TRUE