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

0 QTRS
↳1 DependencyPairsProof (⇔)
↳2 QDP
↳3 DependencyGraphProof (⇔)
↳4 QDP
↳5 QDPOrderProof (⇔)
↳6 QDP
↳7 QDPOrderProof (⇔)
↳8 QDP
↳9 PisEmptyProof (⇔)
↳10 TRUE

(0) Obligation:

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

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))
app(app(treemap, f), app(app(node, x), xs)) → app(app(node, app(f, x)), app(app(map, app(treemap, f)), 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(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)
APP(app(treemap, f), app(app(node, x), xs)) → APP(app(node, app(f, x)), app(app(map, app(treemap, f)), xs))
APP(app(treemap, f), app(app(node, x), xs)) → APP(node, app(f, x))
APP(app(treemap, f), app(app(node, x), xs)) → APP(f, x)
APP(app(treemap, f), app(app(node, x), xs)) → APP(app(map, app(treemap, f)), xs)
APP(app(treemap, f), app(app(node, x), xs)) → APP(map, app(treemap, f))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

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))
app(app(treemap, f), app(app(node, x), xs)) → app(app(node, app(f, x)), app(app(map, app(treemap, f)), 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 1 SCC with 5 less nodes.

(4) 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)
APP(app(treemap, f), app(app(node, x), xs)) → APP(f, x)
APP(app(treemap, f), app(app(node, x), xs)) → APP(app(map, app(treemap, f)), xs)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

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))
app(app(treemap, f), app(app(node, x), xs)) → app(app(node, app(f, x)), app(app(map, app(treemap, f)), xs))

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

(5) QDPOrderProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

We use the reduction pair processor [LPAR04].


The following pairs can be oriented strictly and are deleted.


APP(app(treemap, f), app(app(node, x), xs)) → APP(f, x)
APP(app(treemap, f), app(app(node, x), xs)) → APP(app(map, app(treemap, f)), xs)
The remaining pairs can at least be oriented weakly.
Used ordering: SCNP Order with the following components:
Level mapping:
Top level AFS:
APP(x0, x1, x2)  =  APP(x0, x2)

Tags:
APP has argument tags [3,3,1] and root tag 0

Comparison: MAX
Underlying order for the size change arcs and the rules of R:
Combined order from the following AFS and order.
APP(x1, x2)  =  APP
app(x1, x2)  =  app(x1, x2)
map  =  map
cons  =  cons
treemap  =  treemap
node  =  node

Lexicographic path order with status [LPO].
Quasi-Precedence:
cons > app2
node > APP > map > app2
node > APP > treemap > app2

Status:
APP: []
app2: [1,2]
map: []
cons: []
treemap: []
node: []


The following usable rules [FROCOS05] were oriented: none

(6) 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(map, f), nil) → nil
app(app(map, f), app(app(cons, x), xs)) → app(app(cons, app(f, x)), app(app(map, f), xs))
app(app(treemap, f), app(app(node, x), xs)) → app(app(node, app(f, x)), app(app(map, app(treemap, f)), xs))

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

(7) QDPOrderProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

We use the reduction pair processor [LPAR04].


The following pairs can be oriented strictly and are deleted.


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 remaining pairs can at least be oriented weakly.
Used ordering: SCNP Order with the following components:
Level mapping:
Top level AFS:
APP(x0, x1, x2)  =  APP(x0)

Tags:
APP has argument tags [2,0,0] and root tag 0

Comparison: MAX
Underlying order for the size change arcs and the rules of R:
Combined order from the following AFS and order.
APP(x1, x2)  =  x2
app(x1, x2)  =  app(x1, x2)
map  =  map
cons  =  cons

Lexicographic path order with status [LPO].
Quasi-Precedence:
[app2, cons] > map

Status:
app2: [2,1]
map: []
cons: []


The following usable rules [FROCOS05] were oriented: none

(8) Obligation:

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

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))
app(app(treemap, f), app(app(node, x), xs)) → app(app(node, app(f, x)), app(app(map, app(treemap, f)), xs))

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

(9) PisEmptyProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

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

(10) TRUE