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 QDPOrderProof (⇔)
        ↳7 QDP
        ↳8 DependencyGraphProof (⇔)
        ↳9 TRUE
    ↳10 QDP
        ↳11 QDPOrderProof (⇔)
        ↳12 QDP
        ↳13 DependencyGraphProof (⇔)
        ↳14 TRUE

(0) Obligation:

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

app(f, app(f, x)) → app(g, app(f, x))
app(g, app(g, x)) → app(f, x)
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(f, x)) → APP(g, app(f, x))
APP(g, app(g, x)) → APP(f, x)
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(f, x)) → app(g, app(f, x))
app(g, app(g, x)) → app(f, x)
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 10 less nodes.

(4) Complex Obligation (AND)

(5) Obligation:

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

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

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

app(f, app(f, x)) → app(g, app(f, x))
app(g, app(g, x)) → app(f, x)
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) QDPOrderProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

We use the reduction pair processor [LPAR04].


The following pairs can be oriented strictly and are deleted.


APP(g, app(g, x)) → 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(x1, x2)  =  APP(x1, x2)

Tags:
APP has tags [1,0]

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

Lexicographic path order with status [LPO].
Quasi-Precedence:
app1 > g > f

Status:
g: []
app1: [1]
f: []


The following usable rules [FROCOS05] were oriented:

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

(7) Obligation:

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

APP(f, app(f, x)) → APP(g, app(f, x))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

app(f, app(f, x)) → app(g, app(f, x))
app(g, app(g, x)) → app(f, x)
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) DependencyGraphProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

The approximation of the Dependency Graph [LPAR04,FROCOS05,EDGSTAR] contains 0 SCCs with 1 less node.

(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(fun, x)
APP(app(app(app(filter2, true), fun), x), xs) → APP(app(filter, fun), xs)
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(f, x)) → app(g, app(f, x))
app(g, app(g, x)) → app(f, x)
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) QDPOrderProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

We use the reduction pair processor [LPAR04].


The following pairs can be oriented strictly and are deleted.


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

Tags:
APP has tags [1,1]

Comparison: MAX
Underlying order for the size change arcs and the rules of R:
Lexicographic path order with status [LPO].
Quasi-Precedence:
[app2, cons, filter2, false]

Status:
app2: [1,2]
map: []
cons: []
filter: []
filter2: []
true: []
false: []


The following usable rules [FROCOS05] were oriented: none

(12) Obligation:

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

APP(app(app(app(filter2, true), fun), x), xs) → APP(app(filter, fun), xs)
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(f, x)) → app(g, app(f, x))
app(g, app(g, x)) → app(f, x)
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.

(13) DependencyGraphProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

The approximation of the Dependency Graph [LPAR04,FROCOS05,EDGSTAR] contains 0 SCCs with 2 less nodes.

(14) TRUE