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:

merge(nil, y) → y
merge(x, nil) → x
merge(.(x, y), .(u, v)) → if(<(x, u), .(x, merge(y, .(u, v))), .(u, merge(.(x, y), v)))
++(nil, y) → y
++(.(x, y), z) → .(x, ++(y, z))
if(true, x, y) → x
if(false, x, y) → x

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:

MERGE(.(x, y), .(u, v)) → IF(<(x, u), .(x, merge(y, .(u, v))), .(u, merge(.(x, y), v)))
MERGE(.(x, y), .(u, v)) → MERGE(y, .(u, v))
MERGE(.(x, y), .(u, v)) → MERGE(.(x, y), v)
++¹(.(x, y), z) → ++¹(y, z)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

merge(nil, y) → y
merge(x, nil) → x
merge(.(x, y), .(u, v)) → if(<(x, u), .(x, merge(y, .(u, v))), .(u, merge(.(x, y), v)))
++(nil, y) → y
++(.(x, y), z) → .(x, ++(y, z))
if(true, x, y) → x
if(false, x, y) → x

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 1 less node.

(4) Complex Obligation (AND)

(5) Obligation:

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

++¹(.(x, y), z) → ++¹(y, z)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

merge(nil, y) → y
merge(x, nil) → x
merge(.(x, y), .(u, v)) → if(<(x, u), .(x, merge(y, .(u, v))), .(u, merge(.(x, y), v)))
++(nil, y) → y
++(.(x, y), z) → .(x, ++(y, z))
if(true, x, y) → x
if(false, x, y) → x

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:
.(x1, x2)  =  .(x2)

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

• ++¹(.(x, y), z) → ++¹(y, z) (allowed arguments on rhs = {1, 2})
  The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1, 2 >= 2

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:

MERGE(.(x, y), .(u, v)) → MERGE(.(x, y), v)
MERGE(.(x, y), .(u, v)) → MERGE(y, .(u, v))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

merge(nil, y) → y
merge(x, nil) → x
merge(.(x, y), .(u, v)) → if(<(x, u), .(x, merge(y, .(u, v))), .(u, merge(.(x, y), v)))
++(nil, y) → y
++(.(x, y), z) → .(x, ++(y, z))
if(true, x, y) → x
if(false, x, y) → x

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:
.(x1, x2)  =  .(x2)

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

• MERGE(.(x, y), .(u, v)) → MERGE(.(x, y), v) (allowed arguments on rhs = {1, 2})
  The graph contains the following edges 1 >= 1, 2 > 2

• MERGE(.(x, y), .(u, v)) → MERGE(y, .(u, v)) (allowed arguments on rhs = {1, 2})
  The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1, 2 >= 2

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

(10) TRUE