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:

rev(nil) → nil
rev(rev(x)) → x
rev(++(x, y)) → ++(rev(y), rev(x))
++(nil, y) → y
++(x, nil) → x
++(.(x, y), z) → .(x, ++(y, z))
++(x, ++(y, z)) → ++(++(x, y), z)
make(x) → .(x, nil)

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:

REV(++(x, y)) → ++¹(rev(y), rev(x))
REV(++(x, y)) → REV(y)
REV(++(x, y)) → REV(x)
++¹(.(x, y), z) → ++¹(y, z)
++¹(x, ++(y, z)) → ++¹(++(x, y), z)
++¹(x, ++(y, z)) → ++¹(x, y)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

rev(nil) → nil
rev(rev(x)) → x
rev(++(x, y)) → ++(rev(y), rev(x))
++(nil, y) → y
++(x, nil) → x
++(.(x, y), z) → .(x, ++(y, z))
++(x, ++(y, z)) → ++(++(x, y), z)
make(x) → .(x, nil)

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(++(x, y), z)
++¹(.(x, y), z) → ++¹(y, z)
++¹(x, ++(y, z)) → ++¹(x, y)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

rev(nil) → nil
rev(rev(x)) → x
rev(++(x, y)) → ++(rev(y), rev(x))
++(nil, y) → y
++(x, nil) → x
++(.(x, y), z) → .(x, ++(y, z))
++(x, ++(y, z)) → ++(++(x, y), z)
make(x) → .(x, nil)

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.

++¹(x, ++(y, z)) → ++¹(++(x, y), z)
++¹(x, ++(y, z)) → ++¹(x, y)

The remaining pairs can at least be oriented weakly.
Used ordering: SCNP Order with the following components:
Level mapping:
Top level AFS:
++¹(x0, x1, x2)  =  ++¹(x2)

Tags:
++¹ has argument tags [2,2,0] and root tag 0

Comparison: MAX
Underlying order for the size change arcs and the rules of R:
Polynomial interpretation [POLO]:

POL(++(x₁, x₂)) = 1 + x₁ + x₂   
POL(++¹(x₁, x₂)) = x₁   
POL(.(x₁, x₂)) = 0   
POL(nil) = 0   

The following usable rules [FROCOS05] were oriented:

++(nil, y) → y
++(x, nil) → x
++(.(x, y), z) → .(x, ++(y, z))
++(x, ++(y, z)) → ++(++(x, y), z)

(7) 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:

rev(nil) → nil
rev(rev(x)) → x
rev(++(x, y)) → ++(rev(y), rev(x))
++(nil, y) → y
++(x, nil) → x
++(.(x, y), z) → .(x, ++(y, z))
++(x, ++(y, z)) → ++(++(x, y), z)
make(x) → .(x, nil)

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

(8) QDPOrderProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

We use the reduction pair processor [LPAR04].

The following pairs can be oriented strictly and are deleted.

++¹(.(x, y), z) → ++¹(y, z)

The remaining pairs can at least be oriented weakly.
Used ordering: SCNP Order with the following components:
Level mapping:
Top level AFS:
++¹(x0, x1, x2)  =  ++¹(x1)

Tags:
++¹ has argument tags [1,2,2] and root tag 0

Comparison: MAX
Underlying order for the size change arcs and the rules of R:
Polynomial interpretation [POLO]:

POL(++¹(x₁, x₂)) = 1   
POL(.(x₁, x₂)) = 1 + x₂   

The following usable rules [FROCOS05] were oriented: none

(9) Obligation:

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

rev(nil) → nil
rev(rev(x)) → x
rev(++(x, y)) → ++(rev(y), rev(x))
++(nil, y) → y
++(x, nil) → x
++(.(x, y), z) → .(x, ++(y, z))
++(x, ++(y, z)) → ++(++(x, y), z)
make(x) → .(x, nil)

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

(10) PisEmptyProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

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

(11) TRUE

(12) Obligation:

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

REV(++(x, y)) → REV(x)
REV(++(x, y)) → REV(y)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

rev(nil) → nil
rev(rev(x)) → x
rev(++(x, y)) → ++(rev(y), rev(x))
++(nil, y) → y
++(x, nil) → x
++(.(x, y), z) → .(x, ++(y, z))
++(x, ++(y, z)) → ++(++(x, y), z)
make(x) → .(x, nil)

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

(13) QDPOrderProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

We use the reduction pair processor [LPAR04].

The following pairs can be oriented strictly and are deleted.

REV(++(x, y)) → REV(x)
REV(++(x, y)) → REV(y)

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

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

Comparison: MAX
Underlying order for the size change arcs and the rules of R:
Polynomial interpretation [POLO]:

POL(++(x₁, x₂)) = 1 + x₁ + x₂   
POL(REV(x₁)) = 1   

The following usable rules [FROCOS05] were oriented: none

(14) Obligation:

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

rev(nil) → nil
rev(rev(x)) → x
rev(++(x, y)) → ++(rev(y), rev(x))
++(nil, y) → y
++(x, nil) → x
++(.(x, y), z) → .(x, ++(y, z))
++(x, ++(y, z)) → ++(++(x, y), z)
make(x) → .(x, nil)

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

(15) PisEmptyProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

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

(16) TRUE