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:

a(h, h, h, x) → s(x)
a(l, x, s(y), h) → a(l, x, y, s(h))
a(l, x, s(y), s(z)) → a(l, x, y, a(l, x, s(y), z))
a(l, s(x), h, z) → a(l, x, z, z)
a(s(l), h, h, z) → a(l, z, h, z)
+(x, h) → x
+(h, x) → x
+(s(x), s(y)) → s(s(+(x, y)))
+(+(x, y), z) → +(x, +(y, z))
s(h) → 1
app(nil, k) → k
app(l, nil) → l
app(cons(x, l), k) → cons(x, app(l, k))
sum(cons(x, nil)) → cons(x, nil)
sum(cons(x, cons(y, l))) → sum(cons(a(x, y, h, h), l))

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:

A(h, h, h, x) → S(x)
A(l, x, s(y), h) → A(l, x, y, s(h))
A(l, x, s(y), h) → S(h)
A(l, x, s(y), s(z)) → A(l, x, y, a(l, x, s(y), z))
A(l, x, s(y), s(z)) → A(l, x, s(y), z)
A(l, s(x), h, z) → A(l, x, z, z)
A(s(l), h, h, z) → A(l, z, h, z)
+¹(s(x), s(y)) → S(s(+(x, y)))
+¹(s(x), s(y)) → S(+(x, y))
+¹(s(x), s(y)) → +¹(x, y)
+¹(+(x, y), z) → +¹(x, +(y, z))
+¹(+(x, y), z) → +¹(y, z)
APP(cons(x, l), k) → APP(l, k)
SUM(cons(x, cons(y, l))) → SUM(cons(a(x, y, h, h), l))
SUM(cons(x, cons(y, l))) → A(x, y, h, h)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

a(h, h, h, x) → s(x)
a(l, x, s(y), h) → a(l, x, y, s(h))
a(l, x, s(y), s(z)) → a(l, x, y, a(l, x, s(y), z))
a(l, s(x), h, z) → a(l, x, z, z)
a(s(l), h, h, z) → a(l, z, h, z)
+(x, h) → x
+(h, x) → x
+(s(x), s(y)) → s(s(+(x, y)))
+(+(x, y), z) → +(x, +(y, z))
s(h) → 1
app(nil, k) → k
app(l, nil) → l
app(cons(x, l), k) → cons(x, app(l, k))
sum(cons(x, nil)) → cons(x, nil)
sum(cons(x, cons(y, l))) → sum(cons(a(x, y, h, h), l))

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 4 SCCs with 5 less nodes.

(4) Complex Obligation (AND)

(5) Obligation:

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

APP(cons(x, l), k) → APP(l, k)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

a(h, h, h, x) → s(x)
a(l, x, s(y), h) → a(l, x, y, s(h))
a(l, x, s(y), s(z)) → a(l, x, y, a(l, x, s(y), z))
a(l, s(x), h, z) → a(l, x, z, z)
a(s(l), h, h, z) → a(l, z, h, z)
+(x, h) → x
+(h, x) → x
+(s(x), s(y)) → s(s(+(x, y)))
+(+(x, y), z) → +(x, +(y, z))
s(h) → 1
app(nil, k) → k
app(l, nil) → l
app(cons(x, l), k) → cons(x, app(l, k))
sum(cons(x, nil)) → cons(x, nil)
sum(cons(x, cons(y, l))) → sum(cons(a(x, y, h, h), l))

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:
cons(x1, x2)  =  cons(x2)

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

• APP(cons(x, l), k) → APP(l, k) (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:

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

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

a(h, h, h, x) → s(x)
a(l, x, s(y), h) → a(l, x, y, s(h))
a(l, x, s(y), s(z)) → a(l, x, y, a(l, x, s(y), z))
a(l, s(x), h, z) → a(l, x, z, z)
a(s(l), h, h, z) → a(l, z, h, z)
+(x, h) → x
+(h, x) → x
+(s(x), s(y)) → s(s(+(x, y)))
+(+(x, y), z) → +(x, +(y, z))
s(h) → 1
app(nil, k) → k
app(l, nil) → l
app(cons(x, l), k) → cons(x, app(l, k))
sum(cons(x, nil)) → cons(x, nil)
sum(cons(x, cons(y, l))) → sum(cons(a(x, y, h, h), l))

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:
s(x1)  =  s(x1)
+(x1, x2)  =  +(x1, x2)

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

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

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

• +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

(10) TRUE

(11) Obligation:

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

A(l, x, s(y), s(z)) → A(l, x, y, a(l, x, s(y), z))
A(l, x, s(y), h) → A(l, x, y, s(h))
A(l, x, s(y), s(z)) → A(l, x, s(y), z)
A(l, s(x), h, z) → A(l, x, z, z)
A(s(l), h, h, z) → A(l, z, h, z)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

a(h, h, h, x) → s(x)
a(l, x, s(y), h) → a(l, x, y, s(h))
a(l, x, s(y), s(z)) → a(l, x, y, a(l, x, s(y), z))
a(l, s(x), h, z) → a(l, x, z, z)
a(s(l), h, h, z) → a(l, z, h, z)
+(x, h) → x
+(h, x) → x
+(s(x), s(y)) → s(s(+(x, y)))
+(+(x, y), z) → +(x, +(y, z))
s(h) → 1
app(nil, k) → k
app(l, nil) → l
app(cons(x, l), k) → cons(x, app(l, k))
sum(cons(x, nil)) → cons(x, nil)
sum(cons(x, cons(y, l))) → sum(cons(a(x, y, h, h), l))

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

(12) QDPSizeChangeProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

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

Order:Polynomial interpretation [POLO]:

POL(1) = 0   
POL(h) = 1   
POL(s(x₁)) = 1 + x₁   

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

• A(s(l), h, h, z) → A(l, z, h, z) (allowed arguments on rhs = {1, 2, 3, 4})
  The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1, 4 >= 2, 2 >= 3, 3 >= 3, 4 >= 4

• A(l, s(x), h, z) → A(l, x, z, z) (allowed arguments on rhs = {1, 2, 3, 4})
  The graph contains the following edges 1 >= 1, 2 > 2, 4 >= 3, 4 >= 4

• A(l, x, s(y), s(z)) → A(l, x, y, a(l, x, s(y), z)) (allowed arguments on rhs = {1, 2, 3})
  The graph contains the following edges 1 >= 1, 2 >= 2, 3 > 3

• A(l, x, s(y), h) → A(l, x, y, s(h)) (allowed arguments on rhs = {1, 2, 3})
  The graph contains the following edges 1 >= 1, 2 >= 2, 3 > 3

• A(l, x, s(y), s(z)) → A(l, x, s(y), z) (allowed arguments on rhs = {1, 2, 3, 4})
  The graph contains the following edges 1 >= 1, 2 >= 2, 3 >= 3, 4 > 4

We oriented the following set of usable rules [AAECC05,FROCOS05].

s(h) → 1

(13) TRUE

(14) Obligation:

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

SUM(cons(x, cons(y, l))) → SUM(cons(a(x, y, h, h), l))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

a(h, h, h, x) → s(x)
a(l, x, s(y), h) → a(l, x, y, s(h))
a(l, x, s(y), s(z)) → a(l, x, y, a(l, x, s(y), z))
a(l, s(x), h, z) → a(l, x, z, z)
a(s(l), h, h, z) → a(l, z, h, z)
+(x, h) → x
+(h, x) → x
+(s(x), s(y)) → s(s(+(x, y)))
+(+(x, y), z) → +(x, +(y, z))
s(h) → 1
app(nil, k) → k
app(l, nil) → l
app(cons(x, l), k) → cons(x, app(l, k))
sum(cons(x, nil)) → cons(x, nil)
sum(cons(x, cons(y, l))) → sum(cons(a(x, y, h, h), l))

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

(15) QDPSizeChangeProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

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

Order:Polynomial interpretation [POLO]:

POL(1) = 0   
POL(a(x₁, x₂, x₃, x₄)) = 1   
POL(cons(x₁, x₂)) = 1 + x₂   
POL(h) = 1   
POL(s(x₁)) = 0   

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

• SUM(cons(x, cons(y, l))) → SUM(cons(a(x, y, h, h), l)) (allowed arguments on rhs = {1})
  The graph contains the following edges 1 > 1

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

(16) TRUE