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__zeros → cons(0, zeros)
a__tail(cons(X, XS)) → mark(XS)
mark(zeros) → a__zeros
mark(tail(X)) → a__tail(mark(X))
mark(cons(X1, X2)) → cons(mark(X1), X2)
mark(0) → 0
a__zeros → zeros
a__tail(X) → tail(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:

A__TAIL(cons(X, XS)) → MARK(XS)
MARK(zeros) → A__ZEROS
MARK(tail(X)) → A__TAIL(mark(X))
MARK(tail(X)) → MARK(X)
MARK(cons(X1, X2)) → MARK(X1)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

a__zeros → cons(0, zeros)
a__tail(cons(X, XS)) → mark(XS)
mark(zeros) → a__zeros
mark(tail(X)) → a__tail(mark(X))
mark(cons(X1, X2)) → cons(mark(X1), X2)
mark(0) → 0
a__zeros → zeros
a__tail(X) → tail(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 1 SCC with 1 less node.

(4) Obligation:

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

MARK(tail(X)) → A__TAIL(mark(X))
A__TAIL(cons(X, XS)) → MARK(XS)
MARK(tail(X)) → MARK(X)
MARK(cons(X1, X2)) → MARK(X1)

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

a__zeros → cons(0, zeros)
a__tail(cons(X, XS)) → mark(XS)
mark(zeros) → a__zeros
mark(tail(X)) → a__tail(mark(X))
mark(cons(X1, X2)) → cons(mark(X1), X2)
mark(0) → 0
a__zeros → zeros
a__tail(X) → tail(X)

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.

A__TAIL(cons(X, XS)) → MARK(XS)
MARK(tail(X)) → MARK(X)
MARK(cons(X1, X2)) → MARK(X1)

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

Tags:
MARK has tags [0]
A__TAIL has tags [0]

Comparison: MAX
Underlying order for the size change arcs and the rules of R:
Recursive path order with status [RPO].
Quasi-Precedence:

[tail₁, mark₁, a_tail1] > a_zeros > cons₂
[tail₁, mark₁, a_tail1] > a_zeros > zeros
[tail₁, mark₁, a_tail1] > a_zeros > 0

Status:

tail₁: multiset
mark₁: multiset
cons₂: multiset
zeros: multiset
a_zeros: multiset
a_tail1: multiset
0: multiset

The following usable rules [FROCOS05] were oriented:

mark(zeros) → a__zeros
mark(tail(X)) → a__tail(mark(X))
a__tail(cons(X, XS)) → mark(XS)
mark(cons(X1, X2)) → cons(mark(X1), X2)
mark(0) → 0
a__tail(X) → tail(X)
a__zeros → cons(0, zeros)
a__zeros → zeros

(6) Obligation:

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

MARK(tail(X)) → A__TAIL(mark(X))

The TRS R consists of the following rules:

a__zeros → cons(0, zeros)
a__tail(cons(X, XS)) → mark(XS)
mark(zeros) → a__zeros
mark(tail(X)) → a__tail(mark(X))
mark(cons(X1, X2)) → cons(mark(X1), X2)
mark(0) → 0
a__zeros → zeros
a__tail(X) → tail(X)

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

(7) DependencyGraphProof (EQUIVALENT transformation)

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

(8) TRUE